Gay Marriage..Even Republican Apologists know it's bad..

[Justforfun000]

Curious what people here would say about this guys arguments..


http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Fran ... ?page=full

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.

Thread title edited for clarity-Bean

[Stark]

I here not banning same-sex marriage or discriminating against it = endorsing the destruction of the family unit, now? For $500 what is scaremongering?

Frankly, marriage rates (and successful marriage rates even more so) appear to be declining throughout the western world. This is hardly due to reducing discrimination about homosexuality.

[Resinence]

Steaming Pile O' Horseshit

But really, would you expect anything else from townhall.com, or it's "conservative columnists"?

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.

This sticks out like a sore thumb, and really shows how fucked up their worldview is, I'm pretty sure people get married because they LOVE eachother and want to have kids, not because they want to turn the womans vagina into a clowncar for the lawrd.

[Resinence]

ghetto edit: And not everyone who gets married has kids, and there is nothing wrong with that, despite what these chucklefucks would have people believe.

[VT-16]

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.”

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH

This is one prof that needs to stop smoking the wacky tobaccy. So, since gay marriage is "all about coupling", that's why the debate here has raged for almost a year now over the rights to establish a family and secure the same rights for gay parents and their children that straight families have? Riiiiiight.

If there's one thing we've had a debate about prior to the upcoming public hearings on gay marriage in Norway, it's the family issue, and that's the one issue that's been argued about by gays who want equal marriage. If it was only the coupling bit, there wouldn't have been as much a debate about the preexisting partnership law as there is. Fact is, gays here do establish families, but are not given the same kind of rights or protection as other families.

[Stark]

This sticks out like a sore thumb, and really shows how fucked up their worldview is, I'm pretty sure people get married because they LOVE eachother and want to have kids, not because they want to turn the womans vagina into a clowncar for the lawrd.

You need to update your Conservate Translation Library. 'Coupling' is newspeak for 'sex'. They're saying that without 'marriage' (ie, their specific god-based kind of formalised relationship) interpersonal relationships will be solely based on sex, which is bad for children because anyone who doesn't have a mother and a father is probably a terrible person.

Remember, two people who love each other raising children is BAD. Where is their marriage?

[Sriad]

You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does.

Well, that shows us right there. A more compelling argument I have never read.

[Rye]

“Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Allowing marriage to accommodate couples with one or more members who smoke or fight fires or are any part of the military likely to get shot at would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”

“One can believe in marriage to soldiers. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”

[PeZook]

"The law is a great teacher"?

What the fuck is this sentence even supposed to mean? What does "the law" teach us, exactly?

I guess it "teaches" us in the same way the Bible or the Koran "teach" us. Let's start educating children by making them memorize the legal code. They will be so well educated then!

[Stark]

Well remember, the law should shape culture, not the other way around. Otherwise, how is society to remain static? They're not called 'conservatives' for nothing.

[Edi]

Just another alarmist fuckwit who pulled his arguments, numbers and logic right out of his ass and is trying the same tired old shit, hoping it will stick to something. Gotta love how he claims children can't be illegitimate and then goes around and harps about illegitimate births being up in Norway. No surprise that assholes of his ilk think it should be illegal to have children unless it's a Christian marriage.

[Kitsune]

Curious, in most developed nations who actually cares about if a child is "Legitimate" or not? Do kids themselves care when dealing with others? Do adults?

[Anguirus]

Curious what people here would say about this guys arguments..

They are the exact same tired, unsupported arguments, dressed up in a pretty little "I'm pro-gay and liberal" dress.

[Darth Wong]

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.

This is like those fundie women who say "I can't be sexist! I'm a woman too!" There is no reason why someone who identifies himself as a liberal can't have fundie misconceptions about marriage.

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.

Wrong, and wrong. The most fundamental idea of marriage is permanence, not childbearing. If the most fundamental idea of marriage were childbearing, then marriages of elderly people would be banned too. Can't have babies after menopause, you know. Not to mention people with serious genetic conditions, alcoholics, smokers, and drug addicts, all of whom shouldn't be having children because they'll damage or poison them in the womb. You need to go to court to break up a marriage. You don't need to go to court to have a child out of wedlock.

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.

People marry because they're in love, not because they think they need to marry in order to have children.

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.

News flash: the United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the western world.

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.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2149799.stm

Funny: despite these bleatings, Norway is doing fine.

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.

What? The "permanence of marriage?" I thought he said earlier that the prime concept of a marriage is childbearing, not permanence. Why should the erosion of the permanence of marriage be a problem?

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.”

I believe both. Therefore, I disprove his statement.

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?

Marriage is about permanent coupling, not childbearing. That's why people who can't or shouldn't have children are allowed to get married, and have been since before we were born.

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another.

Evidence?

The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society.

Evidence?

Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows.

I saw the "evidence" for this claim earlier: illegitimacy, even though the US has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the western world.

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.

As I said, this is like fundie misogynist women who think that their ovaries make them immune from the charge of sexism.

[Scottish Ninja]

As I said, this is like fundie misogynist women who think that their ovaries make them immune from the charge of sexism.

The article was written by a conservative asshole, probably a bigot - he's just using Blankenhorn's "credentials" as a way to say "See? See? I'm right, everyone! Look at me! He proved me right!"

It's like a sexist guy using Phyllis Schlafly to argue that women don't need equal rights.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Go back to Social Anthro 101, Mr. Blakenhorn. For most of history, marriage was primarily if not exclusively a business transaction —with the girl being the property for sale. Same for the kiddies resulting from the marriage, as future property or managers thereof.

[Coyote]

So, inversely, men & women who marry, but either don't have kids, or adopt/foster other people's kids, aren't really married. Huh.

[Oskuro]

To me, the whole gay marriage acceptance thing is indeed a step forward in our society's maturation process, by wich more and more people realize that marriage/coupling shouldn't be made lightly, and that it is preferable to be with the one you love, than to be stuck with someone you don't because of social norm or pressure.

I bet a lot of those fundie conservatives are bitter because they don't truly love their spouses, but stay with them due to religion/obligations, and their only way of venting is to impose their flawed worldview unto others.

I'd rather have kids being born to (or adopted by) unmarried couples who love each other and care for them (gay or not), than have them suffer unloving parents, marital strife, or divorce, just because the assholes didn't make sure they wanted to commit to each other before getting knocked up (and I'm saying assholes, because couples who realize they don't want to stay together, and break up in a civil manner, always caring for the children, are worthy of respect).



Of course, I'm not married, and have no children, so my opinion does not bear as much weight as others around here, sorry if I sound too "know it all".

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love the thesis that society depends on the vague-ass feeling people get that marriage has to do with children to raise them adequately and fairly.

[Darth Wong]

I bet a lot of those fundie conservatives are bitter because they don't truly love their spouses, but stay with them due to religion/obligations, and their only way of venting is to impose their flawed worldview unto others.

We all know they secretly desire other men. In airport bathrooms.

Want to know what's really sad? If you break down their reasoning, they believe that people will not bear or nurture children without some kind of "institution" to force them into it. Consider what this says about their own mindset. I can understand why the gay guy quoted in the article might feel this way: he may actually have little or no desire to father a child biologically. But the supposedly straight guy who's quoting him as gospel? What's his excuse for thinking that people would not have children or nurture them without outside pressure to do so?

[Darth Wong]

It's also interesting how the author of the moron piece (and why the fuck does anyone read RacistHall.com anyway?) claims that the person is a "liberal democrat" even though the person clearly does not have a liberal viewpoint on this issue, even going so far as to appeal to tradition, which is a classic conservative argument.

It's a good illustration of their tribalist mindset; they think they can characterize someone as a "liberal" even if he's not saying "liberal" things, because he belongs to the other tribe. Or perhaps they think that anyone who thinks gays shouldn't be stoned to death is "liberal".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I bet a lot of those fundie conservatives are bitter because they don't truly love their spouses, but stay with them due to religion/obligations, and their only way of venting is to impose their flawed worldview unto others.

We all know they secretly desire other men. In airport bathrooms.

Want to know what's really sad? If you break down their reasoning, they believe that people will not bear or nurture children without some kind of "institution" to force them into it. Consider what this says about their own mindset. I can understand why the gay guy quoted in the article might feel this way: he may actually have little or no desire to father a child biologically. But the supposedly straight guy who's quoting him as gospel? What's his excuse for thinking that people would not have children or nurture them without outside pressure to do so?

Christians are for the most part really lousy parents. My whole life started a spiral into hell the moment in 1988 that my mother had her born-again conversion and led the family into the most lunatic collection of militia-loving, bible-thumping, home-schooling bastards you could imagine. I had a friend when I was young whose parents were involved in the same thing--she was slightly older. They moved around all the time, living in an old schoolbus, because Jesus didn't want them to own property under Satan (America). She ultimately shot herself while they were living in rural Alabama, and frankly, having never been properly educated and given no opportunity to escape or make things better in her life, it was probably the best thing for her to do. I'm glad I'll like as not never encounter her parents, though--they more or less murdered the only friend I had over that long terrible period. I can forgive my own parents, but never them.

Children, children I would really dearly like to be raised properly. Interact with them, damnit, that's what really matters, not mothers, not fathers, but the intellectual and emotional stimulation of constant support and supervision at very young ages. Americans hustle their young children off to daycare and then sit them down in front of the tube and expect them to turn out right? Expect them to obey in the future? You spend the first five years of their lives in a pretty damn intensive effort to impress compassion and socialization on them and make sure they want nothing, and then you start introducing responsibility to them as they get older, in gradual phased steps. And by the time you're done, you have a normal adult. It isn't supposed to be easy!

[Darth Wong]

Christians are for the most part really lousy parents.

Well, the Bible does tell them that a pious man would hack up his own son with a knife if God told him to. That's not exactly the best place to start, in terms of parenting mentality.

[Spin Echo]

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.”

BWHahahahaha! He's full of such shit. Except that Northerners have low morals. That part's true.

First of all, he's saying that Norway allows same-sex marriage; it doesn't. At the moment, it's just civil unions. The civil unions don't give homosexual's the right to adopt, which is why the gender neutral marriage law has been introduced. The reason civil unions were instituted was because the weakened importance of marriage in society, not that the civil unions led to the downfall of marriage. The lax attitude towards marriage up north came about, I'm told, due to the isolation. The priest would come around once every five or ten years to the tiny, far out settlements and marry the various couples and baptise their kids at the same time. You can see how this could lead to a relaxed view on marriage.

Second, he's trying to equate illegitimacy in the US with illegitimacy in the Norway. If illegitimacy alone had all those effects he was claiming, Norway shouldn't be up on the top of all those quality of life lists. The problem with illegitimacy in the US is that it's often coupled with poor, young single mothers who really don't have the resources to care for the kid. Single women only account for around of ~5% of births in Norway, so even though many of the kids are illegitimate, the parents are still in a relationship. I don't have any numbers, but due to the wide-spread sex ed and access to abortion, I also suspect having a kid here is much more a planned decision than in the US.

I'd also be interested to see how many of these 80% of women got married within the next five years. The trend for marriage these days is to get married somwhere between your first and second kids.

The whole bit about not having children without marriage is bunk. Norway is one of the few countries in europe that is actually having enough kids to be sustainable. Religious countries that refuse to have civil unions such as Italy and Greece have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting how he rants that out-of-wedlock childbirth might become "acceptable", as if it is not already acceptable in America. What does he want to do, bring back the traditional custom of referring to such children as "bastards" and shunning them along with their mothers?