Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New European Studies Show Homosexual Marriage Harms Marriage in General
Culture of Life Foundation ^ | 1/27/04 | Culture of Life Foundation

Posted on 01/27/2004 1:05:48 PM PST by Polycarp IV

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: CAtholic Family Association
read later
21 posted on 01/27/2004 1:45:11 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
A good and thoughtful article.

It is indeed an abuse of children to raise them in environments where parental attachments are uncertain, responsibilities of adults are vague or non-existent, and where secular materialism triumphs over sacred duties.

The lesson here is that 'gay marriage' - the oxymoron - is another nail in the coffin of marriage. Both detractors and supporters of marriage know this, deep down.
22 posted on 01/27/2004 2:03:00 PM PST by WOSG (I don't want the GOP to become a circular firing squad and the Socialist Democrats a majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
your foundation seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's nothing harmful or inherently destructive about same sex behavior

That's correct. I don't think there is. I would also disagree with your characterization that homosexuality is nothing more than a "behavior". Are you only heterosexual while you're having sex, or is it part of the person you are? And notwithstanding all the hysteria and chest-thumping around here, I've heard no convincing argument that there is anything harmful or destructive about it.

there is no "gay" agenda

Incorrect. There definitely is a 'gay agenda' and anyone with two eyes can see it. But that doesn't mean gays as a whole subscribe to it or necessarily support it. Nor is every gay person the flamboyant drag queen dancing on a parade float. Mostly, there's the person working in the office next to you minding their own business.

and the morality and immorality don't exist

Of course morality and immorality exist. I don't happen to consider a voluntary relationship between two adults to be immoral. I consider denigration and vitriol against your fellow human being to be immoral.

23 posted on 01/27/2004 2:06:32 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tdadams; little jeremiah; Barnacle
Would you not attribute the simultaneous emergence of these two issues to be due more to a general liberalization in Europe rather than having any cause and effect relationship?

That was my first thought also when I saw the article.  It's first necessary to define what constitutes the erosion of the family, then the writer has to show a substantial statistical correlation between this erosion and the general acceptance of homosexual unions. I didn't see the graphs or tables showing how the basic data points to their conclusion-- all we get here is the conclusions with references.  The final gap was the missing 'nuts-and-bolts' causal relationship-- just where is the 'harm' mentioned in the title?.

This is a big time hot button issue- and IMHO, these gaps were glossed over because the writer can only preach to the converted, and there is no proof that would ever be accepted by say, Howard Dean's backers.  Even if they showed actual electrical shocks leaping from homosexual union law books killing all married persons-- Clinton would still be asking what 'is' is.

The massive homosexual industrial complex knows that they're wacko.  That's why they don't call for some new kind of social institution, they want what they do to be called 'marriage' because they know that 'marriage' is better than what they do.  But don't ever tell them that, because then they'll accuse you of having latent homosexual tendencies yourself. 

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

24 posted on 01/27/2004 2:09:06 PM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
Here's what some noted homosexual spokespeople have to say about "gay" marriage:

(Proving in their own words that their mission is to change the meaning of morality in society.)

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."


25 posted on 01/27/2004 2:16:50 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
(me) Your foundation seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's nothing harmful or inherently destructive about same sex behavior.

(you) That's correct. I don't think there is. I would also disagree with your characterization that homosexuality is nothing more than a "behavior".


There you go. We'd have to settle this issue before any further discussion. So, have you read any of scripter's database of articles explaining the correlation between homosexual behavior and disease?

(And as far as homosexuality being more than behavior, that is a very mysterious assertion. Homosexuality MEANS two men having sex together, or two women. Or I guess more than two. But that is the definition!
26 posted on 01/27/2004 2:21:01 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Homosexuality MEANS two men having sex together, or two women. Or I guess more than two. But that is the definition!

That is your definition, which not so coincidentally, reinforces your prejudice.

have you read any of scripter's database of articles explaining the correlation between homosexual behavior and disease?

You mean many of the articles written by Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the APA for unethical conduct related to improper research methods and publishing studies as factual when they were never subject to peer review? Of course, his explanation is that he wasn't expelled, but resigned voluntarily. Anyone with two brain cells can see through that.

Almost without exception (and I only say "almost" because I've not read every word of the articles, so I can't say definitively), the articles you mention have fixed on a conclusion and only seek to find studies to support that conclusion.

That's not the way legitimate science is done, but it is the way demagoguery is done.

27 posted on 01/27/2004 2:34:22 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Right, as opposed to the ethical, unbiased, scientific, neutral writings and opinions of homosexuals! ROTFLOL!!
28 posted on 01/27/2004 3:48:41 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
Bump for an outstanding article -- so I can easily find and re-read it -- thoroughly!
29 posted on 01/27/2004 5:16:14 PM PST by TXnMA (No Longer!!! -- and glad to be back home (and warm) in God's Country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I agree. I think this study demonstrates the deline of morality in Europe. Gay marriage is the end result, not the cause, of the situation.
30 posted on 01/27/2004 5:20:51 PM PST by KantianBurke (2+2 does NOT equal 5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Now you're attributing assertions to me that I didn't make. You're not being honest in this discussion and that goes back to the heart of my original complaint about this topic.
31 posted on 01/27/2004 5:33:54 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CAtholic Family Association
One could just as easily say that in a post-agrarian society, as children become less valuable they tend to become less valued.
32 posted on 01/27/2004 5:42:08 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama; tdadams; little jeremiah
Here's the bottom line. I don't need no stink'n European study to know that prevalent homosexuality is a indication of moral decay and societal decline.

The objectives of homosexual groups is no longer just to be left alone, they want their perversion to be considered acceptable by adults, children, and churches. They want to change the world we live in so that their sickness will be accommodated.

The world they envision is Sodom and Gomorrah, and I ain't living in it.
33 posted on 01/27/2004 6:23:48 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Ok. So you asserted that scripter's database of articles about homosexuality are biased and "anti-gay" (whatever THAT means - you never did tell me!).

So what is your hallowed opinion about the "pro-gay" articles?

And I expect an answer to my question: What do you mean by "anti-gay"?
34 posted on 01/27/2004 6:33:53 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Actually, what Kurtz is saying is a refutation of "conservative" pro-gay marriage advocates' (like Eskridge and Sullivan) position that gay marriage will strengthen the institution, not weaken it.

So Kurtz looked at the places where gay marriage has been instituted the longest. And the results are that marriage is the weakest of all there.

Now Kurtz does show a direct causal relationship there, at least not empirically. But the evidence is enough to suggest that Eskridge's and Sullivan's position is utterly untenable.

Gay marriage may or may not in fact damage the institution itself. In fact, it is apparent (especiall in Scandinavia) that most of the damage was done before same-sex marriage and by heterosexuals to boot. But the idea that gay marriage will strengthen marriage itself is simply not tenable based on the evidence today. In fact, it is flatly absurd.

35 posted on 01/27/2004 6:43:42 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Correction: "Now Kurtz does not show a direct causal relationship there..."
36 posted on 01/27/2004 6:46:39 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tdadams; little jeremiah; CAtholic Family Association
For once, I'd like to have a mature, frank discussion on this issue, but I do know from experience that that's just too much to expect from you and the other vitriolic anti-gay posters here.

Then go to a site where people will tolerate it. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals have no legitimate claim to anything. Here, you might as well be seeking a frank discussion on the merits of Marxism.

If that makes me "anti-gay" in your mind, I don't care. There is no group that has done more damage to the Catholic Church and to the general health of America.

When will homosexuals apologize for the plague of AIDS that they've spread across this nation and the devastation to lives and the cost of everyone's health care? Or how about the people who got AIDS because a homosexual sold his blood?

Do you have any idea how much money has been funneled away from research in heart disease and cancer to find a cure for the most easily prevented disease on Earth?

Do you want to help homosexuals? Tell them to stop sticking things where they don't belong.

37 posted on 01/27/2004 7:04:16 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Now Kurtz does [not] show a direct causal relationship there, at least not empirically. But the evidence is enough to suggest that Eskridge's and Sullivan's position is utterly untenable.

I'm not sure if it is or isn't untenable. I think what we're dealing with is a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. Rather than keeping things clear and comparing apples to apples, each is clouding the picture by putting their own interpretation on two different sets of statistics (number of divorces and number of marriages) and concluding that the amalgamation of the numbers support their position.

38 posted on 01/27/2004 7:05:18 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
Go ahead and be as belligerent and vitriolic as you like, you're only making yourself marginalized and easily dismissed as someone who is beyond reason.

Blaming gays for the problems of the Catholic church? Please, that's laughable. The Catholic church is it's own worst enemy. It had a problem in it's ranks for decades that it did nothing about... no let me correct that, which it facilitated.

You're blaming gays for the "devastation of health care" in America? Please, that's just plainly absurd. By most reasonable estimates, gays make up no more than 3% of the population. They don't have nearly the impact on our health care system as prosmiscuous heterosexuals do. Promiscuous heterosexuals also are the ones having abortions, something which is far more abhorrent than anything gays will ever do.

Like it or not, there are promiscuous homosexuals and there are monogamous homosexuals, just like there are promiscuous heterosexuals and monogamous heterosexuals. Promiscuity by either is damaging to the health of the nation, but you choose only to focus on that of the homosexuals.

It's a transparent pretext, wrapped in a facade of concern about health care, for your personal and irrational animosity towards this group of people.

39 posted on 01/27/2004 7:20:07 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
It's a transparent pretext, wrapped in a facade of concern about health care, for your personal and irrational animosity towards this group of people.

All your other cluelesss quibles aside, are you a member of "this group of pople"?

40 posted on 01/27/2004 7:34:16 PM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson