Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, October 27, 2008
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Traditional marriage is vital to kids and education
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


According to the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association, the Proposition 8 marriage initiative has nothing to do with what is taught in California's public schools. The "Yes on 8" campaign claims that if homosexual marriage stays legal in California, kids will learn in public schools that this kind of "marriage" is normal and legitimate.

Proposition 8 is the ballot initiative in California that, if passed in November, will amend California's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The initiative follows a decision by the California Supreme Court last May that legalized homosexual marriage.

In a recent ad run by "No on 8", California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell, says "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids .... our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."

To call this misleading would be the understatement of the 2008 campaign season.

The California Department of Education makes a comprehensive sex education curriculum available to every school district, but specifies that it's voluntary.

A poll done by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2006 showed that 78 percent of California's adults want comprehensive sex education in the public schools. According to the "Yes on 8" campaign, 96 percent of the school districts currently provide it.

If a school district does provide sex education, it must follow the guidelines of the California Department of Education. According to these guidelines, as they appear on the CDE website, the schools "shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

It doesn't take much to conclude that just about every kid in California's public school system gets some kind of instruction about marriage at some time. Should homosexual marriage remain a legal institution in California, there is little doubt that children graduating from California's public schools will see homosexuality and homosexual marriage as normal and legitimate as proverbial American apple pie.

If Proposition 8 has "nothing to do with schools or kids,'' then why has the California Teachers Association, the union of California's teachers and public school employees, contributed well over $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign?

The teachers union opposes school choice and vouchers, claiming on its Web site that vouchers "hurt students and schools by draining scarce resources away from public education." Yet the union somehow sees it helping education to write a check for a million dollars to keep homosexual marriage legal.

This same California teachers union weighed in earlier this year to support a California appeals court decision, subsequently reversed, which would have effectively shut down home schooling in the State of California.

It should concern everyone that the idea of parents having the freedom to choose where and how to educate their child is abhorrent to our public school establishment. And that this same public school establishment is obsessed with peddling left wing moral relativism to our kids.

Who is hurt the most? Our most vulnerable kids.

According to a report released earlier this year by Colin Powell's organization America's Promise, about 70 percent of kids who enter public school in our nation's 50 largest school districts graduate.

In Los Angeles, the second largest school district in the country, 45 percent of kids graduate. These are overwhelmingly Latino and black kids from largely troubled or broken families.

The greatest influence on how a child performs in school is the home from which that child comes. Take kids from already troubled homes and put them in schools where traditional values are at best taught as a footnote to a large menu of possible lifestyles, and the result is children and communities that have no future.

Maintaining the integrity marriage and family in California, the nation's largest state, is critical for children not just in California, but also in the whole country. Let's hope that Californians vote in November to save traditional marriage and help pull our nation back from moral oblivion.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Good Article Ms. Parker....
"Let's hope that Californians vote in November to save traditional marriage and help pull our nation back from moral oblivion."

Personally, I share your hope, but do not anticipate its passage. I hope I'm wrong this time....the cultural war is now raging, and our children have become caught up in it....All I can do is pray HARDER....

The election draws near
and the gay bashing rises to a crescendo.


The Christian basher SJ Doc
The anti Christian SJ Doc, and his creation Mellor SJ2 have dropped in to add some creative insults.

Both are the same person,and both will post insults in a pseudo academic persona. Most posts are historical fiction compositions of farcical information.

What what these people post as facts, they are not, they are opinions not based on facts.

SJ Doc/Mellor is a homosexual militant, and a very rabid, bigoted individual. He squats on every post concerning homosexuals, and or marriage.

Proposition 8 Silent on Kids and Schools
The question is asked: "If Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids, then why has the California Teachers Association, the union of California's teachers and public school employees, contributed well over $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign?"

Well, the reverse of that question could also be asked: "If people wanted a proposition to deal with kids and schools, why wasn't a proposition drafted that -- at the very least --mentioned the specific issues of those kids and schools?

Answer: "At the time Proposition 8 was drafted, kids and schools were not the issue. It was gay people who were the target then and gay people who are the target now. Just admit this fact and stop with the heavy-handed misdirection about kids and schools.

To repeat myself, if you want a proposition about kids and schools, put a proposition on the ballot that at least mentions kids and schools. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

But that not the real point, is it?





David, what?
Your post is a cut and paste of the authors points.

The issue has always been about marriage, no one denies that, the anti-8 side however, has done exactly what the author has pointed out.

I do not understand your point. As other homosexual militants have stated here, they intend to use the schools to teach acceptance of their lifestyle.

So David, then what is yourpoint?

The issue is the editorial

I'm responding to the question posed by the author of the editorial -- which refers to kids and schools.

If you wish to write your own editorial, I'm sure people would be happy to respond to it.

As for the phrase "other homosexual militants," I'm not going to give you that one. There are plenty of people against Propostion 8 who fit neither category.

David

Public Education pleases Satan
Public Education is nothing but a system called: Socialism/Communism period, and truly uncriptural and anti-God! They are actually unconstitutional, period! But now the darling of each party. Yes dumping billions and billions to in essence dumbing dow America.

So What
So What?

Moral Oblivion...
...also comes from lies and misleading distortions.
Heal thyself. Pray for forgiveness, and vote No on 8!

pro traditional marriage does not equal
gay bashing. Gays love to throw that rhetorical jab in. I care for and respect every gay person i know, but that does not mean that their committed relationships need to be called 'marriage.' I call them 'friendships.' What friends want to do to each other is none of my business.

Ditto for blacks; being against a president obama doesn't make one racist, it means you're anti-liberal, just like not approving of every single action or policy of the state of Israel doesn't make one anti-Semitic.

PS I was in a highly rated public high school in a upper middle class suburb the other day, and their was a quotation from Harvey Milk on one of the doors, and i know they did that Laramie Project play about gay Matthew Shepard last year=indoctrination, with zero tolerance for more conservative/traditional views.

Burn the buildings ...
"...vouchers 'hurt students and schools by draining scarce resources away from public education.'"

The best way to improve public schools is to burn down the buildings and fire the teachers.

Burn the buildings ... (cont)
... Then the students won't know anything which makes them more educated than filling their heads with bad ideas.

Nice try, Joe from CA, but
you are trying to pull the salesman's trick of 'forced choice' on us. Just because your option b, aimed at mccain, is admittedly bad, that does not make your favored option a, good. The word and the concept and the reality of marriage has a long, undistrubed pedigree, and that involves the lifelong commitment of one man and one woman.

If you don't like that, fine. Then it is your side that should have to carry the cumbersome burden of the amendment process, for it is y'all who are trying to alter the meaning of a word that had a clear definition when both the US and CA constitutions were adopted. You libs usually pride yourselves on your vaunted fairness, where is it in this matter? After all, amendments were done, thankfully so, for 2 great changes in our nation's history, slavery/civil rights and women's suffrage.

Why obsession w/ "traditional" marriage?
I'm a mostly-conservative who just doesn't understand why "traditional" marriage is such a hot-button issue for conservatives. If a gay couple chooses to get married, how is that hurting anyone else? So scoff if you want to and go ahead and personally refuse to recognize the marriage as legitimate. But why is this a public/political issue? I'm in a committed hetero-sexual marriage and I don't feel the least bit threatened by gays who choose to tie the knot. So what's the REAL issue here??

odd column
The argument seems to be that the teacher's unions in California oppose the referendum. They also oppose school choice (particularly home schooling) and therefore their motivation in opposing the amendment must show that the referendum is about teaching a homosexual agenda in schools.

What an odd collection of non sequitors.

One reason that the unions might oppose the referendum is that they don't like having even a minority of their members discriminated against in something as basic as marriage.

But I suppose one would have to care about discrimination against people other than oneself to make sense of a motivation like that. After all, most of the columnists on Townhall write as if an opposition to discrimination makes no sense on its own.

Me too..what's the big deal?
I don't consider gay marriage a threat to me, my marriage, my family or my kids. The groups opposed to gay marriage have still not explained why it is a bad thing, other than it being a religious issue. If your religion forbids it, no one is forcing your religion to recognize it. We are talking about an institution (marriage) that is regulated by the government. That makes it a civil issue, not a religious one.

I also don't see the big deal about gay marriage being mentioned in the course of our children's education. It's a reality that there are gay couples in the world. Wouldn't you want your children to be prepared when they go out into the world with all of the knowledge about the society they are about to face?

It's up to parents to decide what to teach their kids about right and wrong based on the values in that household. Do you somehow think that by merely mentioning gay marriage in schools your kids will somehow "turn" gay? Is that the fear? It doesn't work that way and you know it.

JMartin
Do you believe that their relationships should be legally recognized with regard to inheritance, pensions, etc. That's the whole issue.

There is no explaining people

who believe the government should equate the act of same-sex sodomy with human coitus.

Such ignorance is impossible to explain. The two acts are so obviously different and so obviously of different value to society that only an idiot would want the government to declare them equal in eyes of the law.

A society where the majority of its members do ot see a difference between acts of same-sex sodomy and acts of human coitus is probably beyond recovery and the government which promoted such thing does not have long to survive.

schools
Schools are places for people to be educated.

Schools should also be a safe place. If we care about the kids we should also care about the gay kids who are being bullied and ostracized.

Sexuality should be taught in Health class, Human Development, Psychology, and Biology.

A lot of prejudice against gays have to do with ignorance. A lot of straights believe myths like they could catch homosexuality from the gay kids or they view the gay kids as potential predators.

Often times teachers and administrators allow the gay kids to be bullied.

When students go to college they will be taught that some people and even animals are naturally homosexual due to a combination of genetics and hormonal disruption during fetal brain development.

People say they are worried that homosexuality will be taught as natural in schools but guess what it is natural in the fact that it occurs naturally in the animal kingdom. We also pretty much know what causes it. The hormonal disruption theory in the leading theory so why can't we teach it?

Theory is one of the highest affirmations in science. Evolution is considered both a theory and a fact. Gravity is considered both a theory and a fact.





Spending Cuts & Tax Cuts
Get both with Obama. GOP has always said deficits don’t matter. Now we all know better.
GOBAMA!

Steven in CA
says "If your religion forbids it, no one is forcing your religion to recognize it. We are talking about an institution (marriage) that is regulated by the government. That makes it a civil issue, not a religious one. "

Right up until a gay couple wants to be "married" in my Church. Then our religion will be forced to recognize it, because if we don't we will be sued. And if I am a photographer and don't want to take pictures for a gay "wedding," I will be sued.
And not just sued. I will be vilified. I will be called a bigot, homophobic, and I don't know what else.
All of this simply because I believe that gay marriage is not marriage. Because I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.





evangelicals
As an Evangelical Christian I am shocked by the hatred that many of my fellow evangelicals spew, especially towards gays.

However, I am pleased that many young evangelicals are rejecting the hate and fear mongering tactics of the older generations.

We want to show Christ's love. We don't want to be prejudiced against people. We don't want to persecute people. We don't want to exclude people.

Our beautiful Republican party has been taken over by right wing extremists and it is time that we took our party back. Its time for our party to return to being the party of civil rights.

Repent of your homophobia. Jesus said that if you have hatred in your heart you are as bad as a murderer.


Steven in CA ...

says "If your religion forbids it, no one is forcing your religion to recognize it. We are talking about an institution (marriage) that is regulated by the government. That makes it a civil issue, not a religious one. "

--------
Then how come many of the gay people says that their ultimate goal is to force religions to change to recognize homosexuals as normal and not a sin in their religions?

A civil union is regulated by the government. A marriage is a religious institute. If you ONLY want a civil issue solved then a civil union does it. Attacking marriages interfers with religion, not civil unions.

Gay People Should Not Marry
Warning - Humorous Satire (If you have no sense of...do NOT read! It will just annoy you and make you think.)

Why Gay Marriage Should be Illegal

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things - like eyeglasses, polyester, driving a car and air conditioning. Also, apparently those homosexual animals have picked up some unnatural behavior.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to become gay, Of course it will, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall, or associating with blue-eyed people will make your eyes turn blue.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to TSA Screenings, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; Right. Women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be utterly destroyed. And don’t even mention Elizabeth Taylor’s sanctified marriages…any of them.


Al mom
AL Mom,

People said the same thing during the Civil Rights movement. They said that those for civil rights were the intolerant ones.

They said civil rights was forcing white restaurant owners to allow blacks in their restaurants against their will.

Now we laugh at such bigoted arguments.

Churches will not have to marry gays and churches will still be able to preach against homosexual sins just like they continue to preach against heterosexual sins.

In other countries where preachers have gotten in trouble, it is due to those countries having hate speech laws.

We have hate crime laws but we do not and will not have hate speech laws. We believe in freedom of speech (1st amendment after all) so strongly that we even protect hate speech.


Gay People Should Not Marry
Warning - Humorous Satire (If you have no sense of...do NOT read! It will just annoy you and make you think.)

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Exactly. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world really needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. Uh huh, just as allowing whites to marry blacks caused Western Civilization to fall several decades ago. Oh, you didn’t get the memo? It DID! People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

eddie too
So how do you feel about heterosexual sodomy?

Star Remains Clueless
"...there is little doubt that children graduating from California's public schools will see homosexuality and homosexual marriage as normal and legitimate as proverbial American apple pie. "

According to your polemic, that is true notwithstanding the outcome of Proposition Hate. There remains no connection between same-sex marriage and education. Parents can opt out of ANY form of health/sex ed in California.

Moreover, suppose that you were right. So what? I can assure Star that sexual orientation isn't contagious. Exactly what is so terrible if children learn that being gay IS normal. What I find abnormal is the obsession with what people do in their private lives. The problem is that the Christian right has yet to voice a cogent argument that would support the notion that one couple's gay marriage in any way affects another couple's traditional marriage.

“We may not like to admit it, but when you leave God’s design out of the argument, there’s really no reason any longer to limit marriage to a man and a woman.”

Joel Belz
Publisher of the evangelical magazine - "World"

David Hart
http://www.tips-q.com/content/talking-points-regarding-gay- rights

thank you David
David is right. Gays are born to straight parents. Most of the time they are raised by straight parents and are surrounded by straight friends and straight people in general.

Yet they don't catch the heterosexuality.

Acknowledging the existence and personhood of gay people will not make straights catch homosexuality.


In Fact, Michael-
My partner and I essentially raised his twin nephews. From infancy, they spent as much time in our home as their own. They are now in their 20's and "straight." We're too old now but we could have been GREAT parents except that my partner is (GASP!) a Republican. I assume that his poor choice of political affiliation wouldn't cause permanent damage to the kids.

OTOH, what about the damage to gay kids by people like Star? Why should their self-esteem be compromised? Fortunately, I think that we are seeing a rise in secularism - even in the GOP.

Bigoted
It didn't take long.
As Michael said, "Now we laugh at such bigoted arguments."

So now I am a bigot because I argue against forcing churches to accept gay marriage. I am being called a bigot because I don't think that business owners should be forced to accept gay marriage as normal.

How long until it will called hate speech because I am teaching my child that gay marriage is wrong?

I am counting the seconds.

Equality for everyone
I think we should stop awarding social and tax benefits based on marital status. Treat everyone equally and some of the desire for marriage and the benefits its brings will be abated.
According to the 2000 US Census, 43-48% of American adults (age 18-65) are classified as
single (that being never married or not remarried). We are getting to be a group that is becoming too large to ignore.
We should have the same beneficiary rights as marrieds with regard to social security; tax benefits, living wills/advanced directives and personal rep designations - that is, honoring our rights and decisions without all the "drama".
Same credit rating safeguards, pay and promotion opportunities as married, especially since everyone thinks we should work all the holidays, etc.
Treat everyone equally. . .the 14th amendment gives us this right and it should be respected.

Attenuation of effect
--
I had once been a bit curious about why every recent election cycle has included - in one way or another - some element related to the awful-horrible-nasty subject of same-sex marriage and how this somehow imperils America's kids, especially since it's bound to get into the "public school" educationalist gulag....

And then I realized. It's the Rockefeller Republicans' standard ploy to "panic the animals."

Y'see, the East Coast "establishment" that runs the GOP (remember, folks, Dubbya was born in Connecticut, educated in Andover and New Haven, and took his MBA at the Cambridge campus of Patrice Lumumba University [AKA Harvard]; he's about as truly "Texican" as Pierre Trudeau) has nothing but contempt for the religious "social" pseudoconservatives who first returned to national political prominence with the 1976 campaign of socialist Jesus-freak Jimmy Carter.

(( That's why you sanctimoniously stupid schmucks have gotten plenty of tongue from the Republicans, but every time they've had as much as they want from you - your money and your votes - you find yourselves walking out into the cold with a roaring case of blue-balls. ))

And here we are, the fellahin in homosexual panic yet again, with the kind of predictablity you expect to see in herd animals.

The politely euphemistic term is "mobilizing the base" -

(( though "base" can be used here most appropriatley in the sense of "low; despicable; ignoble" ))

- but I prefer to think of it as "cattle-prodding the doggies."

More Texican, don'tcha think?

As the manipulators use it more and more, the effect seems to be wearing down.

Used to be you could get these clowns up and frothing like galvanized weasels.

Now they seem to be going through the motions like decrepit dairy cows.

November 4th is milking day, Bossie.

Looks like udder failure for you, though.

--

Opting out
Parents have an easy, effective "Opt Out" option, in case they are too fearful that their little ones might catch gay.

PS: If the Pro-8 folks are so great, why do they have such slimeballs bankrolling their efforts?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/1 0/the-blackwater.html

bigotry
How is it not bigotry to deny an entire group of people equal rights?

We won't have hate speech laws in America because we vigilantly protect speech, even hate speech.

Churches won't have to marry gays. Gays will have civil marriages or will go to gay affirming churches to get married.

Of course doctors will not be able to deny care to gays and businesses will not be able to deny service to gays.

Just like businesses are not allowed to deny services to Blacks or any other minority group.


These bigoted views,
based in fear and hate, are part of why the GOP is in such dire straits these days. Can you imagine the parent of a gay child trying to teach them that homosexuality is bad?? I think it's funny that right wingnuts talk about homosexuality like it's a communicable disease and golly, if only we could eradicate it LOL. Weird.

AL Mom says:
"Right up until a gay couple wants to be "married" in my Church. Then our religion will be forced to recognize it, because if we don't we will be sued."
---------------------------------------
I would really like to see you back that up with anything even resembling a valid argument.

Michael - Selling socialism?
--
Michael - obviously one of these left-wing "command economy" pinkshirted Stosstruppen-fur-Sexualitat types - doesn't *quite* seem to realize that he's sounding a note of discord when he writes:

"Of course doctors will not be able to deny care to gays and businesses will not be able to deny service to gays."


Okay, here's where the so-called "civil rights" campaigners go off the friggin' edge.

Michael, think just a minute about what civil rights really are.

Do private individuals have the *ability* to violate your civil rights?

[ Pause for reflection. ]

You run a lunch counter. You've put up a sign reading: "No People Wearing Ku Klux Klan Robes Permitted."

You don't want them in your establishment, even decked out in their cleanest and spiffiest cotton percale.

Hey, it's your business establishment, right?

Ah, but you're "violating their civil rights," aren't you?


Actually, no.

Only government officers can violate a private individual's civil rights.

And except in emergencies, us doctors have a perfect right - in some cases even a painful duty - to deny care to patients on a number of bases, not least of which is our personal judgment of our ability to establish and sustain a proper physician-patient relationship with the individual(s) in question.

"Civil rights" is not a concept under which you can enslave people, Michael.

It's a control on government, not on us private citizens.

--

camanintx: What? AL Mom is right...

That's the way things are headed...

You might want to take a "listen" to this audio..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdXfwaf2ncs

Seems that Mark Warner, while addressing a group of his LIBERAL FRIENDS, (apparently not knowing that his talk was being taped!) warned that the "Christian coalition, NRA, and homeschooling" were UN-AMERICAN!

Typical liberal agenda, but in case you haven't noticed, CHOICE of and freedom to PRACTICE one's faith, owning a firearm, AND schooling one's children as one chooses, is VERY AMERICAN!

Churches cannot be forced to marry gays
I'm not sure where you people are getting the idea that churches are somehow going to be forced to officiate over gay weddings if said church does not recognize gay unions.

The government cannot force a church to perform an action that goes against its beliefs. That's the other side of the separation of church and state.

Anyway, why would a gay couple belong to a church that demonizes gay people?! That makes no sense. It's like a black guy wanting to join the KKK.

Childern are apart of the family
The family as a whole usually include childern.Childern goes to school. Marriage and the definition would effect a child in a home. Childern in disruptive homes tend to have less rest and usually are not mentally alert. Lets add a new factor to this equation parent homosexual marriage. Mental stress, the fact of a single sex parental guidance. There is no bonding of two different parental figures: one man /one woman. Limited knowledge of the world just as with a single parent. The schools are affected when students do not attend class, drop rate among single parent houshold is higher than one man/one woman married households.

Donovan: As of NOW! But with Marxist

Obama's agenda, one never knows.

Take a look at the link....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdXfwaf2ncs

Mark Warner says the "Christian coalition" is UN-American.

What part of that don't you understand?????

Donovan - Provocation
--
"Anyway, why would a gay couple belong to a church that demonizes gay people?! That makes no sense. It's like a black guy wanting to join the KKK."


Whoa! Just got a flashback on a scene from *Blazing Saddles*. "And now, for my next impression, Jesse Owens."

Back to why "a gay couple" might make an issue of getting hitched in a tax-exempt snakepit (perhaps even literally) of religious homophobia....

Look, Donovan, you know that the militant faigelen are - for the greatest part - not really interested in helping the very, very small minority of genuinely maritally-interested gay men and women simply get hitched.

The obvious objective really *IS* to use this loudly contumaceous issue as a way of rallying support (including wads of cash) for their overall purpose, which amounts to nothing more or less than using government to shove themselves into greater material advantage in terms of employment quotas and suchlike.

That and the typical "Liberal" need for ego-stroking by way of widespread approval for their plucky, "courageous" stand against blatant religious bigots like Star Parker.

(( Ooh, a double minority public posturer being called a "bigot!" How politically incorrect! ))

The light-in-the-loafers crowd *IS* going to try this force-it-down-the-religionists-throats line of attack eventually.

When that time comes, we're going to have to fight *that* violation of civil rights every bit as hard as we're fighting "Proposition 8" right now.

For the same reason.




=====
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

-- Thomas Jefferson

SJ Doc
I guess I kinda see what you mean, but I don't see how in a million years a court of law would grant legal standing to anyone who tried to sue in order to force a non-gay church to marry them.

The judge in such a case would just say, "There are plenty of churches that marry gay people. Find one. Case dismissed."

Also, if such a case actually had legal standing, imagine who else would try to sue. People could claim discrimination because Christian churches don't perform Jewish weddings or Muslim weddings or Scientologist weddings or Mormon funerals or Neo-Pagan baptisms...or a host of other ceremonies that don't line up with the beliefs of a particular church.

I really don't, in a million years, see the government trying to "legislate" religion. It simply wouldn't work.

Patrick - If your purpose...
--
...is using government power (specifically crap like "Proposition 8") to somehow improve the overall American home environment for children -
(( a task that neither the state nor the federal governments are by law authorized to undertake, nor one that either intrinsically or by past history is there any indication that these governments *can* undertake to any outcomes describable even charitably as other than "catastrophically godawful" ))

- you're not only barking up the wrong tree, but barking looney.

Nonetheless, Patrick posts:

"Lets add a new factor to this equation parent homosexual marriage. Mental stress, the fact of a single sex parental guidance. There is no bonding of two different parental figures: one man /one woman."


Hm. There's plenty in the medical and counseling literature about how marital stresses in child-raising heterosexual households are increasing in prevalence as the "Generation X" kids have gotten into their third and fourth decades of life, especially with the inexorably worsening economic circumstances grinding down on these badly-educated, low-intellectual-resource victims of the government's "schooling" systems.

The "one man /one woman" relationship, Patrick, is *NOT* a guarantee of a nurturing home environment for children, nor is the single-parent or the "Heather Has Two Mommies" set-up a necessarily pernicious situation in which a kid can get raised.

Better by far than foster care.

Until us straight people show that we really *can* do this "bonding" thing properly (and lately, our child-rearing cadre is screwing it up handsomely), I think we'd better set aside the critique of homoexual parents.

Glass houses, y'know.

So put down the friggin' brick, okay?

--

Donovan - Venue shopping
--
Apparently never having watched members of the Plaintiff's Bar scouting every county in the nation to pick the battlegrounds they can best perpetrate the rape and pillage of their victims, Donovan writes:

"...I don't see how in a million years a court of law would grant legal standing to anyone who tried to sue in order to force a non-gay church to marry them."


Donovan, the militant faigelen can and will *find* a judge who will *NOT* chuck them out of court.

And the way precedent (case) law works in this country, all they have to do is win *ONCE* to get the sort of "stare decisis" they can leverage.


Your extension about ecumenism-at-government-gunpoint is pretty nice, though. I figure it could happen, too, but I'd have no personal objection to it. Back at the time of Vatican II, the running joke in our diocese was that we should all park our cars on Sunday mornings facing toward Mecca.

Wouldn't you just *LOVE* watching an apoplectic Saudi-trained Wahhabist mullah teetering on the edge of a hemorrhagic stroke as a Torah is being carried around - by shoe-wearing Orthodox rabbis - in *his* mosque?

For this sort of thing, I'd concede the use of my parish church to a bunch of Wiccans who want to celebrate the Goddess "skyclad" any time they like.

Especially in winter. We never can keep the heating system going worth a damn....




=====
"A man must be excessively stupid, as well as uncharitable, who believes there is no virtue but on his own side."

-- Joseph Addison

What screwed up logic is this?
So Star Parker wants to "protect" children by removing a tool of stability from same-sex parents that would offer children better protection?

eddie too
I went to the office of the Secretary of State to pick up a license to practice 'human coitus' but they said they couldn't help. Do I have to go the DMV for that? And does my partner need a license also?

SJ Doc
Church's turned down marrying couples all the time. Church's won't marry you for all sorts of reasons. The Catholic church won't marry you if you have are divorced (although pay em enough money then they will). That has always been the church's prerogative. So all you are doing is fear mongering. Granting same sex couples the ability to marry and protect their families doesn't impact your church or your marriage in anyway.

freedom
Some churches won't marry couples if one of them is not a Christian.

Legalizing gay marriages won't force churches to marry gays.

Why are so many of our fellow evangelicals lying about this issue by saying that gay marriage will destroy religious freedoms and parental rights?

Isn't lying a sin as well?

They make disingenuous comparisons to countries that don't have the level of freedom of speech and freedom of religion that we do.


Traditional Marriage
What happened to freedom of choice in not interacting with someone or something that is repugnant to them? Homosexuality is an aberration of nature and unacceptable deviate behavior in civilized society. I believe in "live and let live" but those kinds of unions should always end in extinction of that line (no progeny). By bastardizing the system that protects civil society from deviate behavior we are embarked on an ugly debasing of what humanity is about: Families (naturally derived) and the continuation of the human race with some semblance of sanity. More and more these deviants are trying to push their agenda on malleable children…that’s totally unacceptable! What’s next…legitimizing bestiality and recognizing marriage between a human and their pet? This is getting so out of the realm of common moral sense and plain disgusting.

AL Mom
"So now I am a bigot because I argue against forcing churches to accept gay marriage."

Exactly how are churches or synagogues (or mosques for that matter) forced to accept anything? That's just more hyperbole.

The problem here is that the proponents of 8 have failed to find a coherent or logical argument. I have written considerably more on this issue here:

http://www.tips-q.com/content/proposition-hate-final-analys is

yoshi,

so you think same-sex sodomy provides the same benefits to society as does human coitus?

Sounds like an argument made by people who have stopped thinking and only feel.

With all of your wisdom and knowledge how about telling me the great benefits society receives from men dipping their sexual organs into a canal filled with feces. Explain why such actions should be recognized and legitimized as is human coitus is by traditional marriage. Take your time and try to fashion your best argument.

My guess is you will avoid answering my questions by either setting up a straw man argument or changing the subject.

I await your answers to my questions.

yoshi - I'm mongering?
--
Apparently not having read my earlier posts, yoshi objects:

"So all you are doing is fear mongering. Granting same sex couples the ability to marry and protect their families doesn't impact your church or your marriage in anyway."


You betcha it doesn't. Like Andy Dufresne at Shawshank, I'm in for life.

(( Though I'd be deeply appreciative if none of you would drop any hints to my wife about what might be found behind that Masonite panel in the basement workshop; I got through the cinderblock foundation several years ago, and I'm halfway across the front lawn; smuggling in shoring materials has been a real booger. ))

It's not "fear mongering," however, to point out a very real potentiality if the militant faigelen pursue their purposes, as simple experience with these specimens gives us cause to expect.

I oppose "Proposition Hate" (from the remote fastnesses of the Jersey Pine Barrens) for precisely the same reason that I look askance - if humorously - on the prospect of churches being obliged by government goons to accept gunsel-to-gunsel wedding ceremonies at their transepts.

Admittedly, defending True Believer religionists is uncomfortably akin to expressing sympathy for sheep-schtuppers (such ba-a-ad people), but sound moral principles necessitate the defense even of our enemies, if only to maintain our integrity.




=====
"I made a comparison at table some time since, which has often been quoted, and received many compliments. It was that of the mind of a bigot to the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour on it, the more it contracts."

-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

intercourse.
I'm a straight male who does not practice anal intercourse with female partners but I'm educated enough to know that feces isn't stored in the rectum but passes through it.

I'm sure that gay or straight people who have anal intercourse make sure that they have emptied out and cleaned themselves first.

I'm also sure that not all gays have anal intercourse. They have other options like hand stimulation, oral sex, and humping each other.


nature
Homosexuality actually does occur naturally in the animal kingdom..

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

Homosexuality has been documented in over 1,500 different species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722 _gayanimal.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

There are even homosexual penguins that have been documented pair bonding for 6 years, having sex, and raising orphan baby penguins.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07 /MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

Educate yourselves, people!

Eddie too
>>so you think same-sex sodomy provides the same benefits to society as does human coitus?

"Sodomy" is a scriptural description - one that is not universally accepted. You are also begging the question. The neutral question would be "does same-sex marriage provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriage?"

I certainly think so. I serve on a number of corporate boards. My partner is a senior level media executive. Together, we do a number of really good things for ourselves and for our community. We're a tad past our prime now but we could have - would have - been terrific adoptive parents. Any schmuck can make a baby. Adopting a child is a far more deliberative act.

Then you go into the dissertation on sexuality that not only begs the question but is entirely irrelevant. How we have sex is unrelated to whether or not we should be allowed to marry. Nice try though.


eddie too - On the benefits of sodomy
--
Utterly without the humor it *really* deserves, eddie too writes:

"so you think same-sex sodomy provides the same benefits to society as does human coitus?"


Perhaps even more. Have you noticed, eddie, how municipalities really *love* these "seniors-only" housing developments?

D'ya know why?

Those of us in our fifties and older tend very reliably *NOT* to have children or other dependents in their first or second decades of life living with us.

To a municipal school system, rateable residential properties are more welcome if they come without any chance of imposing greater costs upon the principal slough of despond with which the governing politicians have to contend.

That's the local "public education" boondoggle's overwhelming, horrible, flesh-eating bacterial budget.

Inasmuch as "sodomy" (of any sort, including not only men-having-sex-with-men [MSM] anal coition) is by definition not fecundative, I should think that "society" - as instantiated in the malevolent jobholders infesting City Hall - would view it as conferring *GREATER* "benefits" than does heterosexual man-on-top-woman-thinking-of-England humping.

The faigelen are viewed as taxpaying suckers - er, citizens - who come into the community as profitable contributors while much less likely to spawn spratlings who will cost the municipality eight to twelve thousands of dollars per year to shove down the gaping maw of the "public education" python.

"Take your time and try to fashion your best argument" against this line of reasoning, won'tcha?

--

Where Would Goldwater Be on 8?
The GOP needs to get a Gett from the Christian Right. Goldwater was pro-choice and ultimately supported gays serving openly in the military. You might recall his great line "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

I suspect that he would have seen P-8 as government intrusion and, thus, he would have been in opposition.

TRUE conservatism would have NEVER permitted this intermingling of church and state. Imposing religious "values" on others seems terribly misguided.

eddie too & Michael - On dipping
--
Stressing the "ickyness" message, eddie too writes in revulsion about:

"...men dipping their sexual organs into a canal filled with feces."


To which Michael responds:

"I'm educated enough to know that feces isn't stored in the rectum but passes through it."


Sorry, Michael, but both you *and* eddie are wrong.

First, the rectal ampulla - well within reach of the inserted finger on digital rectal examination (DRE) - is commonly found to have stool content. Part of the purpose of DRE is to harvest a small sample of that stool to be tested for occult blood.

Second, the bacterial colonization of that stool is arguably *less* hazardous to the male genitourinary tract in terms of infective risk than are the pathogens - viral, bacterial, and parasitic - which can be found colonizing or infecting the vaginal introitus and fornix.


In truth, there is no medical argument against "sodomy" that can't to some extent be made against vaginal coitus, even though the rectal mucosa is thinner and more readily subject to traumatic injury than is the robustly rugated and squamously epithelialized mucosa of the mature vagina.

That line of argument really isn't worth pursuing, people.

Stick to what you know.

--

Fabius Cunctator's A Moron
"Only through normal male with female sexual intercourse can this psychological satisfaction be achieved. This is a known fact by psychologists and psychiatrists."

This is an outright lie. Utter nonsense. Psychiatrists and psychologists know no such thing.

"Homosexuality is a male to female personality inversion; a physical male has a feminine personality, or a physical female has a masculine personality."

You must be one of those stereotyping fools who think that every gay man is a limp-wristed prancing fashion queen, or that every lesbian is a Birkenstock-wearing future trucker. Walk into a gay bar on Bear Night or a leather bar, find the biggest, burliest guy in the place, and tell him you think he has a "feminine personality".

Be sure that your medical insurance is paid up before you attempt this, however.

David,

if it were about men living together without engaging in sodomy, there would be no push for marriage. Many people have roommates of the same sex.

Society is not repulsed by men loving men and women loving women. Yet you write as though that is what people are opposing when they oppose the government equating acts of same-sex sodomy to those of human coitus.

All those positive attributes you wrote of are present in any adult relationship of good will. Same-sex sodomy is not a prerequisite for people to do good acts. That is the most absurd statement yet written on this subject.

People are repulsed by the idea that the government should equate same-sex sodomy with human coitus. The idea is irrational and there is no logical defense of it.

Flamius
In your 4:42 post you claim : "Only through normal male with female sexual intercourse can this psychological satisfaction be achieved. This is a known fact by psychologists and psychiatrists."

You posted the same unsubstantiated claims in another thread and when asked tio provide evidence, you simply shifted to this thread and posted it again.

On Warty-wiener's handle
--
The readers on this thread are probably unaware of the significance of the "Fabius Cunctator" nickname chosen by this religious idiot.

A little history lesson.

Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus - late in life and later in history called Cunctator ("the Delayer") - was a Roman aristocrat, politician, and general who was selected dictator during a portion of the Second Punic War, when the Carthaginian army of Hannibal Barca had come down actross the Alps into Italia and chopped up a couple of the Republic's armies pretty horribly at the Trebbia and Lake Trasimene.

Quintus Fabius came to the top spot in the Republic knowing that it was bloody futility to put another army into a straight-up battle against Hannibal and his trained killers, and so he pursued a strategy of evasion, harrassment, and attrition as the enemy stomped all over Italia pretty much at will.

The nickname Q. Fabius earned thereby from the Romans (patricians and plebs alike) was "Cunctator." A term of derision.

His *real* nickname - his official cognomen - was actually "Verrucosus."

It means "Warty."

Q. Fabius had a prominent verrucca vulgaris above his lip. Apparently a pretty big honker, too. Since childhood, therefore, he'd been known to one and all as "Warty."

No big deal for a real Roman aristocrat, but stressing the *correct* cognomen for our own contemporary blithering religionist - Warty-pizzle - just seems to drive this insect up the wall and across the ceiling.

You folks might want to know that.




=====
"I know a good many people, I think, who are bigots, and who know they are bigots, and are sorry for it, but they dare not be anything else."

-- Edwin Hubbell Chapin

eddie too - How is a defense needed?
--
On the subject of popular prejudices, eddie too makes a valid point:

"People are repulsed by the idea that the government should equate same-sex sodomy with human coitus. The idea is irrational and there is no logical defense of it."


There's a whole helluva lot that's blatantly "irrational" and government has made such the cornerstone of policy.

Look at the Federal Reserve System, for example. Counterfeiting - the issue of unbacked fiat currency a la the Weimar Republic's memorable "take-your-day's-pay-home-in-a-wheelbarrow" magnificence - is the most irrational goddamned thing any government could possibly do, and yet the Fed has been spewing this crap all *your* life (and mine as well).

There is nothing too "irrational" to be foisted upon the American people by their government.


But as for how government might (or might not) "equate equate same-sex sodomy with [vaginal] coitus" -

(( eddie, *all* forms of coitus in which human beings can engage is "human coitus;" when you mean "immisso-[schlong]-in-vagina" coitus, you should simply write "vaginal coitus" and people will get your drift ))

- how do you conjecture that it would *MEAN* anything?

Childbearing - the getting and birthing and raising of new taxpayers to the glory of Holy Government - is certainly something to which the malevolent jobholders in public office must properly pay some attention, but what the hell gives you to believe that (even in Georgia, where the cops come courteously into your bedroom to serve a littering citation and incidentally catch you in an "unnatural" act) there is anything conducive to the benefit of society in the lictors policing the sexual practices of consenting adults in the privacy of their homes?

Properly, people are repulsed by the idea of government.

Full stop.

--

Fabius -- Ooh, it's ''axiomatic!''
--
Look, boys and girls, Warty-knuckles has just used another word the definition of which he doesn't know.

Shall we all point Warty-boojum to online dictionaries?


As for Warty-butt "providing information" to *ANYBODY* at *ANY* time on *ANY* thread....

Never done it, won't do it, *CAN'T* do it.

Cut-and-paste from NARTH and similar "cargo cult" pseudoscience religionist Web sites, sure, but factual support for his free-floating faith-based fatuities?

Har-de-har-har!




=====
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

-- Susan B. Anthony

Fabius, this is the *THIRD* time...
--
...you'e cut-and-pasted this same "Anecdotal" bilge.

Wouldn'tcha think that if everybody blew you off the first two times, the third *wouldn't* be the charm?

Gawd, Warty-nookums, how hard do you really want to prove what a flaming cement-head you are?

You've got the job done, son. You can slack off now. Get up, go to the bathroom, change your diaper, chase your Haldol with a long drink of water, and think about telling the NP nurse practitioner that you might need another dose adjustment when you next comply with your probation terms' requirement for those regular clinic visits.




=====
"Instead of holding on to the Biblical view that we are made in the image of God, we come to realize that we are made in the image of the monkey..."

-- Lin Yutang

Re: AL Mom/45caliber
AL MOM says "Right up until a gay couple wants to be "married" in my Church. Then our religion will be forced to recognize it, because if we don't we will be sued."

That's simply not true. Legalizing gay marriage does not force any church to recognize it.

"And if I am a photographer and don't want to take pictures for a gay "wedding," I will be sued."

Again, not true. No one would force you to take any job you don't want.

45caliber says "Then how come many of the gay people says that their ultimate goal is to force religions to change to recognize homosexuals as normal and not a sin in their religions?"

What do you base that on? Surveys? News reports? I don't believe that for a second. In any case, what does that have to do with legalizing gay marriage? Legalizing gay marriage will not force religions into recognizing it nor will it force religions to participate in gay weddings.

"A civil union is regulated by the government. A marriage is a religious institute. If you ONLY want a civil issue solved then a civil union does it. Attacking marriages interfers with religion, not civil unions."

If the government called marriage a "civil union" I would agree with you. But, it doesn't. The government refers to it as a marriage. This is NOT an attack on marriage. It does not interfere with religion. Why would you care if two people who love each other want to get married? I still don't understand how this affects you?


The word is secular now
Once a term becomes a government-recognized legal status, as marriage has, churches lose claim to it. There is NO secular reason whatsoever to deny the term and its legal benefits to consenting adults.

The sanctity of my marriage is between me and my wife. Two guys marrying has no impact on it. If your marriage is impacted, you have other problems already.

And hands off the Constitution. It's there to restrict the government, not the people.

this article
well i don't really give a crap about this article and i think that marriage should be between two people that love eachother. so gays lesbos and strrait people can get marriage if they want.

this article
well i don't really give a crap about this article and i think that marriage should be between two people that love eachother. so gays lesbos and strrait people can get marriage if they want.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.