Posted on 03/24/2007 8:01:00 PM PDT by Graybeard58
If the push for same-sex marriage was really about equal rights, then it would be a dead issue. Connecticut enacted its civil-unions bill in 2005 to give homosexuals all the rights and privileges of marriage, except the moniker.
However, since same-sex marriage is about society signing off on immoral acts, the Judiciary Committee, cochaired by a homosexual Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, has proposed making marriage "the legal union of two persons," striking language that reserves it for one man and one woman.
If the debate was about rights, there would be no need for the specious argument that same-sex unions and their ilk haven't weakened the institution of marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut and elsewhere. It may be argued as forcefully and spuriously that they haven't been the promised panacea, either. The experiment is too new to judge the long-term consequences on couples, children and society. What is known, however, is marriage is disappearing in the places most hospitable to homosexuals.
Groundbreaking research by Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution has revealed that after the advent of domestic partnerships for homosexuals in Scandinavia almost 20 years ago, remaining taboos against homosexual and multiple-partner unions, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births all but evaporated. In some Norwegian counties, two-thirds of all children are born to single mothers. If not for the vast welfare state propped up by its oil and natural-gas wealth, Norway would have sunk into Hartford-like anarchy long ago.
The numbers are equally dire in socialist Sweden and Denmark where the link between marriage and parenthood is all but gone. Marriage has been reduced to one of an array of "family" incarnations -- all equal and acceptable, which is why the debate over same-sex unions is framed as being about "equal rights." Marriage is no longer about shared sacrifice and parenting, but emotion bonding, hence "love makes a family."
Marriage is waning in America, too. It was wounded by liberalized divorce, and injured further by the rise of feminism, individualism, secularism and cohabitation, which discourages even a nominal public commitment to one's partner or children. All this has led to the explosion of single motherhood and all its attendant social pathologies and costs. Homosexuals seek to break the marriage-parenthood link for good by having the government sanctify their unions and call them marriages.
Instead of "opening the fraternity" to homosexuals and ultimately to polygamists and anyone in "consensual relationships" involving relatives, children or animals, Americans should be defending marriage because it is society's last best hope.
The Judiciary Committee hearing on the same-sex-marriage bill will be at noon Monday in Room 2D of the Legislative Office Building.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
I'd argue that socialism, both in Europe and the US,brought about the fraying of marriage. Homosexual marriage is simply the inevitable symptom of a troubled institution.
Bulls-eye.
We have enough evidence, IMO, to predict the destructive results of extending the term "marriage" to homosexual partners.
As you pointed out, misguided heteros have already damaged what was generally believed to be a sacred, lifelong committment. Common sense tells us in-your-face homos want to deal the final death blow to marriage as the union of one male and one female.
The Scandinavian countries offer us a mirror; conservatives don't like what they see, while leftist-socialists admire the image.
their lower life exptectancy alone is enough to question their "marriages" especially considering the issue of allowing children to be adopted by folks who contract more diseases, are more depressed, suffer higher suicide rates, and live shorter lives.
traditional marriage is considered healthy and beneficial - I am confused as to how much "good" is supposed to come from this.
One can only destroy marriage from the inside. That is the main homosexual agenda, when all is said and done.
Read tomorrow and mayhap pingout.
How do we correct past mistakes?
"The Scandinavian countries offer us a mirror; conservatives don't like what they see, while leftist-socialists admire the image."
I guess it depends on what you look for. We are generally horrified by the thought of such a large proportion of children being born out of wedlock (even though our percentage isn't all that much better). The term "single-mother" is used, where the children are most often raised by cohabitating couples. Traditionally, we consider them the same, but if they have the same practical incidents... Our justified concern is that they do not, but the article doesn't address this.
I find it a little ridiculous for the article to say Norway would be plunged into chaos if it weren't for oil wealth. Yes, they have oil wealth and a comparatively large public sector.
They also have the highest standard of living in the world, one of the lowest unemployment rates (~3% IIRC), an education system which would embarass ours, and a government and society which have been progressing toward privatization in almost every sector; and they've sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to boot (though their population has been revolting against the former decision, as I guess ours has to an extent).
If oil wealth is responsible for all that, why do Saudi Arabia and Iran remain in such chaos? It certainly isn't gay marriage.
Of course, Norway also has ridiculous tax rates on everything and has a long way to go toward an economic structure which would please the average conservative. Moreover, it's a little easier to be socialist when you have only 5 million people to deal with; who moreover have a generally admirable work ethic. The way America seems lately, their system would never work.
So they are endorsing man-less "marriages" and woman-less "marriages".
Bachelors bunking under the same roof should sue for family health insurance rates.
For reasons of their own, three out of eight of my grandparents' children remained single. Their mother died when she was 52...the oldest of the three was 30, and they lived and looked after my dear grandfather, and shared their home ever since.
They also owned vacation homes in two other states, and when my single uncle died at age 70, the paperwork dealing with his estate was a nightmare. Unlike married couples, none of them are free and clear heirs to properties. Could they have avoided these problems? I don't think so. They are/were all intelligent and my uncle who passed away at 70 was very savvy about handling real estate, etc.
I am not suggesting that this type of household should have the same benefits of married couples. Yet, if these benefits are okayed for homosexuals co-habiting, then those who make up other kinds of loving, caring relationships in a household should rightfully be entitled to the same extended benefits.
Where does it end?
Excellent point. I can't imagine a convincing argument to counter what you wrote.
"Moreover, it's a little easier to be socialist when you have only 5 million people to deal with; who moreover have a generally admirable work ethic"
yes...work ethic is key. That, and their education.
I consider myself a quite motivated, ambitious person--and fairly accomplished--and I have looked up to every Norwegian student I've met in those categories. Some of my best friends are Norwegian, maybe that's why I felt obliged to defend their country :).
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.