« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Putting Gay Marriage to Bed (as it were)

President Obama has finally stated the obvious and necessary.  If you believe Kinsey, 10% of male voters are gay, and between 2% and 6% of females are lesbian. (“Experimental” percentages are far higher.)  When 5% of voters can throw an election either way,  it would be ill-advised to offend them.

Governor Romney seems to be taking a more nuanced stance:

“My view is that marriage itself is between a man and a woman, … This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but I have the same view that I’ve had since — since running for office … My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”

Neither candidate, of course, seems sufficiently principled to declare “this has always been my belief.”  Both waffle on their opinions with the exigencies of the latest polling data  (generally, about 50:50).

Like many with whom I talk, I don’t care about gay marriage.  I have always believed that it is no business of government.  I would like to think that “the party of less government” would stay out of the bedroom and the marriage bureau.

The Log Cabin Republicans have come out against Obama’s statements.  Besides, despite propaganda (by Democrats) to the contrary, I find it interesting that no Democrats (other than Barney Frank) have mentioned having gay friends, while Republicans admit to loving them within their families.  The Party might be wise to point this out.

It is time to put the issue to rest.

More …

I respect gay people, much as I am amused by their occasional oddities.  One of my wife’s nurse friends was gay;  in the greatest of stereotypes, he “did the flowers” for our wedding over 25 years ago.  He also gave us keys to his vacation house in Florida for our honeymoon, and looked in on us at the hospital where our kids were born and both he and my wife worked.  At the time, he had had some kind of “partner” for 18 years and lamented the fact that they could not get married.

Years later, as the youngest Trustee on my church’s Board, I noticed something interesting. As we were presented with the option of hiring a new Preacher, there was some dissension among the congregation about moving him and his “special friend” Roy into our parsonage.  I felt obliged to represent the views of the (younger) opposition, but every one of  my older companion Trustees (none a day under 60, and that would be an understatement) was for it.  I bowed to their wisdom, and the Preacher worked out just fine.

I am familiar with the Old Testament Arguments, e.g.:

Leviticus 20:13, King James Version

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Of course, if you agree with that, you have to agree with everything else:

Leviticus 20:10, King James Version

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

I’m not sure if the specifics let John Edwards (D) and Newt Gingrich (R) off the hook, but the general 7th Commandment doesn’t so much forgive either.

Of course, having kids that have argued with me (particularly in their teenage years), I’ve never had any compunctions about reminding them of

Leviticus 20:09, King James Version:

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

For my part, I choose to follow the two commandments of Jesus Christ, particularly the one he reiterated among many more recorded by Moses:

Leviticus 19:18, King James Version

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

Even if the neighbor disagrees with you.

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: Lane Reindeau

  • Pingback: Nick Carnes

  • Viet71

    n/t

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    although, I am more in favor of outright legalizing gay marriage, I think it is not a bad thing to have the battle in the states. In the long run, since it is a civil rights issue, gay marriage will likely be legal everywhere. I think there are many people who seem to think being against gay marriage is hateful, but that I do not see. Sure there are people who hate gays, and their are gay people who hate straight people, but overwhelming majority of people against gay marriage are that way because of their fair, and believing that God defines marriage. Nevertheless, I still see this as intolerance of others viewpoints. I agree, Government has not business telling people who they can marry.

  • shanecroach

    Firstly, the Kinsey statistics are inflated, and no one argues otherwise. Experimental data put the number somewhere between 2-5%, not higher.

    Secondly, marriage does not apply to gays all across the world and all through history. The number of cultures who have male/female long term or lifetime pair bonding are legion. The number that apply the same to gay couples are exceedingly rare.

    Psychiatric and Psychological research shows that sexuality is elastic, not set. Arguments about what sets it cannot be settled by science as things such as feelings, the will, and conscious behavior in general cannot be seen, heard, smelled tasted or touched, and are therefore beyond the reach of materialistic scientific research. In other words, when scientists make statements about what people can and cannot choose to do or feel, they are demonstrably lying.

    Books such as “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry ? The Politics of Diagnosis” by Ronald Bayor, an avowed leftist and one of the people directly involved in declaring homosexuality “normal”, document the political motives behind the entire involvement of psychologists and psychiatrists concerning homosexuality. It is a decades long story of political activism with the current crisis of marriage its ultimate goal.

    Psychiatrists and psychologists are responsible for a lot of mischief in the world since the inception of the supposed professions, including the current crisis of using the “personality disorder” “diagnosis” to deny military veterans their medical benefits. Somehow, magically, “personality disorder” cannot be detected when people go INTO the military, but it not only can be detected, but established to have been pre-existing, when the time comes for them to go OUT of the military. This is what happened to Jeans Cruz, the army specialist who found Saddam Hussein.

    But hey, psychologists never abuse their authority for money or power. Noooo… scientists and professors just in general are morally perfect in every way, statistically speaking.

    Pathetic.

    Finally, in Europe we have already seen the real purpose of this legal tack. Making homosexuality into a civil rights issue allows authorities to harass and arrest Christians. From Nietzsche to Bertrand Russel and beyond, the left has one overriding goal — to rid the world of the populist forms of morality known as “religions”. Religions are evil in and of themselves, so goes the leftist mantra. Morality must be dictated by professionals trained in the disciplines of morality, and since societies have had the foresight to forbid their democratic governments from taking control of churches, leftists have learned to satisfy their totalitarian dreams by destroying religion and dictating their morality from the halls of academia.

    The truth is not deemed particularly important.

    Decades of research have demonstrated that children do best when their parents stay together to raise them. This really should come as no surprise to anyone. But leftists do not care about human welfare. They care about taking control of the levers of power.

  • GreyCloak

    I’d be happy to entertain some cites that refute Kinsey.

    This link came across my desk today, purely coincidentally:

    http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

    I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it seems adequately sourced.

    As to politics, I cannot but agree with you: when politicians get involved with religious issues, society suffers.

  • Justin_Case

    submitting this as a diary.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Outstanding political summation of the issue.

  • lineholder

    has to do with efforts to establish government as the highest form of authority.

    Think about it…in just about every form of religion, there is a religious scope of laws and a degree of authority that is attached to those laws, correct?

    In any Marxist, socialist, Communist, statist, etc. type of government, what is one of the common themes? The ultimate authority of government.

    So, if you wanted to bring about “fundamental transformation”, and it involved moving a society of people in the direction of submission to and adherence to a mentality of government as having ultimate authority, and you have strong veins of various religions, each with their own specified authority…how would you go about? By usurping the authority included within the scope of religious beliefs and replacing it with the authority of government?

    Tell me again what the contraception mandate was about?

  • GreyCloak

    I would welcome any cites that refute Kinsey’s conclusions.

    As to history, this came across my desk today, purely coincidentally:

    http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

    I cannot vouch for it, but it seems adequately sourced.

    I agree with you that when politicians become involved in religion, society suffers.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    when we are getting Newsweek headlines like “Obama: the first Gay President”???

    Pure comedy gold. The fact that Newsweek is being earnest makes it even better.

  • demsaresatanic

    you provide in the summary is likely overstated or completely false. As for Kinsey, if you need cites to spot absurd propaganda your more pressing need is common sense.

  • GreyCloak

    Should play well with the “down-low” crowd.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    From an article here:

    The famous Kinsey Institute report often is cited as evidence that 10% of the population is homosexual. In his book, Is It a Choice?: Answers to 300 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gays and Lesbians, Eric Marcus used the Kinsey studies to demonstrate that one in ten people is homosexual (1993). In truth, Kinsey never reported figures that high. The Kinsey Report clearly stated that: ?Only about 4 percent of the men [evaluated] were exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives…. Only 2 or 3 percent of these women were exclusively homosexual their entire lives? (see Reinisch and Beasley, 1990, p. 140). However, there is good reason to believe that the real percentage is not even this high.

    While no one has carried out a door-to-door census, we do have a fairly accurate estimate. Interestingly, these statistics came to light in an amicus curiae (?friend of the court?) brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003, in the Lawrence vs. Texas case (commonly known as the Texas sodomy case). On page 16 of this legal brief, footnote 42 revealed that 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following:

    The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann, et al., 1994).

    The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18?a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual (based on the last census report, showing roughly 292 million people living in America). The resulting accurate figures demonstrate that significantly less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual. The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986) of public school students. The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as ?mostly or 100% homosexual.?

    The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

    The total population of the U.S. is 285,230,516.
    The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.
    The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.

    Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!