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: http://thebarbwire.blogspot.com/2011/02/andrew-solomons-modern-family.html

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

Discussing Gay Marriage and Transgendering

I've been busy at a really fine blog where the people don't resort to spamming and ad hominem attack like some people we know. Here's a discussion from that blog.

A Blogger: How, exactly, does a woman marrying another woman affect the needs of children?

By denying the child a father in the home who models the love of a man for a wife and family. The boy child is denied daily access to the one who should be his primary role model, affirming his own masculinity. The girl child is denied the love of a daddy who makes her feel feminine. Both may crave male love and one doctor’s article in Human Sexuality magazine –out of print now –drug companies published it for doctors –the doctor wrote that in his clinical experience, children denied a father tend to have what he called “male hunger” and become promiscuous with men.

A Blogger: Maybe, but are you going to then prohibit divorce or single parenthood because it doesn’t match some standard of “optimal?” Be consistent, or admit you don’t have an argument here.

So because divorce and single parenthood are on average not the
optimal situations for children, we should advance other parenting arrangements legally which we already know are not optimal –because the optimal is providing children with both their mothers and fathers? I have an argument. You are the one who does not. There is no reason to create a new form of “marriage” that has the denial of both parents for children built into the definition.


Later:
A Blogger: Who conducted these “studies?” When? What was the methodology? How much “earlier?”

Check out NARTH and Family Research Institute. I know all about FRI’s PC-discredited psychologists –but there is no legitimate criticism of their methods; they are published in peer-reviewed journals –and they often cite other people’s studies --which people have not been "discredited" by homosexuality defenders. [People can draw different conclusions from the same studies, you know.]

Two former presidents of the APA are in NARTH and complained that the APA was taking stands politically without valid research –when they claimed it was WRONG to counsel gays who wanted to be straight, wrong to suggest homosexuality was a mental illness, wrong to believe and affirm those who say they became straight. At least half the psychs in the country disagreed with the conclusions of the APA which had to back down eventually and admit they at least could not say homosexuality had a biological cause/ genetic or congenital--which I believe they had previously, erroneously stated. So now they say they don’t know what causes it. But there are many psychs who can point to environmental causes in the gay patients –and I can in my gay acquaintances.

You won’t consult NARTH or FRI because you don’t want to hear what they have to say, as your mind is made up. Granted, mine is too –but there are some good articles and research reported at NARTH. They haven’t really been discredited by the APA as you claimed. They are the ones who, with past APA presidents, cast doubt on the integrity of the APA –which did not have a vote of membership supporting their gay agenda and agreeing with them that homosexual orientation was not a mental illness.

A Blogger: So this is about “modeling the procreative unit of bio-design?” How are they doing that if they’re not procreating?

By being a man and a woman married, that’s how. Like Mommy and Daddy –even if they are NOT a mommy and daddy for reasons unknown to the child. IS that so hard to understand? They are role-modeling the normal marital unit of man with wife and it's nobody's business why they do not have children. I’ve already said that marriage is not just for procreation –but it is for a man and a woman and THEIR one-flesh union, THEIR intimacy, THEIR sexual design. (The Bible says God made Eve, not for procreation, but as a helpmeet fitting for him, a companion.)

There is nothing I want to see role modeled for youth about the unnatural couplings of same sex partners. Their relationships are a poor substitute for the real thing and we shouldn’t encourage the notion that it’s normal, equal to, just as good as, functional hetero marriage. It is high risk perversion.

A blogger: Same-sex relationships are not evidence of mental illness: this is the conclusion of real scientists with real degrees in relevant fields doing real research.

And there are scientists –maybe MORE scientists–who disagree with their conclusions. I know that Johns Hopkins won’t do transgender surgery any more.

From Wikipedia: “In 1979, when Paul McHugh became chairperson of the psychiatric department at Johns Hopkins, he ordered the department to conduct follow-up evaluations on as many of their former transsexual patients as possible. When the follow-ups were performed, they found that most of the patients stated that they were happy as members of their target sex, but that their overall level of psychological functioning had not improved. McHugh reasoned that to perform physical gender reassignment was to ‘cooperate with a mental illness rather than try to cure it.’ At that time, Johns Hopkins closed its gender clinic and has not performed any sex reassignment surgeries since then.”

I know you will say transgendering isn’t the same issue –but it is a gender and orientation issue. It is dissatisfaction with the role and purpose of one’s body –when the gay person chooses to couple in strange and risky ways with people of his own sex. So if it’s mental illness on the part of the transgender, it is mental illness for the homosexual. And the bi-sexuals are just plainly indiscriminate seekers of orgasms. All 3 have a quirk in the works between the ears which some of us would also call our sin nature. They deserve compassion, counsel, tolerance [for their co-existance and freedom of association in a free society.] and they deserve study and help–but not the advancement of their strangeness as something positive for youth to explore.

You talked about the value of pre-marital sex so people can find out which way they swing. If they never have orgasm with the opposite sex, I doubt very much they are going to think they swing that way. I think the activity (even via molestation) often reinforces the gender identity problem. I see you have no guilt for any fornication in your life, from what you said, but many people will have regrets –maybe women more than men –and wish they had come to their marriages virginal and without disease or memories of sex with others.

A blogger said: Given that pretty much everyone feels different and out of place at some point during adolescence, I think it unlikely that this is what causes homosexuality.

Exactly –pretty much everyone feels different and out of place during adolescence. Thus, our advice to youth should be that they need to wait until they get well into their 20’s if they are having doubts about their sexuality and gender and especially desires to transgender. And give their bodies and social selves some time to mature. We ought not be pushing them by condoning sexploration, suggesting they MIGHT be gay or "in the wrong body" and should check it out –like the Boston Sex Ed Conference would advocate. That’s just so wrong.

A Blogger: Here you go again, assuming that it needs to be “remedied,” when there is no actual scientific basis for that.

Yes, it needs to be remedied. Homosexuals are unfortunate in their orientation. There is nothing good about it. It's a highly promiscuous lifestyle for young people. They CAN make children but they don’t want to do what is needed to make children. They have some kind of mental aversion to the opposite sex. This is unfortunate because they cannot start a family even if they want to –by any normal means –and give the child both its mother and father. If they don’t bear children they have no one to care for them in older age and in fact, impose a burden on nieces and nephews or strangers and Uncle Sam –to care for them in old age. Granted a lot of dysfunctional heteros do the same thing. but we aren’t celebrating their acquired dysfunction–you want us to create and encourage homosexuality which has dysfunctionality for family and childlessness built in.

A Blogger: correlation does not equal causation.

Not always–but sometimes. If you find that a majority of homosexuals had certain common experiences not shared by most heterosexuals, it might mean something.

It really isn’t rocket science to KNOW that certain parents are wacky enough to have caused gender identity disorder in a child–or cause hunger for intimacy with the same sex because they denied it –or cause revulsion for the opposite sex by their behaviors. And then there are those kids who are just odd and get labeled gay for it–and begin to wonder if they might be gay. Today we see more and more kids identifying as gay, even from apparently solid 2-parent homes. When this happens, it is likely part of their adolescent rebellion --like those who embraced being hippies. It's trendy to explore one's sexuality and have indiscriminate pre-marital sex today. It's also possible for any child to be molested or get into early sex experience and find himself addicted to abnormal and unhealthy sex. Especially today with educators promoting homosexuality. But the children who lack both a functional mother and father seem to be especially prone. And even good parents can err --as in babying a sensitive son as they might a daughter, to the point that he doesn't feel masculine. And his peers notice it.

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

Gay Marriage --Why NOT!

Gay marriage --why not? My son the philos. major says because we are made in the image of God as male and female, with the female designed to complete the male. Obviously, we are designed for heterosexual coupling. there IS something abnormal between the ears when we don't mature past our childhood preference for same sex friends to interest in the opposite sex.

Also, gay marriage and couples out of the closet will confuse children --give them an idea that they have to decide whether they want to be gay or not --ARE gay or not --and they will confuse their normal same sex adorations in childhood with homosexuality. Exploring their sexuality will mean sexual experimentation --with all the risks.

children shouldn't be exposed to the idea of homosexuality --which is why some are home-schooling and really monitoring their tv's.

Also, young people have a lot of self-consciousness, social pain about not being accepted by people of either the same sex, the opposite sex or both. They tend to think something is wrong with them, no matter what. If their peers are calling them fags and dykes they'll be even more unsure of their heterosexual normalcy.

And lonely and miserable people will look for any port in the storm; the gay community is always willing to take them in and convince them they are gay if they are confused on the topic--or tell them to experiment to figure it out.

BESIDES THAT, there are religious prohibitions to homosexual behavior that are VERY clear in both Testaments.

I figure that people are able to have their buttons pushed erotically by any stimulating touch if they are inclined to suspend their inhibitions, their consciences and their self-image and self-respect and seek orgasm any old way --People are also attracted to attractive people for friendship and can be seduced into activities by aggressive others --and the Bible suggests people have indulged with animals as well--and we know of other perversions such as necrophilia and pedophilia.
Any of these behaviors can become addictive when started at puberty --like porn addiction.

AND FOR SURE, MARRIED PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN OFF WITH PEOPLE TO WHOM THEY ARE NOT MARRIED

So temptation to have sex outside hetero marriage has always been with the human race since man's first sin --and we ought not be normalizing any of those temptations and calling them good. As with the Man- Boy Love Ass'n which has been welcomed to march in some gay pride parades.

"In the last days, people will call good evil, and evil, good."