The Purpose of This Bl;og

By and large, liberals are very decent, kind, and compassionate people who genuinely want what is best. This should be kept in mind as we explore the Law of Unintended Negative Consequences near invariably resulting from Leftist big-hearted solutions to societal problems.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--House Divided

Russia has long been greatly admired and respected in the U.S. by the Left.

This is because, in part, Russia is where socialism or left-wing thinking began and matured. Symbolically, Russia is the "father land" to its leftist offspring in America.

However, recently there has developed a rift within the liberal family between Eastern parents and Western teens, so to speak.

No, the domestic quarrel doesn't consist of the Left in the U.S. protesting Russia regarding what the International Labor Organization considers the "third most popular problem in the world"--i.e child trafficking/slavery, though Russia has criticized the U.S. for neglecting its sizable troubles in this regard. (See HERE)

No, the quarrel isn't over the continuing substantial, and at times fatal threat of organized crime in Russia. (See HERE and HERE)

Nor is it over the enormous health crisis in Russia caused by one of the most popular demons of liberals in the U.S.--i.e. cigarettes. (See HERE)

It isn't even over important foreign policy differences between Russia and the Obama administration, which could pose a threat to our national security. (See HERE and HERE)

None of these presumably vital international issues has stirred the ire of the U.S. democrats enough to ignite their activist machines, and mobilize them to demonstrate, boycott, and engage is various other forms of public outcry.

So, what has got the liberals in the U.S. hopping mad at Russia? is Russia's law against "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations." Essentially, liberal Americans are outraged because Russia wont allow gay pride parades during the Olympics, and won't let homosexuals proselytize their deleterious sexual behavior to Russian youth. Evidently, the Left in the U.S. doesn't approve of Russia's effort to prevent, to some extent, sexual exploitation of children.

The Leftist LUNCs here, then, is not only the liberal family feud, but also the U.S. Left's upside-down preference of aberrant adult sexuality over child health and protection, if not also the physical and moral survival of a nation.

Seems the Left in the U.S. are intent on exporting their LUNC-ish and devolutionary agendas to Russia, as if Russia doesn't already have enough problems of its own.

Be that as it may, in response to the Russian law banning gay propagandizing in public, liberal Americans have already begun unwarrantably brandishing the shrill label of "homophobic" (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and employed the canard of "guilt-by-association" against conservatives (see HERE and HERE), victimologically ramped up reporting selective accounts of violence against gays (see HERE and HERE and HERE), while conveniently ignoring the greater prevalence of gay domestic violence here and abroad (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and are calling for boycotts of Russian products and the 2014 Olympics in Shoshi, Russia (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE).

In short, the liberal and gay propaganda industries in the West have been fired up to full blast in rebellion against their parents in the East.

In Russia's own defense, Rush Limbaugh reported the following on his radio program:

''Three months before Russia’s parliament unanimously passed a federal law banning the propaganda of 'non-traditional relationships' -- that is, same-sex ones -- the bill’s sponsor went on the country’s most respected interview show to explain her reasoning. 'Analyzing all the circumstances, and the particularity of territorial Russia and her survival…I came to the conclusion that if today we want to resolve the demographic crisis, we need to, excuse me, tighten the belt on certain moral values and information, so that giving birth and raising children become fully valued.'  This is a Russian female lawmaker by the name of Yelena Mizulina.  And she told this to our old buddy Vladimir Posner.,,,

"Mizulina heads the Duma’s committee for family, women, and children and has become the stern face of Russia’s campaign against gays. But she would never call it that. Russia’s new laws -- banning same-sex foreign couples from adopting Russian children in addition to banning LGBT advocacy -- are part of the country’s very search for survival, according to her.

"'On the one hand, there’s its physical survival -- Russia’s birthrate plummeted in the wake of the Soviet collapse and encouraging baby-making (through government grants as well as rhetoric) has been one of Vladimir Putin’s hallmarks. And then there’s its moral survival; if Russia is to survive as Russia it needs to reject the corrupting influences of the West." And so this is why there is a ban on homosexuals in the Olympics in Russia next year.  (See HERE)

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed]

Same-Sex Marriage--Blurs Critical Male/Female Distinction

Whether intended or not, legalized gay marriage puts the government's seal of approval on not only the obliteration of traditional gender roles in marriage and families, but also on the notion that there is no meaningful difference between men and women.

As Dennis Prager explains: "There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters...Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant...[deleted list of examples]...And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities....By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - unsustainable dependency and debt -- so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences. " (see HERE. See also HERE)

This fits quite well with liberal feminism, most particularly its gender equality agenda and the failed Equal Rights Amendment. (I will be addressing the Leftist LUNCs of feminism at a later date.)

Granted, civil rights ought to be equal between men and women (such as due process and equal protect), and certain societal conditions lend themselves best to equality as well (such as equal pay for equal work---though not in the overly simplified sense that liberals imagine it).

However, societal advantages also exist in recognizing, maintaining, and utilizing natural differences between females and males and mothers and father--and this beyond just anatomical differences.

There is good reason that at the end of millions of years of biological and social evolution, nature would be replete with males and females at nearly all levels of the animal kingdom, and societies would generally have father-mother families as their predominate and fundamental institution.

There is good reason why nations send mostly men to fight on the front lines of war, and why stay-at-home parents are mostly mothers rather than fathers, and why there are different sporting events for men and women, and different retail stores/departments for each, and different kinds of advertising that target respectively.

Each gender is different, and has its own respective beneficial qualities and characteristics (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) that, as a general rule, they excel at over the other gender (see previous links as well as HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and with which they compliment each other, particularly in terms of raising children (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

If liberals doubt this, they need only ask themselves whether government and business have been improved by including women into those once near-exclusively male environs? Or, as Dennis Prager suggests: "Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give? One has to assume that most people -- including supporters of same-sex marriage -- would respond in the affirmative." (See HERE)

Leave it to liberals to cause the Leftist LUNC of bucking millions of years of biological and social evolution and defying the basic political-economic principles of specialization and division of labor by blurring or attempting to eliminate advantageous differences between males and females through, among other things, legalization of same-sex marraige.

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed]

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Same-sex Marriage--Destructive Compassion

For more than a quarter century liberals have been motivated by their renown compassion to make the world safer for homosexuals. This is a commendable goal, and one that I whole-heartedly champion.

Liberals have pursued this compassionate goal by condemning violence against homosexual and not faulting or ostracizing homosexuals for their orientation--both of which I fully support.

However, liberals have also pursued this compassionate goal by means of accepting, condoning, celebrating, and ultimately normalizing homosexual behaviors and lifestyles--i.e. by wiping out social stigmas and by welcoming homosexuals out of "the closet," and by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Yet, given the disturbing homosexual-related statistics I quoted in previous posts (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), which some homosexuals now call the new gay epidemic (see HERE), and given the broadening acceptance of  homosexuality in society (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), there is a clear correlation and plausible causation between social acceptance of homosexual behaviors and the Leftist LUNCs of increased homosexual-related social ills--the greater the acceptance of homosexual behaviors, the greater the homosexual social ills.

For instance, according to conservapedia, "The British Medical Journal (BMJ) wrote: 'Between the 1960s and the late 1970s homosexually acquired syphilitic infection increased, in keeping with liberalization of attitudes towards homosexual behaviour.'" (See also HERE)

In short, liberal compassion towards homosexuals, particularly with the legalization of same-sex marriage, may well have factored into the proliferation in the rate of homosexual suicides, homosexual STDs/STIs, homosexual domestic violence, homosexual promiscuity and infidelity, etc., and even gay teen pregnancies.

[Update 7/2/2016: As indicated above, suicide rates have increased since the dawn of the SSM movement. Many attribute this rise to social stigma, which makes no sense since societies have become increasingly more accepting of homosexuality over the last decade (see HERE), which means that suicide rates should be declining were social stigma the cause. Here is the real culprit, which underscores the point of this post: Study: relationship problems, not family rejection, leading cause of higher gay suicides]

Liberal compassion, then, has been very destructive and to some extent fatal to homosexuals. Liberalism is killing homosexual through misguided compassion. As the saying goes, "with friends like that, who needs enemies?"

In retrospect, it appears that liberal compassion for homosexuals was most destructive during the AID's/HIV epidemic. Folks with seemingly good intentions on the Left were so hypersensitive to social stigmas and so fearful of hurting the feelings and reputations of homosexuals, that they changed the name of the disease from "Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID)" to the more generic "AIDS." (See HERE)  And, they took extraordinary steps that were unprecedented and unlike with any other epidemic. They intentionally downplayed the risks of infection. They obfuscated the prevailing mode of infections and the predominate population affected by the infection (the common claim was that "AIDS was not a gay disease"). They went to extremes measures in securing the anonymity of those infected. And, they prevented any form of quarantine, and encouraged public interaction with AIDS patients. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Consequently, far more infections and deaths occurred than presumably would have occurred were the AIDS/HIV epidemic handled as have other epidemics (imagine how much worse the swine flu of 2009 would have been were the same measures used in the U.S. as with AIDS/HIV).

As things now stand, there have been about 1.2 million people in the U.S. infected by AIDS, and 650,000 deaths (ibid)--which entails more casualties than the civil war. (See HERE)  Approximately 19% of gay men have been infected. (ibid)  And, while AIDS cases began to decline in 1995 (about 14 years after initial discovery of the disease--see HERE), they started to rise again around 2004, once gay marriage began to be legalized. and public acceptance of homosexuality spiked. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)  In 2009 there were an estimated 18,000 deaths in the U.S. from AIDS, which is about the same number as in 2001. (See HERE)  "To put this in context, about 9,100 Americans died in gun homicides that same year." (ibid)

Another form of destructive compassion that impacted the AIDS epidemic and other aspects of the gay agenda, was whitewashing the gay movement. Gay activists knew that if they were going to change public opinion about homosexuality, from condemnation to condoning and then to embracing, they needed to put an attractive face on their lifestyle. This meant not only flooding the media with admired celebrities coming out of the closet, and TV shows depicting homosexuals in a positive light, and all sorts of public love and empathy expressed towards homosexuals, but also there was a concerted effort to screen out unflattering and disconcerting information.  In addition to whitewashing the AIDS epidemic, there were a number of statistics that have been carefully kept out of the public eye (something I am attempting to counter here), or that have been spun favorably (it is interesting how a number of the studies regarding same-sex violence have the same language about the rates being comparable to heterosexuals--when, in fact, digging deeper into the studies shows otherwise), and a number of studies that should have been done that weren't conducted for political or public policy reasons. (See HERE) Consequently, things like gay-on-gay violence went generally unnoticed and not widely addressed, and thus a number of homosexual health and safety issues continued and even got worse--as indicated in my article on Spike in Social Ills.

Statistically and ironically, then, the safest place for homosexuals was in "the closet," and the most protective strategy has been moderate social stigma. True and sensible compassion towards homosexuals would thus incline one towards the "good o'l days" before the gay movement and liberals jumped well-intentionally and inanely onto the bandwagon.

The destructive compassion of liberals found its way into programs intended to help the children of same-sex couples by purportedly providing them with a stable, loving, two-parent home, with the same federal and state benefits as children of heterosexual parents. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Again, in some respects, this was a noble cause.

However, rather than sticking with the relatively successful specialized programs offered by states and the federal government (such as child/family-focused legislation or civil unions and domestic partnerships), liberals determined instead to accomplish their worthy objective through mangling the several millennium-old definition of marriage .

This not only added to the war on traditional families (see previous sections), but it offered no discernible improvement for children of gay couples. Very few homosexual couples live in the same household (30%--see HERE) and relatively few homosexual couples choose to marry (about 6%, see HERE), and fewer still end up with children (about 19% and declining--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

So, instead of producing stable homes for those children, liberals have encouraged, through government sanction, the very relationships that not only broke-up traditional homes to begin with (most of the children of same-sex couples came from prior opposite-sex relationships, many of which were destroyed by the homosexual spouse/parent leaving the opposite-sex marriage for a homosexual relationship--see HERE and HERE and HERE), but which are culturally short-lived (see HERE) and inclined towards infidelity (see HERE), and "nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples." (See HERE, See also John Smoot's article on how same-sex marriage is worst for children--HERE)

If liberals had sensible compassion for children, they would have encourage traditional marriage rather than working to legalize same-sex marriage. Since they have done the opposite, Leftist LUNCs have occurred.

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNC have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Friday, June 28, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Opened Floodgates

The good folks on the Left may have thought that their popular fight for so-called "marriage equality" was solely on behalf of homosexuals.

However, as with many liberal causes, the floodgates have been inadvertently opened (or, as some might call it, the slippery slope has been greased even further) to legalize marriages between various other alternative relationships--including several that some on the Left may object to, while others on the Left may desire.

I can't think of a single liberal emotional appeal, or even legal argument, brought to bear in forwarding the cause of same-sex marriage, that wouldn't also apply to polyandrous or polygamous or incestuous relationships. With the exception of the matter of "consent," the same holds true for pedophilia and bestiality, if not also marriages to plants and inanimate objects.

And, if the good folks on the Left were genuine in their unqualified belief in and support of "marriage equality," then consistency demands that they support legal marriage for those other alternative relationships as well.

It is uncertain whether legalization of these alternative marriages will happen anytime soon, though efforts are already under way to legalize polygamous and polyandrous and incestuous marriages as well as marriage of humans and pets and between pets. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE  and  HERE and HERE  and HERE )

The floodgates were opened in more ways than just marriage. Legalized same-sex marriage cleared the way for the loosening of other social morals. Again, reports are also coming in that pedophilia is on the rise after legalization of gay marriage (see HERE), and support is mounting for legalization of pedophilia. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Loss of Freedom

One of the arguments Liberals have used in favor of same-sex marriage was that homosexuals were being denied the freedom to marry whomever they wished. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

While this argument may have some emotional appeal, it is problematic in several respects.

First, homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have long been able, to some extent, to marry whomever or whatever they wish. If a heterosexual or homosexual wished to marry someone of the same sex, they could and have done so. (See HERE) If a person, regardless of sexual orientation, wished to marry his or her pet, they could and have also done so. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) If they wished to get married to their car, or boat, or a picture of their favorite rock star, or most anything imaginable, again, they have been free to do so.

It is just that those marriages haven't been and aren't currently recognized by the government or society.

So, while people have pretty much been free to marry whomever or whatever they wish, the government and societies have likewise been free, to an extent, to legally recognize whichever marriages they see fit.

As such, limiting legal marriage to heterosexuals, hasn't been a restriction of homosexual freedoms, but an exercise of governmental and societal freedom.

Besides, homosexuals have had the same legal liberties or civil rights to marry as heterosexuals. Both can legally marry someone of the opposite sex (many homosexuals have done so), and neither can marry someone of the same sex (except where recently legalized), or an incestuous relation, or a minor. The law is the same regardless of sexual orientation.

As such the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals isn't in freedom or even legal liberties to marry, but in personal preferences as to whom they wish to marry. Heterosexuals prefer to marry someone of the opposite sex (which the government has sanctioned through the exercise of its freedom), and homosexuals, or at least the relatively few so inclined, prefer to marry someone of the same-sex (which the government has, for the most part, freely chosen not to sanction)

However, while the freedom of homosexuals haven't been infringed by laws restricting legal marriage to heterosexuals, ironically there are a growing number of freedoms being lost through legalization of same-sex marriages and coercion from the Left. And, the loss of freedom isn't just with heterosexuals, but with homosexuals as well.

A good example of loss of freedom by heterosexuals are the lawsuits recently brought against a florist in Washington state for refusing to do the floral arrangements for a gay wedding. This is a woman who has gladly sold flowers to homosexual clients over the years, and has developed a good business relationship, if not friendship, with them. But, because of her Christian faith, she felt she couldn't in good conscience do the floral arrangement for a gay wedding. Depending upon how the court rules, not only may her right and freedom be denied to refuse services to whom she choses, but she may be denied the freedom to decide which events she will be involved in or not.

This point is well made in a Heritage Foundation article by Thomas M Messner on "Same-Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Freedom: How Nondiscrimination Laws factor In."

Dennis Prager also underscores this point in a radio interview with a lawyer for the Alliance for Defending Freedom representing the defendant in the previously mentioned case. He points out that by legalizing same-sex marriage, religious freedoms may be in jeopardy. And, there may also be a loss of freedom for parents to keep certain objectionable material out of public school curriculum. The ability to reasonably speak one's mind may be compromised.

Prager said: "It will mean that those who, for religious or other reasons, wish to retain the man-woman definition of marriage will be legally and morally as isolated as racists are today. And it will mean that teachers and other adults who ask little boys and girls who they would like to marry, will, in order to be in sync with the morality of our times, have to make it clear that it might be a someone of the same sex. 'Will you marry a boy or a girl?' will be the only non-bigoted way to ask a young person about their marital plans." (See HERE)

Elsewhere he wrote: "Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law. Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now. Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become. Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman. Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime." (See HERE and HERE)

Matthew Frank has said: "Should the truth about marriage—that it unites men and women so that children will have fathers and mothers—be defied by the laws of the land, we cannot expect the religious freedom of those who believe in that ancient truth to be respected under the new dominion of falsehood. After all, if redefining marriage to include same-sex couples accords with justice and moral truth, there is no good reason for the new legal order to make room for 'conscientious' religious dissenters, for clearly their consciences are malformed and unworthy of respect. Thus the fate of religious freedom, for scores of millions of Americans, stands or falls with the fate of conjugal marriage itself....There are several well-known cases of bakers, photographers—even a religious nonprofit property owner—facing grave legal jeopardy for their refusal to offer their services or facilities in contradiction of their felt obligations to witness to the truth about marriage as it is taught by their faith. .Or consider public accommodations law, which can cover equal access to healthcare services, marriage and family counseling, daycare, adoption services...The clash between the redefinition of marriage and religious liberty in this area was painfully evident when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, after a century of operating an adoption agency that matched children with new parents, ceased offering this service to the community rather than be forced by the state to place children with same-sex couples contrary to Catholic teaching....Consider also the laws at various levels of government against housing discrimination. If a religious university offers housing to married student couples, will it be charged with discriminating if it denies such housing to same-sex married couples?...And on the subject of universities and schools, consider the matter of the accreditation of higher-ed programs and whole institutions, and the control of curriculum in primary and secondary education. Already we can see individual degree programs compelled by accrediting bodies, in fields such as counseling, to conform themselves to the transformed understanding of marriage and sexuality, as some religiously dissenting students have discovered to their cost...Finally, consider the matter of tax exemption...If same-sex marriage is the new normal, and dissent from it on religious grounds is the new bigotry, then with a stroke of a pen the IRS can destroy the tax-exempt status of every para-church institution in the country that is not on board with the redefinition of marriage—and perhaps of the core institutions too, the churches, synagogues, and mosques themselves." (See HERE)

For additional examples, see HERE and HERE.

[Update 7/26/15: Bake Me a Cake and Mark it with a B for Bigot and Legal Battles Following Gay Marriage]

As for homosexuals losing freedom, it is interesting to note that during the 1970's and early 80's, gays weren't all that interested in same-sex marriage. Rather, much of their activism was focused on getting rid of anti-sodomy laws. (See HERE and HERE) Their popular refrain, along with abortion advocates at the time, was: "Get the government out of our bedrooms." (See HERE) Many homosexuals, particularly the most vocal, as with proactive participants in the sexual revolution, figured it was none of the government's business who they slept with and what kind of sex they were having. Yet, fast-forward a few years, when it appears they are now, by way of same-sex marriage, very much interested in the government getting into the business of who is in their bedroom--which government involvement some homosexuals, then and now, view as an infringement on sexual liberties (see HERE).

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of  Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Same Sex Marriage: No Equality

Advocates for gay marriage have been clamoring for legalization on the basis of "marriage equality." This, however, is an illusion and a ruse.
  • "As of July 2013, thirteen states (CaliforniaConnecticutDelawareIowaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMinnesotaNew HampshireNew YorkRhode IslandVermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and five Native American tribes have legalized same-sex marriage." (See HERE) This means that there are still 37 states where so-called "marriage equality" isn't available to homosexuals. 
  • And, even if or when all states legalize same-sex marriage along with the federal government, there will still be a number of relationships that won't have so-called "marriage equality." There will still be, and always will be, various types of relationships, like polyandry and polygamy and incest and platonic and  pedaphilic and beastiality, that can't legally have "marriage equality." This is a sore-spot for even some gay activists and others. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)
  • As a rule, and for biological reasons, homosexual couples will never be equal to heterosexual couples in two key respects
    • Procreation. The simple fact of life is that, unlike as a general rule with heterosexuals, homosexual couples, between themselves, cannot conceive children. At the very best they, like infertile heterosexuals couples, must also involve an opposite-sex person in some way (as a sperm or egg donor) in order to procreate. And, since procreation is a paramount element of marriage, particularly in regards to state interest in marriage--both in terms of limiting it to legal relationships as well as growing and maintaining and raising populations (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), heterosexual couples are unavoidably superior to homosexual couples. They aren't equal...and legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't, nor can it change this fact. This is underscored by relatively few homosexual households that have children (25% as compared with 45% for heterosexual households), and those that do, the vast majority of those children came from prior heterosexual relationships (see HERE), and the number of households is declining (see HERE). 
    • Important distinctions between men and women. Another simple fact of life is that heterosexual couples entail a diversity of genders (man and woman), and homosexual couples do not. And, since each gender has their own respective beneficial qualities and characteristics (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) that, as a general rule, they excel at over the other gender (see previous links as well as HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and with which they compliment each other, particularly in terms of raising children (see HERE and HERE), then as a couple, heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals, particularly in regards to state interest in marriage and child-rearing. (See HERE) This is common sense and the lesson learned from several millennium of physical and social evolution--certain dubious scientific studies to the contrary notwithstanding. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)
  • Culturally, homosexual committed relationships/marriages are so different from traditional marriages as to make the two not only unequal, but virtually nothing alike. (See HERE) They differ in terms of:
    • Marital rates: homosexuals (about 6%) as compared with heterosexuals (95%). (See HERE)
    • Relationship longevity: homosexual (only 29% last up to 7 years) as compared with traditional marriage (70% last up to 10 years). (ibid)
    • Divorce rates: homosexuals are 50% to 300% more likely to divorce than heterosexuals. (See HERE)
    • Infidelity rates:  Homosexuals (4.5 - 25% were monogamous) as compared with heterosexuals (70 - 88% were monogamous). (See HERE and HERE)
    • Views on monogamy in committed relationships: homosexuals (50% believe sex outside their committed relationship is morally permissible) as compared to heterosexuals (7% believe adultery is morally permissible). (See HERE)
    • Promiscuity rates: Homosexuals (average 20 - 106 sexual partners per year) compared to heterosexuals (average 8 per lifetime). (See HERE and HERE)
    • Domestic violence rates: Homosexuals (4.6 - 5.8% annually) compared to heterosexuals (0.035 - 0.27% annually). (See HERE and HERE and HERE)
    • Receiving Public Assistance: Homosexual men (1.2%) and women (2.2%) compared to heterosexual men and women (0,9%). (See HERE)
    • Median age of death: homosexuals males (42 - 45 years-old) compared with heterosexual married men (75 - 79 years-old). (See HERE)

Monday, June 24, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Costly Gov. Expansion and Economic Burden

Liberals and gay-friendly economists have championed the alleged economic advantages of legalizing same-sex marriage, and they have given glowing reports on the financial benefits to states derived from legalization, particularly for early entries (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

However, many of these reports only consider the revue side of the ledger and not the cost side, and they conveniently omit other important factors from the equation. (See HERE)

Even still, assuming that the trend continues and same-sex marriage is legalized at the federal level and then nation-wide, one of the unavoidable Leftist LUNCs will be the costly expansion of government and the increased burden on the economy as a whole.

When one factors in the loss of revenue to the fed and states due to marital tax incentives and death benefits, as well as the expensive outlays for the 1,138 federal marital benefits alone (see HERE), the cost may be staggering, though near impossible to fully calculate (while some organizations have, in part, tried--see HERE and HERE and HERE), not to mention adding in the expense to states and private business for health insurance and death benefits (see HERE and HERE), particularly given that same-sex couples tend to be less healthy than heterosexual couples and require more health services (see HERE and HERE and HERE).

Yet, using the figures reported by gay advocates, where benefits of same-sex marriage to gay couples are said to be as high as $500,000.00 over their lifetime (see HERE and HERE), and assuming optimistically that all 646,000 gay households (see HERE) become legally married, the total burden born by the government and the economy at large would be $323 billion dollars (see HERE). Others have suggested "the number would more realistically be $224 billion to $182 billion over a 'lifetime'  or $4.48 billion to $3.64 billion per year" based on the 50 year estimated span). (See HERE)

And, this doesn't even consider the additional cost to state and local courts for adjudicating same-sex marital disputes, nor does it include the sizable cost to governments for funding of same-sex procreation methods. (See HERE).

Even if one looks more realistically, and figures that only 10 percent of the gay households will legalize their relationships, it still amounts to a staggering $32 billion dollars.

Since we are suffering from one of the worst economies since the Great Depression (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and in light of the spiraling national debt (see HERE), which has exceeded $16 trillion, the added costs of legalizing same-sex marriage couldn't have come at a worse time.

This thought is made all the worse when realizing that for all the public and private money to be divvied out to gay marriages, there will be little if any social benefited in return.

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNC have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Ripple Effect

With the decline of marriage and family and social mores brought on somewhat by legalizing same-sex marriage (see posts above), there are other Leftist LUNCs rippling therefrom, such as the: skyrocketing illegitimate births and the troubling increase in the number of single mothers, children in single-parent households, and the level of poverty and violent crime. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Reports are also coming in that pedophilia is on the rise after legalization of gay marriage. (See HERE)

Dennis Prager notes: "It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex....And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this....Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman. The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage." (See HERE and HERE)

John Smoot figures that same-sex marriage will be most difficult on children. He writes: "Redefining marriage will make it harder for our children to develop their self-understanding and will sanction procreative methods that treat children like commodities....The educational system will be an authoritative source of insecurity for children. Planned Parenthood, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Advocates for Youth, Answer, and Future of Sex Education (FoSE) are powerful national organizations bonded together to promote not just sex education but also 'gender education' to our young. These groups have produced the National Sexuality Education Standards 'to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide.'...Under these standards, children ages eight to ten will be taught to 'define sexual orientation as romantic attraction to an individual of the same gender or of a different gender.'...Throughout these and other guidelines published by national sex and gender education groups, there is an emphasis on teaching young children three identities, underscoring a distinction between each person’s biological sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This 'three identity' approach may help some students, but it will damage the vast majority of them....Marriage, although damaged by the sexual revolution, still carries residual power to bring men and women together and bind them to their children. Eliminating gender removes a key ingredient in helping children recognize this." (See HERE

Smoot also points out: "The second harm that is often overlooked, as Alana Newman has addressed here on Public Discourse, is that same-sex marriage will enshrine in our culture the ongoing industrialization of collecting and distributing sperm and eggs. This would include perpetuating the callous practice of anonymous gamete sales...Same-sex couples need a third person, often a fourth in the case of men, to bring a child into the world. Sanctioning same-sex marriage will result in the state mandating equal treatment for and acceptance of same-sex procreation methods. The refrain “marriage equality” is already followed by a demand for “reproductive equality.” (ibid)

Granted, like with the spike in social ills and the marriage crisis, the ripple effects mentioned above may have been caused by a number of social factors, perhaps even more so than legalizing gay marriage, though gay marriage was evidently a contributing factor.

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNC have happened, see: The politics of Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Victimization, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Marriage in Crisis

Given what is stated in the previous posts on this subject, is it any wonder, then, that many consider traditional marriage and families to be in crisis (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and that marital and birth rates are in decline. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--including same-sex marriage rates where it is legal (see HERE and HERE). A report recently indicated that for the first time in U.S. history, more adults are single than married. (See HERE)

[Update 7/3/2016 U.S. Marriage Rate Hits New Low, May Continue to Decline, Marriage in Crisis, The Role of Culture in the Decline in Marriage Rates, 144 Years of Marriage and Divorce in the U.S.]

Granted, marital and birth rates were, in some instances, in decline prior to legalization of same-sex marriage, though the decline has been exacerbated in those instances (see previous links and HERE), and may in some ways have been as much a symptom or byproduct of other threats as it was, or is, a threat, itself.

And, while divorce among heterosexuals has somewhat diminished (it went from 4.0 per 1,000 in 2000, to 3.6 in 2010--see HERE), "A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples." (See HERE) "The pattern is evident in the Netherlands as well as Norway and Sweden, where Mundy notes that the risk of breakups for female partnerships more than doubles that found in male unions. The actual study she cites estimates that in Sweden 30 percent of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within six years of formation, compared with 20 percent for male marriages and 13 percent for heterosexual ones." (HERE)

Furthermore, same-sex marriage isn't the only threat to traditional marriage. Economics and other popular cultural issues like the sexual revolution, the "hook-up" generation, radical feminism, narcissism, no-fault divorce, etc. are in some respect greater threats. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) And, there are not a few heterosexuals who have been against marriage. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

Nevertheless, as indicated, same-sex marriage is corrosive to traditional marriage--not so much on an individual basis, but cumulatively at the cultural level (see HERE). It is one of many straws pilled onto the cultural camel's back in relation to traditional marriage.

If you thought correctly that traditional marriage was crumbling under its own heterosexual problems (like with the disturbing levels of cheating and divorce and domestic violence and the growing trend towards "open marriages" among heterosexuals--see HERE), imagine how much more the institution of marriage in general will suffer now that a demographic (homosexuals) is being added to the mix, who have a significantly greater penchant for infidelity, short-term relationships, domestic violence, sexual openness, divorce, and mental illness than heterosexual (see HERE), and who have altered the meaning of words like "marriage" and "fidelity" and monogamy" to accommodate sexual infidelity. (See previous posts).

In other words, good and decent liberals have naively supposed that their support for same-sex marriage would ultimately strengthen the fundamental structure of society, but in reality they have unwittingly assented to the destruction of the traditional family--and for the life of them, they can't see it.

For example, a writer for the Atlantic Magazine said: "But what if the critics are correct, just not in the way they suppose? What if same-sex marriage does change marriage, but primarily for the better?...But the larger change might be this: by providing a new model of how two people can live together equitably, same-sex marriage could help haul matrimony more fully into the 21st century. Although marriage is in many ways fairer and more pleasurable for both men and women than it once was, it hasn’t entirely thrown off old notions and habits...Same-sex spouses, who cannot divide their labor based on preexisting gender norms, must approach marriage differently than their heterosexual peers. From sex to fighting, from child-rearing to chores, they must hammer out every last detail of domestic life without falling back on assumptions about who will do what. In this regard, they provide an example that can be enlightening to all couples. Critics warn of an institution rendered 'genderless.' But if a genderless marriage is a marriage in which the wife is not automatically expected to be responsible for school forms and child care and dinner preparation and birthday parties and midnight feedings and holiday shopping, I think it’s fair to say that many heterosexual women would cry 'Bring it on!'” (See HERE)

Be that as it may, the decline and potential collapse of traditional marriage and family through same-sex marriage and other cultural trends, isn't entirely accidental, but was set as a goal well in advance by homosexual advocates and others, and strategically planned and executed since then. For example, various gay manifestos and agendas have called for the elimination or radical altering of the traditional family (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), lesbian feminist and others have "regarded the institution as oppressive" and in need of change or elimination (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and certain prominent figures in the gay movement have admitted to being against "marriage"--gay or otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--which may account for why so few homosexuals choose to legally marry where permitted (see above), though some homosexuals support the idea of civil unions rather than marriage (see HERE and HERE). And, there are those homosexuals who see marriage as conflicting with sexual liberties (see HERE), or who regret the focus on gay marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and who even intimate that same-sex marriage was designed to destroy or radically alter traditional marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), if not also to legitimize homosexual behaviors (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine: ' fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."  "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.'" (Quoted HERE)

Lesbian journalist, Marsha Gesson, admits: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie....The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago." (Quoted HERE)

Mary Rice Hasson notes: "The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of 'marriage,' for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever..."(See HERE, see also below).

Not surprisingly, the rancor on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate has soured people on marriage altogether. (see HERE)

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Monday, June 17, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Degraded Traditional Marriage

All the extensive and passionate advocacy for same-sex marriage has given the impression that marriage is a highly valued and cherished institution by the Left and gays, and that they wish it to be elevated in stature, rather than degraded. (See HERE)

However, when the definition of a word is diluted and bastardize, it is reasonable to expect that its value and meaningfulness to society and in the law would be diluted as well.

This is certainly true for the word "marriage" following the public and court debates and legalization of "same-sex marriage." (See HERE and HERE)

Not only was the definition diluted by including relationships that had previously been implicitly excluded (the more inclusive the definition the less prized the word), but its value and meaningfulness was unavoidably diminished and further tainted by linking it to behaviors that were once considered morally reprehensible, criminal in many states, and "are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive." (See HERE and HERE)

And, as indicated in previous posts, the word "marriage" wasn't the only casualty of legalized gay marriage. Other words, like "committed" and "fidelity" and "monogamy" have also somewhat fallen prey

By legalizing same-sex marriage and altering other marital and moral terms, the fundamental institution of society has subsequently lost some of its appeal and virtue and moral impetus. Dennis Prager wisely asks: "why do we so rashly overturn an institution that has served our society so well for thousands of years?" (See HERE)

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed] 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Same-Sex Marriage--Spike in Social Ills

Liberals have argued for same-sex marriage by claiming, in part, that it would encourage stable, long-term committed relationships among homosexual couples, thereby having a positive effect on social health and welfare--just as presumably with legal marriage for heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) This is a commendable goal.

However, after legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and other states, instead of decreasing certain sex-related social problems as intended (like homosexual promiscuity and infidelity and intimate/domestic partner violence and suicides and AIDs and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections), the previous downward trends were reversed and saw an increase at an alarming rate for each of these social ills. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

Some homosexuals consider this the new gay epidemic. (See HERE)

Seemingly against reason, there has been a rise in gay teen pregnancies, to the point that in Minnesota the rate of births among gays out-paced that of heterosexual teens. (See HERE) And, while a variety of social factors are suggest to explain this counter-intuitive phenomena, the old saw of "social stigma" was expectantly, though mistakenly trotted out. The rise in gay social ills parallels the increased acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual issues, thus running opposite to trends in social stigma, thereby counter what is claimed. (See HERE and HERE) The rise in social ills is due, in part, to gay acceptance. (See HERE and HERE)

[Update 11/25/2015: CDC Finally Acknowledges: Homosexual Behaviors Can Lead to More STDs]

[Update 7/2/2016: As indicated above, suicide rates have increased since the dawn of the SSM movement. Many attribute this rise to social stigma, which makes no sense since societies have become increasingly more accepting of homosexuality over the last decade (see HERE), which means that suicide rates should be declining were social stigma the cause. Here is the real culprit, which underscores the point of this post: Study: relationship problems, not family rejection, leading cause of higher gay suicides]

There are at least two reasons that may explain the rise in these societal challenges following the legalization of same-sex marriage, which, themselves, constitute Leftist LUNCs:
  1. Legalization of same-sex marriage may have been viewed by many people as the government and society putting its seal of approval on homosexual behaviors, thus altering or loosening social morals and promoting homosexuality. And since homosexuals, as a culture, tend to be far more promiscuous and lacking in fidelity and prone to intimate/domestic partner violence and STDs and mental illness than heterosexuals (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), then legalization of same-sex marriage may have inadvertently promoted promiscuity and infidelity and intimate/domestic partner violence, with the side effect of increased STDs and suicides (see HERE and HERE), contrary to what the Left had planned. Mark Regnerus concludes: "Many libertarians and conservatives, including Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, assert that marriage is a conservative institution—which is true—one that will therefore function as such for those who enter it, whether gay or straight. While certainly the case for some, that claim is an unlikely future for many, not because gay or lesbian couples are liberal but because those in the driver’s seat of the contemporary mating market—men—are permissive. This, I predict, will be same-sex marriage’s signature effect on the institution—the institutionalization of monogamish as an acceptable marital trait. No, gay men can’t cause straight men to cheat. Instead, the legitimacy newly accorded their marital unions spells opportunity for men everywhere to bend the boundaries. Dan Savage will be proud." (See HERE)
  2. According to various studies: ""Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.[20] Bradley P. Hayton, 'To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993--as reported HERE)  "Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.” (See HERE and HERE) A national survey discovered that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. (Parade, August 7, 1994, pp. 4–6.) Another study found that two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40% female, 60% male) did not believe marriage needed always to be monogamous. In fact, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47%) had an explicit agreement that allowed for non-monogamy. (See HERE and HERE) Yet another study showed: "that 47 per cent of gay couples had 'sex agreements' that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous. Proponents of 'marriage equality' sing their refrain over and over: 'Our relationships are just the same as yours.' Not even close. While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships." (See HERE) (See also HERE and HERE and HERE)  As such, legalizing same-sex marriage didn't diminish infidelity and social problems common to unmarried homosexuals, but may have even encourage it by giving homosexual infidelity the legitimizing label of "marriage." (See also HERE and HERE and HERE

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed]