Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Why Not Gay Marriage Anyway?

A Blogger: To say that this [gay marriage and/or domestic partnership] would not help in sustaining relationships does not seem credible. Even if interest in monogamy is less in the gay community, the burden of canceling a legal agreement is much higher than when one would just be shacking up. More monogamy would be a plus for the gay community. Second, you seemed to ignore the impact on the children that gay people are going to create or adopt. Civil unions would undoubtedly be better as two parents are generally better than one.

Again, there are other contractual ways for gays to get most of what they want from each other in the event of separation, hospitalization, death, inheritance, etc. If they don’t get certain tax breaks, too bad and why should they? They can’t create children together and they don't role-model to youth the potentially pro-creative couple (man with woman.) They usually have a higher income than average. They have chosen their unnatural lifestyle –we shouldn’t have to subsidize or legalize it–even if they are victims of external influences on their gender identity and orientation.

I don’t think marriage and written agreement will incline the homosexuals toward monogamy OR long-lasting relationships –because it IS possible to have these without marriage ceremony and contract, and they don’t. The ceremony doesn’t keep the promiscuous together. These are not “natural” couplings, i.e. “according to biological nature.” They typically lack the glues of life-time commitment: child-making, child-rearing, grandparenting, better mental and economic stability. (Granted, science steps forward --more and more at our expense--to help them do the unnatural.)

At some point, even before they are really “old,” the males may find anal sex injurious and impossible in old age. Hence, the 50% rate of single gays (males) between ages 50–70. After all, without sex, who needs to live with some aging, crotchety partner in a lifestyle that is born of idolizing youth and beauty?

Proponents of homosexuality like to point out other methods of reproduction in the bio-world and the occasional confused animals who may partner homosexually (very, very rare, I believe) — but it is clear in our human bio-design, that we are to have sex with the opposite sex only –we are designed for it and this is the way we make babies and perpetuate the human race. These are the couples that can truly experience “perma-bond-ability.”

Heterosexuals are the ones who role model both masculinity and femininity to children –giving them what they deserve and need for their OWN normal sexual identity and orientation.

  • The daughters of single teen mothers are over 90 percent likely to follow mom’s pattern.
  • The children of divorce are over 90 percent likely to follow parental pattern.
  • The unmarried baby-daddy/baby mama phenomenon in black community is epidemic.
  • The children of functional hetero-parented homes who make life-time marriage and family life enjoyable tend to see their children follow in their footsteps.
  • It’s logical, therefore, to expect that homosexual homes will produce more bisexuals, homosexuals, sexually experimental, gender insecure youth.

And it’s also true that dysfunctional married heteros reproduce their dysfunctions in their kids –and disillusion youth about marriage. The increase in numbers of homosexuals can be attributed in part (not always) to the breakdown of heterosexual marriages, the poor examples set by hetero couples whose homes were full of quarrels, temper, apparent lack of love on a daily basis.

Homosexuals want to do “it” differently and start out with idolatry toward the beautiful of their own sex and fantasizing about really close relations with the admired (this latter is also a typical stage of child development) — they also typically manifest some gender identification confusion –usually influenced unconsciously by parents –often (not always) by a lack of functional normal loving parents of both sexes –and then by peers –and sometimes by older molesters who seek out the fatherless males. If the kids get into sexual activities with their own sex, they can get fixated there –arrested development and a gay self-image. Especially with schools, media and law saying gay marriage is as good as straight and that “some of you are inevitably born gay.” It also doesn’t help late bloomers or effeminate boys or tomboy girls to be bullied and forced to wonder if they are abnormal –that just reinforces their gender insecurity.

Parents are role models. If they started to have sex promiscuously with their own sex, where is their moral authority to raise kids who are straight, abstinent and then married and monogamous? No moral authority –zip –nada. Because one doesn’t usually decide he is gay by living a celibate life abstaining until marriage. Instead, a typical homosexual has risked all sorts of diseases –especially males–and has a lot of mental disarray on the way to “partnership” because (I think) one probably can’t feel really good about crossing God’s design as they do.

Peace, joy, contentment don’t come to those in bed with people of the same sex –nor other people’s spouses, nor with bio– members of one’s own family, nor to pedophiles — And not to anyone, straight or gay, who is out of sync with their Creator in general. Hence, so much depression, dissatisfaction, misery, addiction, dysfunction and divorce in the world.

In the recent UCLA Center for Health Policy and Research report on health of older homosexuals, there is high self-reporting of poor health, both physically and mentally, among older homosexuals. They are more apt to be alone in ages 50-70, lacking both partners and children to care for them. We really don't have any reason to think that gay marriage can change the essential nature of this condition.

As for the impact on the children in gay-parented homes –I surely do not ignore that, as charged in the above blogger quote.
1. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt –considering straight couples abound who want children.
2. those who oppose gay marriage do not want their children to see gay coupling as normal and as an equally happy life-partner choice –because it isn’t. Who would desire this for their own children?
3. Children deserve to have both mother and father when possible.

Consider the case of one Rosie O’Donell–whose little boy, according to her, said, “I want a Daddy!” And she unsympathetically explained to him that he wasn’t going to have a daddy since his mommies were lesbians. How sad for a boy trying to become a man with a house full of ladies! And yes, single parenting happens in a high percentage of straight homes, too -–but the bio-dad will at least have a better chance to visit and influence his son–and get custody of him in case something does happen to the single or married birth mother. Pity the boy left with his usually mannish, lesbian, non-birth mommy and never having access to his bio-father –except by expensive legal arrangements benefiting only the attorneys.

Unfortunately, Rosie and her partner adopted that little boy–and he was denied a daddy because of their selfishness and the fact that they DECIDED a father wasn’t important to a child. And now the 2 women are “divorced.”

There is an additional complication for the children in gay-parented homes — they are already children of divorce or the unmarried. The birth parent in the couple was either divorced or abandoned by the other party. The male couples typically would adopt if they wanted children, not able to get custody of their bio-children (I'm assuming courts favor the mother when her husband decides to divorce because he’s gay. If the children are at troublesome ages (when aren't they?) I suspect most gay men prefer the mothers, their ex-wives, to have the custody, and it is surely better for the children, than to ponder and find out what their two dads do together in the bedroom.)

When the lesbian couple has children, one parent is usually the birth mother divorced or never married to the child’s father. This makes a mess for a father who wants to stay involved in his child’s life when that child is in a lesbian home. It will be harder to protect his son from homosexuality and gender insecurity/confusion.

There surely were straight couples willing to adopt Rosie’s little boy to give him both a daddy and mommy–as it is very hard for the straight couples to find infants in the US to adopt and foreign countries don’t make adoption easy, either. And now the gays are competing for those children on an equal basis with straight couples –as in England and one of our US states (if memory serves me) where Catholic adoption closed down rather than be forced by law to give children to gay couples.

The work for attorneys will never end, dealing with homosexual couples, their adoptions and divorces and custody battles. Because homosexual couples are INHERENTLY less stable, less capable of perma-bond, than straights –and this will affect all their children adversely –and a higher percentage of their kids will sex-periment with bisexuality and homosexuality. Their parents will give them the same license to sex-periment which they gave themselves.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for lesbian and gay parents who want to be favored in custody over the other bio-parent.

This whole national issue is one big can of worms. Polygamists will have no reason to be denied legal marriage–even though most men can’t afford multiple families without the help of the gov’t.

See my blog report about Andrew Solomon's modern family:

His is an example of the educated, “enlightened” MODERN family –the most complicated family tree ever. It will be interesting, and probably sad, to see how these children do in adulthood. I’m predicting, sadly, that they are just as “at risk” for various problems as the financially disadvantaged children born to the single moms –who make up most of the jail population, incidentally.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

No comments: