"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,563
Reaction score
41
Location
KS
This should make for an interesting discussion...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad

Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.

He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”

How so?

The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

So what?

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.

Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!).

No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.

This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”

Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.

Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
 
Hadn't you heard? It takes a village to raise a child. Hillary Clinton said so.
 
Not all straight married couples have children.

Marriage grants people rights and privilages that unions don't.

A fact of note, not one single gay couple in Mass who has been married has yet to divorce and "illegitimize: their child. How many straight couples divorce and this has a "negative affect on children"?
 
Not all straight married couples have children.

Marriage grants people rights and privilages that unions don't.

A fact of note, not one single gay couple in Mass who has been married has yet to divorce and "illegitimize: their child. How many straight couples divorce and this has a "negative affect on children"?
Eh...not one single gay couple has legitimately had a child yet.
 
Eh...not one single gay couple has legitimately had a child yet.


Gay couples have adopted together, in the cases of a lesbian couple, they have had children and the non-birth mother has adopted the child and some have children from a previous (straight) relationship.
 
Gay couples have adopted together, in the cases of a lesbian couple, they have had children and the non-birth mother has adopted the child and some have children from a previous (straight) relationship.
You are describing blended families, the PC term that includes the "illegitimizing" that you've described. Also, I'd like to see a link that backs up your assertion that no gay couple has been divorced in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, I'll post one of my own.

PWNED
 
You are describing blended families, the PC term that includes the "illegitimizing" that you've described. Also, I'd like to see a link that backs up your assertion that no gay couple has been divorced in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, I'll post one of my own.

PWNED

Your point? There are straight couples that marry under the same conditions and adopt.

Last time I checked there were none, one point for you. Though it is irrelevant to the big picture, as the divorce rate among straight couples (with or without children) is high.

If your going to pull out the "oh the children, the CHILDREN" card here to not allow equal rights because of a fear of "illegitimacy". I remember Shagdrum posting some statistics of "illegitimacy rates in the black community" and how high they were, under that same train of thought, should we deny them the right to marry? What about straight couples who previously divorced and one or more parrent "illigitimzed" their child, should we bar them from ever marrying again, under that same train of thought?
 
Your point? There are straight couples that marry under the same conditions and adopt.

Last time I checked there were none, one point for you. Though it is irrelevant to the big picture, as the divorce rate among straight couples (with or without children) is high.

If your going to pull out the "oh the children, the CHILDREN" card here to not allow equal rights because of a fear of "illegitimacy". I remember Shagdrum posting some statistics of "illegitimacy rates in the black community" and how high they were, under that same train of thought, should we deny them the right to marry? What about straight couples who previously divorced and one or more parrent "illigitimzed" their child, should we bar them from ever marrying again, under that same train of thought?
Ah, my sweet little noob, my point is that you are trying to use very narrow statistics to paint lesbian/homosexual love as this Utopian, blessed, divine, perfect thing that has no flaws and is the solution to the nasty hetero marriage debacle. The fact is that people are people, and it's easy (if you're truly intellectually honest and not just trying to be PC) to predict that gay marriage will be a total disaster, both for the country and in and of itself.

By the way, the divorce rate for hetero couples is high because the marriage rate itself is high. You cannot compare unequal samples. Furthermore, you haven't done a demographic sample comparison yet either.

Finally, I never pulled the "children" card. You pulled it and then tried to claim that I pulled it by responding to you. That, my confectionary little nublet, is known as a straw man.
 
LOL, I see you've resorted to a strawman, nice. I never said gay-marriage is a blessing and straight marriage is a curse, just that marriage is marriage, it's between two consenting adults and another's marriage is none of my or your business. Did you have to ask homosexuals if you could get married, did you need their blessing?

Yes, people are people, which is the reason you shouldn't deny someone else, something you partake in yourself. Why don't you use that "intellectuall honesty" you always parade to have and truly say or better yet, give some solid points why people should be denied equal rights, instead of just the typical nonsensical assertions that America will crumble and other straight people's "sanctity of marriage" will be destroyed, that we usually hear from the anti-equal rights group(s).

I wasn't saying "there's only one", just that divorce rates are high in straight couples, so why should it matter that gays might/could/will have high divorce rates? Gut instinct tells me that if people have to fight extremely hard for something, they're more willing to appreciate it, but that is irrelevant.

I was referring to the article, which I assume you agree with, Scarecrow. Do you not agree?
 
Not all straight married couples have children.

Exceptions to the rule hardly disprove the rule. In fact, to argue that is to make a fallacious argument; specifically the fallacy of composition:

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part

Bill Bennet wrote:
Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman


Marriage grants people rights and privilages that unions don't.

Marriage in and of itself doesn't "grant" any rights. What rights are you talking about, anyway?

A fact of note, not one single gay couple in Mass who has been married has yet to divorce and "illegitimize: their child. How many straight couples divorce and this has a "negative affect on children"?

This is a red herring that misses the whole point. The article is talking about illegitimate births; kids born to single parents (usually a single parent). Not marriages that dissolve after the kid is born. When a marriage dissolves, the kid still usually has two loving parents; not so with illegitimate births.

Fossten is right to point out that gay couples can't have kids (not biologically). So no gay couple can divorce and "illegitimize" their kid; the kid is all ready illegitimately born. This point is nothing but obfuscation it seems (I know you love that word:) ).

In fact, to say that kids can be made illegitimate through divorce (before which they are born) is equivocation. Illegitimate is defined as "born out of wedlock". The marriage status of the parents after the birth is irrelevant.

I remember Shagdrum posting some statistics of "illegitimacy rates in the black community" and how high they were, under that same train of thought, should we deny them the right to marry?

Again attempting to redefine illegitimacy.

The point is very valid that illegitimacy rates in the black community are very high (upwards of 70%, if I remember correctly), and this plays a large part in the high crimes rates, violence, etc. in the black community.

To compare the black community (with high illegitimacy rates) to the gay community is comparing apples and oranges; a false analogy. Gay couples cannot biologically have kids.

What about straight couples who previously divorced and one or more parrent "illigitimzed" their child, should we bar them from ever marrying again, under that same train of thought?

Again, this whole point is based on a false definition of illegitimacy.
 
Oh boy, here we go again Cpt. Ifallaciouslyclaimfallacieswhileignoringthedoublestandardsimake

If your argument (or part of) is "homosexuals can't*** have children together and marriage is about children, ergo they can't marry" then the same rule applies to straight couples who either can not have children together or don't want children. By doing so, you're denying equal rights on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is illegal.

(***This is besides you conveniently ignoring that homosexuals can have children together in the same ways that some married straight couples currently do, eg Adoption, the woman is artificially inseminated, surrogate mother etc.)

Besides tax breaks for being married, the right to your spouses (shared)property in case of injury/death, the right to speak on behave of your spouse in the case they're unable, rights to adopted children etc. (I can get you list)

Then what exactly is the issue/connection in not allowing same sex couples to marry and illigitimacy? They can now have children while not being married, as do non-married straight people. If they were allowed to marry, their children would be just as "legitimate" (or not) as a straight couple who either adopted, artificially inseminated, found a surrogate etc. etc. etc.

And what you and Fossten conveniently ignore, gays can have children in other ways besides heterosexual sex, just as straight people currently do, while either being married or not.

Edit: BTW, you're the one that initially brought up the black community as a comparision to what would/could happen if gay marriage were allowed when we had that discussion long ago, it certainly wasn't me that initially brought in "black illegitimacy rates" into the gay-marriage debate. Funny that you now say "apples to oranges, can't compare".
 
LOL, I see you've resorted to a strawman, nice. I never said gay-marriage is a blessing and straight marriage is a curse, just that marriage is marriage, it's between two consenting adults and another's marriage is none of my or your business. Did you have to ask homosexuals if you could get married, did you need their blessing?

Yes, people are people, which is the reason you shouldn't deny someone else, something you partake in yourself. Why don't you use that "intellectuall honesty" you always parade to have and truly say or better yet, give some solid points why people should be denied equal rights, instead of just the typical nonsensical assertions that America will crumble and other straight people's "sanctity of marriage" will be destroyed, that we usually hear from the anti-equal rights group(s).

I wasn't saying "there's only one", just that divorce rates are high in straight couples, so why should it matter that gays might/could/will have high divorce rates? Gut instinct tells me that if people have to fight extremely hard for something, they're more willing to appreciate it, but that is irrelevant.

I was referring to the article, which I assume you agree with, Scarecrow. Do you not agree?
Mkay, first of all, I wasn't using a straw man. I was using hyperbole to illustrate what you were actually trying to do, which was paint a rosier picture of gay couples in general by using a narrow (and flawed) sample. I successfully did that, so now in your frustration you are moving the goalposts and requiring that I answer the question of equal rights.

Fine.

Gay people have the same rights as straight people in this country. They can marry any person of the opposite sex and gain the exact same tax breaks, insurance rates, legal rights, et al as anyone else of legal age. You can bluster and stamp your foot all you want, but the fact is that they do enjoy the same rights as anyone else.

However, what they are demanding is a set of special rights. They want the government's and society's blessing and financial subsidy on their behavior, which is not a societal norm, and is in fact in the eyes of many an immoral act. They are demanding that they get special treatment if they decide to sleep with a person of the same sex on a regular basis. So let's take this a step further.

What about NAMBLA? If a man wants to marry a little boy because that's the lifestyle that he's chosen, shouldn't he get a tax break and JTWROS rights to property? What about the woman that falls in love with her dog? Does she get a car insurance discount because she has an alternative choice lifestyle? Should a man married to a woman but who keeps a young, strong pool boy in an apartment on the side get a tax break on the extra rent because he likes to bite the pillow now and then? What about the man who marries two women? Should he get access to government benefits for both wives? Three deductibles? Heck, any single guy should be able to legally marry his goldfish and thus claim extra deductibles on his annual federal taxes. Hallelujah, everybody's got rights!!!!
 
I think the key issue here is "consenting adults", Fossten. Or if it makes you feel better, make it "consenting human adults". :p
 
I think the key issue here is "consenting adults", Fossten. Or if it makes you feel better, make it "consenting human adults". :p
You'd better stop discriminating against people who have alternative lifestyles, you bigot. Everyone has rights, even child molesting fathers who want to marry their daughters. Let's not pass judgment because this sort of thing may be genetic, y'know? Who are we to say something is wrong?
 
Mkay, first of all, I wasn't using a straw man. I was using hyperbole to illustrate what you were actually trying to do, which was paint a rosier picture of gay couples in general by using a narrow (and flawed) sample. I successfully did that, so now in your frustration you are moving the goalposts and requiring that I answer the question of equal rights.

Fine.

Gay people have the same rights as straight people in this country. They can marry any person of the opposite sex and gain the exact same tax breaks, insurance rates, legal rights, et al as anyone else of legal age. You can bluster and stamp your foot all you want, but the fact is that they do enjoy the same rights as anyone else.

However, what they are demanding is a set of special rights. They want the government's and society's blessing and financial subsidy on their behavior, which is not a societal norm, and is in fact in the eyes of many an immoral act. They are demanding that they get special treatment if they decide to sleep with a person of the same sex on a regular basis. So let's take this a step further.

What about NAMBLA? If a man wants to marry a little boy because that's the lifestyle that he's chosen, shouldn't he get a tax break and JTWROS rights to property? What about the woman that falls in love with her dog? Does she get a car insurance discount because she has an alternative choice lifestyle? Should a man married to a woman but who keeps a young, strong pool boy in an apartment on the side get a tax break on the extra rent because he likes to bite the pillow now and then? What about the man who marries two women? Should he get access to government benefits for both wives? Three deductibles? Heck, any single guy should be able to legally marry his goldfish and thus claim extra deductibles on his annual federal taxes. Hallelujah, everybody's got rights!!!!


You implied that I tried to paint gay-marriage as one thing (the positive) and straight-marriage as another (the negative), and then attacked that argument, when I did neither to begin with. But sure.

It's not a "special rights" issue, it's equal rights, which is 'to be able to marry a consenting adult of their choosing'. Social norms and what someone may find personally immoral isn't grounds to deny others something which “society" normally indulges in.

At one point it wasn't a social norm and it wasn't moral in the eyes of many people for a Caucasian to marry a Negro. Should we reinstate that since there are people who are still against the mixing of ethnicities?

LoL, I love that senseless argument, as noted by Tommy, "consenting adults". Last time I checked, a child, toaster or hamster can not legally give their consent. Isn't that a fallacy you just made? "If two f@gs can marry, then we'll have some other homo trying to marry a stallion."

I'm not asking to like it, but you seriously don't see a difference and just blanket it all as "it's immoral and therefore wrong?"
 
That's a pretty weak argument, Deville. I'm not convinced. You didn't address the meat of my argument, namely the financial benefit bestowed upon anyone's chosen behavior. You glossed over it. It IS special rights, and you cannot deny that.
 
Let's see, you mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, adultery and polygamy. Your reasoning is, if we allow two consenting adult men or women to marry, we'll have to accept all of those, yet you call me argument weak? Seriously?
 
Let's see, you mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, adultery and polygamy. Your reasoning is, if we allow two consenting adult men or women to marry, we'll have to accept all of those, yet you call me argument weak? Seriously?
My reasoning is that gays want special rights. Nobody else gets them, just gays. You just proved my point again.
 
My reasoning is that gays want special rights. Nobody else gets them, just gays. You just proved my point again.
Actually, it wouldn't be just gays. E.g. you could divorce your wife and marry a consenting man, if you so wished. Mind you, you may never want to indulge in this "right", but it would be available to you; just as you mentioned, a gay man is free to marry a woman.

Thanks for proving my point, its equal rights for all, which is "to marry the consenting adult of your choice", not just gays.
 
Actually, it wouldn't be just gays. E.g. you could divorce your wife and marry a consenting man, if you so wished. Mind you, you may never want to indulge in this "right", but it would be available to you; just as you mentioned, a gay man is free to marry a woman.

Thanks for proving my point, its equal rights for all, which is "to marry the consenting adult of your choice", not just gays.
Sorry, wrong. And I didn't prove your point, either, and neither did you.
 
How so, since if marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, it would include every man and woman?
 
How so, since if marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, it would include every man and woman?
Marriage already includes every man and woman. You just don't get the tax breaks if you go up the dirt-chute.
 
Marriage already includes every man and woman. You just don't get the tax breaks if you go up the dirt-chute.


And as noted, it has an exception based on sexuality.

Correction, if you don't go up certain dirt-chutes, see what I mean about that "exception".
 
And as noted, it has an exception based on sexuality.

There is no exception in the definition of marriage based on sexuality; that is what the gay community is asking for.

Since being gay has not been proven to be anything more then a lifestyle choice there is no claim to equality, as the person is choosing to exclude themselves from the mainstream.

What they are asking for is special rights for themselves; namely the redefining of marriage to accomadate their lifestyle choice; to make an exception for them. This ignores all the potential negative consequences of redefining marriage in order to push the agenda built around their lifestyle choice.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top