Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Gay Marriage Myths And Truth

by Michael Medved - August 11th, 2010 -

The decision by federal judge Vaughan Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8 both recycles and revives some of the tired, misleading clichés regarding the same sex marriage controversy. These distortions demand direct, concise correction and rebuttal.

Medved has listed 7 lies of the homosexual and lesbian lobby in discussing this Constitutional provision. It was passed overwhelmingly by 7 million citizens who thought that they lived in a Republic where a single judge could not rewrite any law as they wish if 70% of the citizens expressed their public will. The Constitutional provision they passed was based on 7 thousand years of legal precedent and social mores. The provision was in fact the social and religious norm since long before our nation was created for sound reasons of stable societies.

Judge Vaughan Walker is an open homosexual. He is thus a representative of a society hating minority which demands we change social rules to conform to a new set of mores they wish to jam down the throats of all other citizens to defend their sexual lusts.

It is the third of these lies that I think is most compelling.
[Lie #] 3. ”Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that “same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples.” (This language appears verbatim in the judge’s decision).

TRUTH: Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn’t based on the notion that opposite sex couples are “better,” but on the idea that they are more consequential, and serve an important social purpose more effectively. Laws in every state recognize the desirability that children should be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible. This is based on the universal, common sense assumption that a child generally will fare best if it is raised by both its birth mother and birth father. Laws on divorce, child custody, adoption and foster-parenting all display this general preference for birth parents to involve themselves in a child’s life. Traditional opposite sex marriage generally produces a situation where both birth parents will participate in parenting – and this shared responsibility even survives divorce in most cases. There is no chance--none—that a same sex marriage can produce a child who will be raised by both birth parents. This doesn’t make that same sex marriage hateful or immoral, but it does make it somewhat less desirable and less significant for society.

Of course what the homosexuals are really saying by their demand that everyone else change their moral beliefs is simple; What they do sexually is vastly more important to them than the best method of raising children for society. Period. It is so ego driven as to be contemptible. All their defenses are contorted rationalizations of why what their lust drives them to do should be the focus of society's rules. They want it declared NORMAL so they can negate any guilt about what they do. They demand that you accept them and their sexual practices as publicly embraced just like the love between regular parents. It is all about the couple's wishes.

It totally rejects concerns about what is best for any children that are involved. The concerns about what is best for the children of heterosexual marriage are to be cast aside for this new definition of marriage. Should we abandon this concern for what is best for the children of heterosexual children? Homosexuals and lesbians could care less. They are prefectly happy if those rules still apply to others as long as they do not apply to them.

The rest of Medved's list of lies are compelling. However this one lie is my reason for rejecting same sex marriage. The homosexuals and lesbians are selfish and evil specifically because this is all about declaring that their lust is not perverted. Indeed, they will not rest until everyone else accepts their acts as normal. The fact is the God of creation has declared it is not normal. The sex act of such a couple cannot create a child. No law will ever change that.


Post a Comment

<< Home