Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad

[texastig]

From: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...liberals_know_its_bad?page=full&comments=true

Synopsis:
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.

Thanks,
TT

 

[tulc]

uhmmm so?
tulc(just curious)

 

[Ave Maria]

Why on earth would such a person argue against gay marriage?

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, after giving Texastig the benefit of the doubt, and attempting to look at his link, I find that it's a page titled "Townhall.com: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad, by Frank Turek" but after slightly over two megabytes of download there is absolutely no text on that page -- I checked with the "page source" utility. Plus, I have never heard of either David Blankenship or Frank Turek before. (I have a feeling I'll be getting more free offers for Viagra from now on, though -- just a hunch on what happens when you click on a link that downloads megabytes to you without doing what it claims to do.)

I guess it's just another little misrepresentation game from a typical member of the so-called Religious Right. Very standard behavior of misrepresenting the truth, just like all their ilk.

And if that broad-brush indictment sounds at all offensive to Texasting or anyone who self-identifies as Religious Right, just consider what the Golden Rule says. "Even liberals know it's bad"? Even so called Christian Conservatives know that bad-mouthing a stereotype is evil. (Or at least some of them do.)

 

[Archivist]

The book is available on Amazon.com, and the listing there includes a search inside link and a couple well-written reviews. I cannot comment on the book because I have not yet read it (I did order a copy while I was on Amazon) However, from what I read using the search inside feature and from reading the reviews, this is not a case of "even liberals know its bad."

 

[jamielindas]

Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America (Paperback)
by Jonathan Rauch

In this highly readable but rarely innovative polemic, Atlantic Monthly correspondent and National Journal columnist Rauch argues that the gradual legalization of gay marriage can only strengthen the institution it wishes to expand. He argues that pervasive separate-but-equal strategies would weaken the institution of marriage more than marriage for all, because of the inevitable appeal of "marriage-lite" to heterosexual couples who might otherwise marry. (A recent New York Times article documents precisely that phenomenon in France.) Yet for Rauch, currently a writer-in-residence at the Brookings Institution, the most compelling argument for gay marriage is moral, and only tangentially related to the principle of granting citizens equal rights under the law. Echoing recent arguments by Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks, Rauch defends gay marriage as the only social reform that can save gays from what he characterizes as the adolescent and unfulfilling lifestyle that love and sex outside of marriage has forced upon same-sex couples for centuries. Allowing gays to participate in "the great civilizing institution" would inevitably ennoble gay relationships; providing access to marriage would give them access to "a better kind of love." Such sallies will leave some readers wondering whether "better," for Rauch, really means "straight"; "If I could have designed myself in the womb," writes Rauch (who is openly gay) elsewhere, "I would have chosen to be heterosexual." Reporting such fantasies may win Rauch points for honesty, but they don't do much for his argument, other than to allow straights who support equal rights but are uneasy with homosexuality itself to identify with his position more easily. Such mixed signals make for a decidedly mixed bag.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I don't like the title of that article or this thread. Liberals are people first, liberals second. To refer to a group of people by such labels polarizes our country, implying that "I must be different from him, because I'm a Conservative." To stick the adjective "Even" before it is even more insulting, as if a Liberal must necessarily think something, shoving people even further into a rigid mindset.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I hope you are all satisfied that you even entertained the thought of responding to this Post.

 

[onemessiah]

Well, after giving Texastig the benefit of the doubt, and attempting to look at his link, I find that it's a page titled "Townhall.com: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad, by Frank Turek" but after slightly over two megabytes of download there is absolutely no text on that page -- I checked with the "page source" utility. Plus, I have never heard of either David Blankenship or Frank Turek before. (I have a feeling I'll be getting more free offers for Viagra from now on, though -- just a hunch on what happens when you click on a link that downloads megabytes to you without doing what it claims to do.)

rofl...

well, I guess someone had to be the guinea pig

 

[onemessiah]

I hope you are all satisfied that you even entertained the thought of responding to this Post.

Oh, I'm ignoring the post *yawn*, I just feel bad for 'ol polycarp downloading viruses in the name of deligent research, lol

 

[timmeh]

Wow, what a load of tripe. It starts off with false information and just keeps snowballing. It's a shame that religious folk like that with their polarising hatred taint all in their name.

 

[onemessiah]

From: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...liberals_know_its_bad?page=full&comments=true

Synopsis:
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.

Thanks,
TT

I posted this elsewhere, but it is worth repeating here.




Here, read this.

From the American Psychological Association:


Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?

Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere.

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these:

1. Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

2. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

3. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends.

4. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent’s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.


Now this ridiculous thread can be put to rest.

 

[Phinehas2]

The only thing ridiculous in onemessiah’s post was the suggestion that the thread could be put to rest. Social science has not really shown anything, in fact it admits the lack of info in places, whereas the OP article makes some tangible observations.
This kind of show the gay and lesbian activist’s wish to silence all opposition.

Another indication is Polycarp1’s rant as a response.
He says

Plus, I have never heard of either David Blankenship or Frank Turek

That’s interesting as the person’s name is Blankenhorn not Blankenship, so firstly why would Polycarp1 need to have heard of them for the views to be considered good enough to look at, and secondly, it seems Polycarp1 has partly dismissed the article on account of never hearing about someone who isnt part of it.
Soap is recorded in front of a live studio audience.

Now I would have to say that someone who doesn’t share the beliefs of a group, shouldn’t necessarily be put up as a representative of that group, so when the article says 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. some might not accept he is as pro-gay as the article writer implies.
Nonetheless that also applies with Polycarp1’s ‘so called religious right comment.’ Texasting may not be as religious right as Polycarp1 makes out.

So enough of the personal remarks and the essence of the OP.
David Blankenhorn’s main contention is the definition of marriage based on coupling rather than reproduction and the studies in Norway which show detrimental effects for children. I would have to say that these detrimental effects might not necessarily be due to, or at least all due to gay and lesbian acceptance, but they do pose the question which is why onemessiah is so keen not to have the debate.
But the crucial point he makes that jumps out at me is illegitimate parents. God’s design and purpose is life created at conception, it’s a miracle, the miracle of life and as soon as someone is conceived they are God’s miracle, so no-one themselves are a mistake or illegitimate. The father and mother who conceived are legitimate, which makes step parents and same-sex parents illegitimate.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Many gay couples are raising kids. While allowing gay marriage may or may not have an effect on opposite couples raising kids out of wedlock, banning gay marriage will definitely prevent those kids being raised by gay couples from being raised by a married couple.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I think polycarp1 and jamielindas should be commended for taking the time to look into this and expose the false claims for us.

Thanks guys!

 

[Phinehas2]

Thanks to Texastig for the article which has exposed some more of the flaws in the pro-homosexual argument..

 

[tulc]

Thanks to Texastig for the article which has exposed some more of the flaws in the pro-homosexual argument..

...and I'd like to point out one "liberal" doesn't warrant the "s" in the OP.

Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad (original OP title)

A more accurate title would be:

Gay Marriage: One Liberal Thinks It's Bad (re-worded title)

tulc(just thought it should be pointed out)

 

[texastig]

Well, after giving Texastig the benefit of the doubt, and attempting to look at his link, I find that it's a page titled "Townhall.com: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad, by Frank Turek" but after slightly over two megabytes of download there is absolutely no text on that page -- I checked with the "page source" utility. Plus, I have never heard of either David Blankenship or Frank Turek before. (I have a feeling I'll be getting more free offers for Viagra from now on, though -- just a hunch on what happens when you click on a link that downloads megabytes to you without doing what it claims to do.)

I guess it's just another little misrepresentation game from a typical member of the so-called Religious Right. Very standard behavior of misrepresenting the truth, just like all their ilk.

And if that broad-brush indictment sounds at all offensive to Texasting or anyone who self-identifies as Religious Right, just consider what the Golden Rule says. "Even liberals know it's bad"? Even so called Christian Conservatives know that bad-mouthing a stereotype is evil. (Or at least some of them do.)

I just checked the link and it's fine, just like the first time I posted it.
Yes, I am part of the religious right. According to the Bible marriage is
between a man and a woman (Jesus said it) and anything out of that
norm is sin, plain and simple.

The very fact that the majority of Americans refuse gay marriage should be proof enough. Gays make choices and then they want to put their agenda into the schools, work and society.
They are the ones pushing us religious right people. The majority of Americans do not want gay marriage because it's not good for a country.

Thanks,
TT

 

[BigBadWlf]

Just like those nasty black people…always pushing good Christians into fording their agenda onto society. First they did away with slavery. Then they used activist judges to have their children go to the same schools as good white Christian children. Then they demanded the right to use the same water fountains. And worst of all….interracial marriages….the horror!

Oh won’t somebody please think of the children?!!?!?!?

 

[Brennin]

Just like those nasty black people…always pushing good Christians into fording their agenda onto society. First they did away with slavery. Then they used activist judges to have their children go to the same schools as good white Christian children. Then they demanded the right to use the same water fountains. And worst of all….interracial marriages….the horror!

Oh won’t somebody please think of the children?!!?!?!?

Slavery was done away with by amending the Constitution. I guess they did not share the sense of entitlement that characterizes modern liberals.