Wednesday, March 15, 2006

The Frog in the Pot

As evidenced here: JackeHammer: It's About Our Children, Stupid!, I have long been opposed to gay marriage because it makes the unhealthy lifestyle of homosexuality appear to be "normal" to our children who are taught in our public schools that it is simply an "alternative lifestyle," no better or worse than the heterosexual lifestyle. I document the fact that there is a much higher rate of disease and mental illness, along with a higher suicide rate, among the gay community in the above, previous link. I also point out in the comment section, that according to studies, the higher suicide rate has been proven NOT to be linked with intolerance of their sexual preference but has more to do with the higher occurrence of break-ups in relationships:

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices

"While society's alleged oppression of homosexual individuals (homophobia) seems to be a favorite panacea-like theory for the mental-health problems of those who practice homosexuality, the Dutch study is not supportive of such a hypothesis. Dutch society is recognized as one of the most gay-affirming and gay-tolerant in the world, and yet the risk for mental illness among those who engage in homosexuality remains high, and significantly higher than among heterosexuals in that country."

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

"The Effect of Social StigmaThird, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems."

Now, the reason I bring this up again is to clarify that my reason for opposing gay marriage is that I don't want it treated as though it is a normal and HEALTHY alternative to heterosexual marriage. It is not. It is an unhealthy lifestyle, but our children are not being warned about the higher percentage of health risks in a number of categories when homosexuality is talked about in our public schools. This does a disservice to our children.

Another argument that has been used by some Conservatives is the "slippery slope" argument. Bill O'Reilly, a moderate, often sites this argument on his radio program. I have also used this argument myself. People generally get brushed off as a lunatic, myself included, when we suggest that those who practice bestiality, pedophilia and those who would like to engage in polygamy would also like to have the privilege to marry the goat of their choice, the child of their choice and have multiple spouses. But...and that's a big BUT, it appears that this argument is not so crazy, after all. Yesterday, I came across a posting by "H-Bomb" at

"One of the arguments often dredged up by opponents of gay marriage has been that if the state were to endorse the marriage of any two people other than a man and a woman (which is what marriage is, by the way) it would inevitably open the doors to the normalization of other “lifestyle choices" (or as I like to call them, "twisted perversions") such as polygamy or even bestiality. The bestiality argument in particular was blown out of the water, and its adherents were easily discredited as over-the-top wackos. And then, wouldn’t you know it, the subject of decriminalizing bestiality actually came up in the Massachusetts (where else?) legislature in the form of a bill. Well now comes the “out and proud” polygamy movement, complete with a glossy, largely approving spread in Newsweek...."

From the Newsweek article:

"There's a sound legal argument for making the controversial practice legal, says Brian Barnard, the lawyer for a Utah couple, identified in court documents only as G. Lee Cooke and D. Cooke, who filed suit after being denied a marriage license for an additional wife. Though the case was struck down by a federal court last year, it's now being considered by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Barnard plans to use the same argument—that Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 sodomy case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention," should also apply to polygamous relationships."

Stanley Kurtz of nationalreviewonline (NRO) says here:

Stanley Kurtz on Big Love & Polygamy on National Review Online

"It's getting tougher to laugh off the "slippery slope" argument — the claim that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, polyamory, and ultimately to the replacement of marriage itself by an infinitely flexible partnership system. We've now got a movement for legalized polyamory and the abolition of marriage in Sweden. (See "Fanatical Swedish Feminists.") The Netherlands has given legal, political, and public approval to a cohabitation contract for a polyamorous bisexual triad. (See "Here Come the Brides.") Two out of four reports on polygamy commissioned by the Canadian government recommended decriminalization and regulation of the practice. (See "Dissolving Marriage.") And now comes Big Love, HBO's domestic drama about an American polygamous family....

...This means the real challenge we face is not from a huge, nationally based movement of so-called "Mormon fundamentalists." (These renegade polygamists are emphatically not members of the mainstream, Mormon Church.) Instead, as in Canada, the challenge will come from a complex coalition: gay radicals who favor same-sex marriage but who also want to transform and transcend marriage itself, feminists (like Canada's Martha Bailey) who feel the same way, Hollywood liberals like Tom Hanks (an executive producer of Big Love) who want to use the media to transform the culture, civil-rights advocates like the ACLU and ex-Humphrey aide Ed Frimage, libertarian conservatives like John Tierney and an ever-larger number of young people, fundamentalist "Mormon" polygamists, and the ever-growing movement for polyamory (which features both heterosexuals and large numbers of bisexuals), and perhaps someday (as in Canada) Muslim and other non-Western immigrants.

This complex coalition ranging from old-fashioned Humphrey-style liberals to anti-marriage feminist radicals, to libertarian conservatives, is what will power future efforts to radically deconstruct marriage. And we're only at the very beginning of these efforts. For the most part, cultural radicals are holding back, knowing that anything they say may jeopardize the movement for same-sex marriage by validating slippery-slope fears. The remarkable thing is that, at this early stage, the radicals have forced themselves so openly into the cultural argument. That is a sure sign that if same-sex marriage were to be safely legalized nationally, the way would finally be open to a truly concerted campaign to transform marriage by opening it up to polygamy and polyamory, or by replacing it with an infinitely flexible partnership system. Whatever we're seeing now is only the barest hint of what will happen once the coast is clear."

Recently I commented at Angel's blog: The Rogue Angel, under the topic of I Just Don't Get It when she was questioning why Christians blog more about the sin of homosexuality than they do other sexual sins, such as adultery and fornications:

"I agree with you Angel, but I think homosexuality comes up more often at blog sites because it seems to be a particular bone of contention between "Conservative" and "Progressive" Christians. Some "Progressives" deny that it is a sin at all. You do not see "Progressives" or "Conservatives" denying that adultery, lying, cheating and stealing is a sin but rather they were born that way, therefore we must all give them a pass, do you? I don't. Yet, in conversations I have had at "Progressive" blogs I do hear challenges among some Christians as to whether homosexuality is a sin and how can it be a sin since people are born that way and God doesn't make any see? So, if you see more blogging done about the sin of homosexuality than lying, cheating, adultery or stealing, I think it is simply because no one challenges the fact that those are sins.

I do see my own sin everyday, Angel, and I do realize that my sin is no less a sin in God's eyes than the sin of homosexuality, to me there is no differentiation with sin, to some, however, they refuse to call the sin of homosexuality a sin to begin with, now there, that's your differentiation. :)

Posted by: Jacke January 21, 2006 02:26 PM"

Then yesterday, my co-contributor, Momma Twoop sent me an interesting article, Religious group merges with gay rights task force / 1,400 'welcoming' congregations are represented -- hopes for 10,000 in 5 .. , here's an excerpt from that article:

"The gay rights movement has found God.

After decades of working to change secular institutions, the national movement, which has largely convinced society that homosexuality is neither a mental disorder nor a crime, is focusing on what its leaders say is their last, and biggest, challenge: convincing believers that it's not a sin.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the country's oldest gay rights organization, announced Monday that a religious organization representing 1,400 Protestant congregations that unconditionally welcome gays and lesbians has merged with the task force.

Over the next five years, the task force wants to increase membership in the Institute for Welcoming Resources to 10,000 congregations."

So, no war against Christmas? No "conspiracy" to end traditional marriage? No cultural war? Progressives keep telling us that, don't they? And while we sit like a frog in that gradually heating pot of water on the stove top, they keep turning up the heat, praying we won't notice the hand on the dial.

No comments: