|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.tv.simpsons » The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage"
| The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" [message #232604] |
Sa, 04 März 2006 19:44 |
|
The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage"
Family Research Council
The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage"
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has
been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his
situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to
that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage. The man claims that
the essential elements of marriage--love and commitment--are indeed
present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of
her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."1
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government,
displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to
this man and his would-be "wife"? It seems the state of Missouri is
not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a
22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Threat to Marriage
The Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically
reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love"
and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a
man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship
between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners."
To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual
preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the
very suggestion that two men or two women could "marry" was itself
greeted with scorn.
Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact
that redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his
mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on homosexual
couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple.
Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such
idealized "families" are utterly atypical among homosexuals.
In this pamphlet we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional
marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue
4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.
The "Polyamory" Movement
"Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another
boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean's wife."description of
"polyamory" relationship2
The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is
variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace
traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations
between various groups of individuals.
"Polyamory" is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely
translated "many loves." Polyamorists reject the "myth" of monogamy and
claim to practice "harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly
partners."3 Stanley Kurtz describes the "bewildering variety of sexual
combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual
group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual;
lesbian groups, and so forth."4
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein's 1961
sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual
possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil
leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn
a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as San Francisco's Kerista
community, in which members had sexual relations with each other
according to a rotating schedule.
Anti-Marriage Activists
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has
taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents
"are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of
marriage and family law." Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in
favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage
and family law."5
Kurtz concurs that the "gradual transition from gay marriage to
state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage
itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family
law." One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of
law at the University of Michigan, argues: "By ceasing to conceive of
marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state
may become more receptive to units of three or more."6
The Frat House Concept of "Family"
This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions
of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In
1990, a San Francisco task force on family policy led by lesbian
activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a "unit of
interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by
strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth,
and adoption."7
The "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and
the family poses dangers to children. Polyamory advocates pay scant
attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to
this "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and
the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms
ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a
constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The slippery slope
leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer
with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel
the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status
of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in
various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples,
igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage--and where
do we draw the limits on who can marry?
Same-Sex Relationships are not the Equivalent of Marriage
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual
and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.
-- Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples
remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded
for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived
and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal
oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has
legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a
homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.8
-- Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while
three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each
other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of
promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual
couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the
relationship) per year.9
-- Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience
by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with
married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples.10 Lesbians,
for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married
women.11
What about the Children?
In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico
(1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples,
concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential
characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of
society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong
social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of
children born to the union. Since reproduction requires a male and a
female, society will always depend upon heterosexual marriage to
provide the "seedbed" of future generations. The evidence indicates
that homosexual or lesbian households are not a suitable environment
for children.
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and other sources indicates that only a
small percentage of homosexual households choose to raise children.12
One reason for this is that the raising of children is inimical to the
typical homosexual lifestyle, which as we have seen typically involves
a revolving bedroom door. With the added problem of high rates of
intimate partner violence, such households constitute a dangerous and
unstable environment for children. Homosexuals and lesbians are
unsuitable role models for children because of their lifestyle. Dr.
Brad Hayton observes that homosexual households "model a poor view of
marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that
marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. ...
And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and]
should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship."13
The Phony Comparison with Race
Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists,
who have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda
with racial discrimination. In a statement supporting traditional
marriage, several black pastors wrote:"We find the gay community's
attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior
to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent."14 A
majority of Black Americans reject the facile comparison of sexual
behavior with an immutable characteristic such as race, and disagree
with the oft-heard contention by gay activists that homosexuals are
"born that way." A Pew Research poll found that by an overwhelming 61
to 26 percent margin, Black Protestants believe sexual orientation can
be changed.15 The same poll reported that Black Americans oppose
homosexual marriage by a 60 to 28 percent margin.16
Gay Marriage is not a Civil Rights Issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny
homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in
the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are
homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including
the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to
marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he
or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of
another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom
not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures
around the world for millennia.
Neither can gay activists appeal to a "natural rights" argument: i.e.,
no reasonable person would deny homosexuals and lesbians their
self-evident right to marry. Harry Jaffa cogently replies that such
arguments actually argue against homosexual marriage: "Nature and
reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated
like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a
human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But
with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a
woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of
opposite-sexes, not the same sex."17
Upholding Traditional Marriage is not "Discrimination"
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or
opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons
deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations
rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an
airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to
"discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On
the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed
pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In
this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because
of their race.
The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota
Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that
denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of
racial discrimination. The court found: "In common sense and
constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital
restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental
difference in sex."
Similarly, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of
Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued in a
lawsuit that marriage is a fundamental right, and that prohibiting it
for same-sex couples violates constitutional protections for due
process. The court found that the state's ban on homosexual marriage
"rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," and thus does not
discriminate against homosexuals by depriving them of their
constitutional rights.18 The court further noted: "Recognizing a right
to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right
to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of 'marriage.'" When
gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination!" they
conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships
merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves
our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by
redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals
to fly airplanes.
Americans Reject Gay Marriage
Typical of polls on the subject, a Fox News poll conducted after the
Massachusetts ruling found that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by
an overwhelming 66 to 25 percent margin.19
A majority of Americans also support a constitutional amendment banning
gay marriage. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll in August 2003 reported
that 58 percent of respondents favored amending the Constitution, with
34 percent opposed.20 A Zogby poll released in February 2004 found
that, by a 51 to 43 percent margin, voters agreed that a constitutional
amendment should be passed limiting marriage to a man and a woman.21
Similarly, a February 2004 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of
respondents favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,
with 44 percent opposed.22
Homosexual marriage is a potent political issue, with opponents ever
more dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage. A
follow-up Pew Research poll conducted in February 2004 found: "Gay
marriage has surpassed other major social issues like abortion and gun
control in its influence on voters. Four in ten voters say they would
not vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on gay marriage, even
if they agree with the candidate on most other issues." The poll
reported that "voters oppose gay marriage by more than two to one (65
percent to 28 percent), a margin that has remained generally steady
since October."23
Polls Cite Moral Objections to Homosexuality
A Pew Research poll released in November 2003 reported: "The most
common reasons given for objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are
moral and religious. ... More than eight in ten opponents of gay
marriage (82 percent) say it runs counter to their religious beliefs,
with 73 percent completely agreeing with that sentiment." 24 The poll
found that the top two reasons for opposing gay marriage are that "The
Bible says it is morally wrong/a sin" (28 percent), followed by the
response that homosexual marriage is "against my religious beliefs" (17
percent).25 Unexpressed religious beliefs are reflected in the next two
largest categories of responses. Sixteen percent of respondents based
their opposition to gay marriage on the fact that the "definition of
marriage is a man and a woman," followed by "It's just wrong/I just
don't agree with it" (12 percent).
A Barna Research poll, also released in November 2003, confirmed that
Americans consider homosexual behavior to be morally objectionable.
Only 30 percent of respondents agreed that "having a sexual
relationship with someone of the same sex" was morally acceptable. By
comparison, the respondents considered "getting drunk" (35 percent),
"using profanity" (36 percent), sex outside of marriage (42 percent),
cohabitation (60 percent), and gambling (61 percent) all to be more
acceptable than homosexuality.26
It is outside the scope of this pamphlet to discuss the biblical and
theological understanding regarding homosexual behavior. See the FRC
booklet "Keeping the Churches Marriage Friendly: How the Bible and
Tradition Refute the 'Gay Theology' (available at www.frc.org or by
calling 1-800-225-4008 ).
The Validity of Moral Arguments
The oft-repeated mantra "you can't legislate morality"--the contention
that moral arguments have no place in formulating public policy--is
absurd. It is the duty of legislators to evaluate the right legislation
needed to correct some wrong or injustice, or promote some positive or
good result. Many of the same people who wish to exclude religiously
informed moral arguments from the debate about marriage are little
troubled by the use of moral and religious arguments when discussing
other issues such as racial discrimination, capital punishment, or the
war in Iraq. The conviction that human sexuality is rightfully
expressed within marriage between a man and a woman is deeply rooted in
our history and Judeo-Christian beliefs. Over a century ago, In Maynard
v. Hill (1888), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the
understanding of marriage springs from the fundamental morality of a
people. The Court described marriage as "creating the most important
relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization
of a people than any other institution."
Similarly, in Baker v. Nelson (1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court
affirmed the Judeo-Christian roots of the definition of marriage:"The
institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving
the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as
the book of Genesis."
Homosexuality is Unnatural
The advocates of anti-marriage and anti-family sexuality face yet
another foe: divinely created nature itself. According to the
above-mentioned Pew Poll, the next most frequent reason given for
opposing gay marriage is that "homosexuality is not natural/normal" (9
percent). This response is followed by "the purpose of marriage is to
have children" (4 percent), which also recognizes a purposeful--and
thus "natural"--design for human sexuality. In his epistle to
Christians living in Rome, the Apostle Paul speaks of an undeniable
"law" regarding normative human behavior that is written on the hearts
of mankind "to which their own conscience also bears witness." Those
who would reject this law find themselves in opposition to the Divine
intent for mankind, a reality that every culture from the dawn of
civilization has either recognized--or failed to acknowledge at its
peril.
The power of the innate realization that there is something
fundamentally "unnatural" about homosexuality--even among those who
consider themselves non-religious--should not be underestimated, and
may well provide the vital motivation that will turn back the seemingly
invincible juggernaut of the gay agenda.
The Gay Agenda vs. Nature
In their 1989 book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear
and Hatred of Gays in the '90s, homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and
Hunter Madsen presented a strategy for achieving the full acceptance of
homosexuality in American culture. Kirk and Madsen write: "In any
campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in
need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to
adopt the role of protector." That this strategy has met with
considerable success is undeniable. But wait! The subtitle of Kirk and
Madsen's book reveals the confident presumption that America would
conquer its (purported) fear and hatred of gays in the '90s.
Yet America did not, as expected, embrace the homosexual agenda with
open arms. When queried regarding homosexuality as a behavioral
lifestyle--as opposed to a civil rights issue--many Americans continue
to register strong negative reactions.
A Public Perspectives survey found that 69 percent of those surveyed
report being "very much" or "somewhat" bothered by seeing a person
"kissing someone of the same sex in public."27 This hesitancy is not
limited to those holding to traditional morality. No less than the
liberal icon Glamour magazine reported the results of a readership poll
in which 59 percent of the respondents were "put off" by a lesbian kiss
shown on network television.28
This "ick factor," far from irrational, is rooted in the subconscious
realization of what is normal and what is not, and which forms an
inescapable part of our being. And it may be that by underestimating
the power of this innate understanding, gay activists have made their
greatest tactical error.
A Coming Spiritual Revival?
Camille Paglia, a self-confessed radical lesbian and atheist feminist,
addresses this fundamental miscalculation of gay activism, which,
"encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism,
wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness."
Paglia warns that eventually "the insulting disrespect shown by gay
activists to religion ... would produce a backlash."29
Paglia notes:"History shows that massive spiritual revivals are a
fundamental, recurrent element in culture." She further warns that
"there may unfortunately be deep, slow-moving forces at work like those
that led to Christianity's triumph over cosmopolitan, sexually
permissive, but ethically weak late-paganism during the Roman
Empire."30
Gay Marriage: A No Show in History
Some scholars claim that marriage between homosexuals has been commonly
practiced and accepted by various peoples throughout history. One
prominent advocate of this view, William Eskridge, contends that
same-sex unions and even "marriages" have been common in other times
and cultures.
Responding to Eskridge, professors Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan point
out that the so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes
primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. Lubin and Duncan
point out that "a great many of the primitive societies deemed by
Eskridge to be tolerant of [same-sex marriage] ... have also been known
to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital
mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other
practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to
extirpate."31
Furthermore, what Eskridge takes for homosexual marriage are actually
male bonding rituals that he mistakenly eroticized. Alleged examples
from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree
to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In
referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor
"polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not
omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This
hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome.
Lubin and Duncan summarize: "There is no 'rich history of same-sex
marriage' that [Eskridge] has 'uncovered,' that was 'suppressed in
recent Western history, and is only now coming to light.' The
'resistance' to same-sex marriage is not limited to 'Western culture'
with its age-old 'anti-homosexual hysteria and bigotry,' but extends to
almost every culture throughout the world."32
On the face of it, theories about the supposed widespread practice of
homosexual marriage throughout history lack merit, given the biological
imperative of families consisting of husbands and wives producing
children, which is a basic requirement for the preservation of any
culture or society.
How Does Gay Marriage Harm Your Marriage?
One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt
your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building
where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man
and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested
"yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage
without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change
the definition of a yardstick.
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental
sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits,
it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may
not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable.
The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures
spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that
virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage
as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.33
A Federal Marriage Amendment: Protection against Judicial Tyranny
Given the strong public opposition to homosexual behavior, it is hardly
surprising that no state has voted to extend full marriage rights to
gay and lesbian couples. Having failed to achieve their agenda through
the democratic process, homosexual activists are now focusing on
advancing their agenda through the courts as well as through "civil
disobedience" such as the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by
public officials in San Francisco and elsewhere.
There is growing danger of activist judges disregarding marriage laws
passed by a majority of the population and enshrined in centuries of
legal precedence, and imposing homosexual marriage on the nation.
States' "Defense of Marriage" laws will help to protect against
counterfeit marriage. But such statutes can be overturned in state
courts on the argument that they violate state constitutional equal
protection and due process clauses.
Amending state constitutions to bar gay marriage will also offer some
protection. However, observers fear that the U.S. Supreme Court could
overturn state constitutional amendments on the basis of the equal
protection and due process clauses in the U.S. Constitution. Robert
Bork writes: "One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization
of homosexuality in our society is the understanding that marriage is
the union of a man and a woman. ... Many court watchers believe that
within five to ten years the U.S. Supreme Court will hold that there is
a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, just as that court
invented a right to abortion. The chosen instrument will be the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."34
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and
a woman offers the ultimate protection against the agenda of gay and
lesbian activists such as Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of
the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who unabashedly states:
"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and
family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society."35
We enjoy the blessing of living in a nation that has enshrined
democratic principles--but this privilege also entails the obligation
to make our voices heard in the political process. Those who value the
family have a God-given duty to become involved in what is shaping up
as the preeminent moral issue of our day:protecting the very
institution of marriage.
Our elected representatives must be put on notice that they face an
historic choice between catering to the demands of a well-heeled,
powerful cadre of homosexual activist organizations determined to
radically alter the definition and nature of marriage, or listening to
the voice of people across the nation who seek to preserve marriage as
the wellspring of society and culture for themselves and their families
for generations to come.
Written by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage
and Family Studies at Family Research Council
notes
1 Melinda Roth, "All Opposed, say 'Neigh'" Riverfront Times- Missouri
(December 15, 1999).
2 Sondi Bruner, "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice ... Carol and Ted and
Bob and Alice," Vancouver Sun (February 14, 2004): F1.
3 Ibid.
4 Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," The Weekly Standard 8 (August
4-11, 2003): 28.
5 "The Marriage Amendment; Editorial" First Things 136 (October 1,
2003): 1048.
6 Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," 29.
7 Roberta Achtenberg, et al., "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges
to San Francisco's Families," the Final Report of the Mayor's Task
Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13,
1990, p. 1.
8 Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual
Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in
Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
9 Ibid.
10 "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,"
U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000):
30. Cp. "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics
Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
11 Ibid.
12 "PCT 14: Unmarried-Partner Households by Sex of Partners" (U.S.
Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 1). Cp. Dan Black et al.,
"Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States:
Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources," Demography 37 (May
2000): 150.
13 Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage
and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy
Institute, 1993), p. 9.
14 Cheryl Wetzstein, "Blacks Angered by Gays' Metaphors," Washington
Times (March 3, 2004): 3.
15 "Religious Beliefs," p. 7.
16 Ibid, 12.
17 Harry Jaffa, Homosexuality and the Natural Law (Claremont, CA: The
Claremont Institute for the Study of Statsmanship and Political
Philosophy, 1990): 19.
18 "Court Upholds State's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage" Associated Press
(October 8, 2003).
19 Dana Blanton, "Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll: Majority Opposes
Same-Sex Marriage," (November 21, 2003).
20 "Attitudes about Homosexuality and Gay Marriage," AEI Studies in
Public Opinion (American Enterprise Institute Compilation:February 13,
2004): 31.
21 "Bush Leads in Red States, Kerry Ahead in Blue States" Zogby Poll
(February 18, 2004).
22 "The Gallup Poll: Homosexual Relations" The Gallup Organization
(February 9-12, 2004).
23 "Gay Marriage a Voting Issue, but Mostly for Opponents," The Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press (February 27, 2004): 1.
24 Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality," The Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life (November 18, 2003):13.
25 Ibid.
26 "Morality Continues to Decay," Barna Research (November 3, 2003).
27 Kenneth Sherrill and Alan Yang, "From Outlaws to In-Laws: Anti-Gay
Attitudes Thaw," Public Perspectives 11 (January/February 2000): 28.
28 Bonnie Fuller, "Editor's Letter" Glamour (February, 2000): 28.
29 Camille Paglia, "I'll Take Religion over Gay Culture," Salon.com
(June 23, 1998).
30 Camille Paglia, "Men and Their Discontents," Salon.com (October 14,
1997).
31 Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan, "Follow the Footnote or the Advocate
as Historian of Same-sex Marriage," Catholic University Law Review 47
(Summer 1998): 1300.
32 Ibid., 1324.
33 Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution, (Boston:Peter Sargent
Publishers, 1956): 77-105.
34 Robert Bork, "Stop Courts from Imposing Gay Marriage," Wall Street
Journal (August 7, 2001): 14.
35 Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in "Since When is Marriage a Path to
Liberation?" by William B. Rubenstein, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law
(New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400.
|
|
|
| Re: The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" [message #232616 ] |
Sa, 04 März 2006 23:58 |
|
"rob wade" <rob_c_wade_01 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein's 1961
> sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual
> possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil
> leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn
> a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as San Francisco's Kerista
> community, in which members had sexual relations with each other
> according to a rotating schedule.
>
>
> Anti-Marriage Activists
>
>
> The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has
> taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents
> "are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of
> marriage and family law." Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in
> favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage
> and family law."5
I thought the Kerista commune fell apart long before 1992. You see the
members of the Kerista polyfidelity commune kept "cheating" by hooking
up with particular loved ones out of turn of the rotating schedule, so,
in other words, engaging in illicit monogamy.
One thing the Kerista Commune required for membership was sterilization
in advance. So when the commune collapsed, the ex-members did not exit
the politically correct cult unharmed.
|
|
|
| Re: The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" [message #232639 ] |
So, 05 März 2006 16:36 |
|
Wow! What song did Lisa play in THAT episode?
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
|
|
|
| Re: The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" [message #232644 ] |
So, 05 März 2006 22:57 |
|
gary.wallace [at] mciter.com wrote:
> Wow! What song did Lisa play in THAT episode?
I don't know. What I wouldn't give to hear one of Lisa's jazzy tunes.
The only one I'm familiar with is the one by Walter Murphy.
|
|
|
| Re: The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" [message #232655 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 16:09 |
|
Their leader tried to escape in some kind of human powered aircraft,
but he crashed in the front yard of some hillbilly's house, and the
hillbilly got all of his money. They guy was trying to grow lima beans
for crying out loud.
Aaron Xpac3 Mvx3vm
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 14:56:10 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03369 Sekunden |
