What "Gay" Marriage Will Mean for our Children

Mission America ^ | 2/22/04 | Linda P. Harvey

[GrandMoM]

What "Gay" Marriage Will Mean for our Children

By Linda P. Harvey

Column originally published on WorldNetDaily.com, July 19, 2003 © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

"Same sex marriage? It doesn't bother me!"

In many circles, this is the prevailing sentiment regarding the possible legalization of same-sex relationships as "marriages" in the U.S. If the Supreme Court in the state of Massachusetts rules in favor of the homosexual couples who have sued for marriage rights, then other states will most likely be forced to recognize these couplings as marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

There's just one problem with this angle: It doesn't take into account the impact on children. If same-sex relationships become the law of the land, then homosexual marriage will be presented to America's schoolchildren as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

Here's how and why it will happen. Right now, the vast majority of U.S. public school districts have put themselves in a very vulnerable position, one that conservatives have been warning about for years but few school boards listened. What they've done is add under their non-discrimination policies the category of "sexual orientation." It only remains for enough time to elapse - and for same-sex marriage to be legalized - for "gay" education activists to force schools to implement sweeping changes in curricular content.

Among those changes will be "diverse" textbooks that include same-sex couples as role models, even for little children. To refuse such content will be considered "discrimination," and the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense Fund will take that district to court, as they have recently in order to force homosexual clubs onto schools. If not those two well-heeled groups, then the National Education Association will sue, as it has promised, on behalf of any teachers involved. Increasingly liberal courts, modeling themselves after the Supremes, are pretty likely to rule in favor of such plaintiffs.

That also goes for the "right" of teachers who are homosexual to wear wedding rings, talk about their homosexual spouses with students and introduce spouses at school functions. Your little Katie will learn in kindergarten that "Mrs." Jones is married to another "Mrs." Jones - and that she can grow up and choose to do the same if she wishes. It is, after all, her "right."

Grade-school and middle-school anti-bias units will now crank into high gear the focus on homosexuals and cross-dressers. Because marriage is now legalized, children will be persuaded in misleading material that anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is not simply biased, that person is breaking the law. The take-away for students from these shallow lessons will be that it is illegal to criticize homosexuality, and every person young or old should be protected from the mean conservatives. Standing up for equality in America will translate into the freedom to practice homosexuality for every student who "discovers" such inclinations.

Sex education will be required to take into account this new form of "family" and abstinence - until - marriage education will take a twisted new turn. Suddenly, it will be co-opted by Planned Parenthood and other liberal activists with their own unique spin. Every student will be taught that, of course, abstinence until heterosexual or homosexual marriage is fine if that's one's choice. But since pregnancy isn't a danger for homosexuals, sex can be a wonderful option for younger and younger people - as long as it's carried out "responsibly," of course - like brushing one's teeth. To not teach this would be, again "discrimination" based on sexual orientation. Condoms are always available for those who can't wait. Let's show you third-graders how this condom fits on this banana, just so you are prepared.

Expect a whole new crop of young adult novels featuring same-sex romance leading to marriage to appear instantly and be adopted just as magically by middle-school and high-school language departments throughout the U.S. Your 13-year-old Kyle will be required to read and give a book report on a novel where Bruce and Jason meet, date and get married. What won't be covered is how Bruce and Jason split up a year later after cheating on each other dozens of times.

And it gets better (or worse). This stop-gap standard will last for just a few years, until the inevitable next piece of the puzzle is in place. Hank and Jim will petition the courts to allow Mary, the biological mother of "their" adopted child, to become part of their marriage. After all, what business does the court have in their bedrooms, determining who they have a right to love? Along about this same time, Cindy and her partner, Luke (who is really Lucy, except that she dresses like a man) will demand that the law recognize Luke as a "husband" in spite of her biology. And so will emerge the accompanying new curricular materials reflecting the legalization of group marriage and transgender unions, making sure every U.S. school child knows that these are future options for him, her or them.

In such a legal and educational environment, what happens to religions that don't believe homosexuality is moral? Will those religions and their ancient teachings eventually come before some future Supreme Court and be told that they are guilty of discrimination? That their beliefs are no longer constitutional because of privacy rights?

If this sounds like lunacy, it's because it is. What we do in the bedroom has always been public, in the form of what we call a family. It becomes what we teach and pass on as wisdom to our children. And if we aren't sure what "wisdom" entails, by golly, the homosexual activists are here to tell us.

° San Francisco Becomes Outlaw Territory ° Homosexual Marriage Debate Moves Into the Schools ° The Latest on Same Sex Marriage in Massachusetts ° Is the Da Vinci Code Christian? ° Parents Against Bad Books in Schools – Get info on porn-laden school "literature" ° Hollywood's Distorted Picture of So-Called "Homophobes" ° Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet ° Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

> Order our video on the "gay" agenda in the schools! NO TOLERANCE FOR TRUTH: What Our Children Are Learning About Homosexuality

> PARENTS & STUDENTS! Take our survey - How is homosexuality presented in your school?

> Help stop PFLAG and GLSEN

> Students - See our web site at Choice4Truth

> Organize a Group to Fight the "Gay" Agenda in Your School

[SuziQ]

I've heard some stories about 12th grade girls in a certain high school that strongly indicate to me that lesbianism can easily spread in a wave

There are some women's colleges where the girls are described as LUGS; Lesbians until graduation.

Sounds like they're making a choice.

[Salvation]

For the natural family.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

"Same sex marriage? It doesn't bother me!"

It should bother everyone !

Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.

[tdadams]

How many times does it have to be said??? Correlation IS NOT causation.

The decline of marriage in Scandinavia most likely has very little to do with homosexual marriage since that's a relatively recent phenomenon, and most likely to do with an overly generous and very entrenched welfare system that has made the economic need for marriage nearly obsolete.

Try some critical analysis sometime. It'll do you good.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping -

It's all about the children.

Let me know if you want of or off this ping list.

[Indie]

I still think that the gays really dont pose a threat to anyone

Ahhh,..how about the indoctrination of children that it's "ok???????" just by exposure?! HELL yes it's a threat.

[Larkin]

The "Attack of the Gay Agenda" - Takes a minute to load but it is worth looking at:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

[gogipper]

The article was too long to post in entirety, but in reply to your suggested alternative "cause" the article says that gay marriage is both a cause and affect.

BTW. In the social sciences you rarely can scientifically establish cause and effect, correlation is a fairly common approach. Critical enough for your?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


British demographer Kathleen Kiernan, the acknowledged authority on the spread of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births across Europe, divides the continent into three zones. The Nordic countries are the leaders in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. They are followed by a middle group that includes the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, and Germany. Until recently, France was a member of this middle group, but France's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has moved it into the Nordic category. North American rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth put the United States and Canada into this middle group. Most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births are the southern European countries of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, and, until recently, Switzerland and Ireland. (Ireland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has just pushed it into the middle group.)

These three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success.

This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

[Reactionary]

Caligula married his neutered slave and pronounced his horse Consul.

I suppose that would qualify as a "committment."

[bigjoesaddle]

. I say leave the gays alone. I have known so many gays who have had LONG term, lifetime committed relationships. Compared to heterosex. couples who have had 3, 4, 6 divorces.....

I have known gays who whored around and never commited, and I have known many "heterosex. couples" who had LONG term, lifetime commited relationships.

If you choose your comparassons your always right..."So what if Michael Jackson raped some kids, thats nothing compared to Hitler!!!"

Ive had a longterm, loving relationship with my dog. According to you, I can marry her.

[Houmatt]

Too bad that last thing in the toon is a bald faced lie.

[Jeff Gordon]

Never before in the history of mankind have some many been so worried about so few. Homosexuals are less than 2% of the population.

Consider this...

Far, far fewer homosexuals have abortions that do heterosexuals.

[scarface367]

Far, far fewer homosexuals have abortions than do heterosexuals.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

[scripter]

Gay marriage will destroy NOTHING~ these people were born this way, period!

I'd ask you to support that statement but you cannot. If you want an education on the subject, check this out.

Have you ever completely changed your mind on a hot political issue? Dr. Spitzer changed his mind on whether homosexuals can leave the lifestyle:

"I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change." Spitzer completely changed his mind whether or not some homosexuals can change. And then Spitzer concluded with:

"the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."

Source: Spitzer made the above comments at an annual APA meeting, May 9, 2001. The study was reported in the May 9, 2001 issues of The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today and it was also released to many local newspapers via the AP. ABC, CBS, FOX and MSNBC all reported the study.

Spitzer went from believing homosexuals can't change to where they can, and then he goes so far as to say mental health professions shouldn't ban the very therapy resulting in that change.

Who is Spitzer? In 1973 he played a pivotal role in the APAs decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. A decision based on homosexual activism, not science.

[rocknotsand]

Is it a case of discrimination; is "The State" playing favorites? If I can't properly register my beloved dog because 'its not status quo' or 'The Statutes forbid that breed being licensed'---- then Lady Justice is definitely playing favorites.... and Civil unions are akin to other bits of paper from desks of "The State"/mankind when all is said and done. Once Upon A Time in The West "The Law" and "Almighty God" were sort of romantically involved, but now they're not on speaking terms it appears.

I say let the licenses flow to all who can pay the clerks and let them proudly display the happiness, status and honor which the bill of sale bestows. Period. I can accept and tolerate those people who get "married" by The State or the courts or cruise ship captains or Prison Wardens or video hook ups or mail order or Wal-Mart coupons... but I don't respect them as much as bridegrooms and brides who believe in God and get married as He intends, as He Wills according to His Word. My Mother and My Father were married religiously: the whole 9 yards as per J-C tradition; in a consecrated place of worship in the presence of God, by a Man of God who invoked God's name and God's blessing upon the occasion and the promises sworn in His name. Thats a bon-fide wedding, accept no imitations. Divorces occur -sure. Las Vegas 'intoxicated' weddings occur -sure. Arranged or economically co-erced weddings occur -sure. But whether the participants in any sort of wedding at all are ever "Husband and Wife" in the eyes of God is up to God to choose, not me and not my J-C heritage. Whether any undertaking is blessed/approved by God depends on His Grace. Therefore He gives us all the right instructions to appeal to his Grace... and thats how we can have faith and confidence that we attain it.

If ungodly people want to mock Marriage they are free to mock away all day. Note that the pink elephant standing in the room here for those of the J-C faiths is the fact that millions of heathen marriages have occured and continue to occur; from Mecca to Mogadishu. God nevertheless loves those heathens and the deceived, we can be sure of that. And in the case of perversion activists looking for marriage certificates, who cares? What my wife and I and God have and hold is not devalued or threatened by a San-Francisco clerk's Xerox machine. Let them wave their Marriages Certificates and their State receipts around in their glee and their delusion; but don't ask me to respect them all that much; SF was the city that had the slogan "Tune In, Drop Out" and these are the activists who said "We don't need your 'stinkin' badges!'" in so many words. Yet here they are now, the hypocrits, saying that they have changed their monds and they really do covet acceptance and the lynchpins of American Culture -- they do want The State's stamp of approval. Stamp away I say. All the while the real questions for the Nation and the culture are

• Does A. God "Tolerate" perverts getting married (whether its a done in a Metrosexual Church or in a park toilet)?
• Does God "Approve" of perverts getting married?
• Does God "Respect" perverts getting married?
• Does God "Love" perverts getting married?

/rant

[Quix]

It's an understandable perspective and perhaps in a lot of respects not that far from my normal natural bent.

But I've decided that it's better to stand up and be counted against the tide of evil rather than acquiesce.

They make enough noise in behalf of evil. Let the good NOT be silent.

[GrandMoM]

But I've decided that it's better to stand up and be counted against the tide of evil rather than acquiesce. ....AS ALL OF US AGAINST THIS SHOULD!

[GrandMoM]

There's a real danger in believing everything you read. This is far from factual, it's one person's worst case scenario hypothesizing taken to the level of hyperbole....I will pray for you tdadams. I will pray that you someday wake up to the fact you are defending evil and decide to change and defend the real people that need it, the children that are being attacked and brainwashed by that same evil you defended!
May GOD save your soul!

[Quix]

Thanks.

That should not be construed to = being steadfastly against individuals unless they have clearly chosen to side with satan.

Any who would want deliverance, I would cheer toward it.

Love the sinner, hate the sin IS a viable concept.

[rocknotsand]

How about an amendment to the Marriage blood test that denies all applications where the applicants do not have opposing DNA; ie male and female only marriages? Can GW get it thru? If it passed and became law, the pro-perversionists would continue their seige on the J-C culture on another legal front for sure. American J-C culture is one of heck of a trophy and worth a struggle...