Posted on 05/27/2008 1:50:46 PM PDT by dvan
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.
Blind? Maybe.
Selfish? Most likely.
Evil? Some are - those would be the ones that know what this will do to society and promote it because of that very fact.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
What's a bastard?
A stupid word pinned on a child innocent of his parents’ bad choices.
From the article: “The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society.”
Before we tear down fences, we need to remember why they were put up in the first place.
Awesome... bookmarked
It tells you only what the child may or may not inherit; nothing about the child himself. Ever hear of Leonardo da Vinci?
What's a bastard?(there are no illegitimate children)
A stupid word pinned on a child innocent of his parents’ bad choices.
It is true that "If you give a dog a bad name, you might as well hang him." But it is also true that boys raised without adult male role models tend to earn an unfavorable label. Which is in essence what the whole point of this thread discusses - the deleterious effects on society of the failure of nubile women in that society to marry before procreating.You are supporting an effort to restrict thought by pruning our vocabulary.
You are supporting an effort to restrict thought by pruning our vocabulary.
Thanks for the post. I happen to live in a neighborhood full of bastards. They are the destruction of the whole value of the neighborhood. I can't even let my kids play in the playground across the street without worrying about the abusive treatment they will get from said neighbor kids. But lets not ever dare point out the problem because that would not be PC.
Speaking of PC. BHO has the ability to turn any word he wants into a non-pc word, the most recent being the word "Assassinate".
Being born out of wedlock is one kind of bastard, I suspect that if your parents get married a little late no one would ever think of you as a bastard or illegitimate. But imagine the stigma of having 2 sodomites as "parents"!!!??? Just sickening. That child is doomed in many ways.
As an aside, what in the world were the Bush women doing on the Ellen show yesterday? To appear on her show legitimizes her show and her perversion and further sinks the Republican party.
Unfortunately, you are right. Some people will do anything if it increases their chances of having sex, no matter how small the chance. Slick Willie comes to mind...
Well I think it was Jenna, that recently said she was considering voting for BHO.
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.