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: ' ...to 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)

NEXT in SERIES    START SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

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--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)

NEXT in SERIES    START SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

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--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) 

NEXT in SERIES    START SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

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--Too Few

With as surprisingly envious of heterosexual relationships as homosexuals seem to have become over the last quarter century or more, and in spite of all the years of strenuous effort and enormous amounts of money spent campaigning and litigating to legalize same-sex marriage, and against the expectation that throngs of homosexual couples would tie-the-knot like their heterosexual neighbors, thus making the level of social concern and effort and expense seemingly worthwhile and in proportion, it turns out that relatively few (29%) homosexuals have been in a relationship at any given time (see HERE), and about the same percentage have entered into long term relationships lasting more than 7 years (see HERE, see also HERE), and fewer still (between 6% and 25%) legalize those relationships where possible (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), as compared with about 95 percent of heterosexuals who have married (see HERE), with more than 70 percent of those marriages lasting longer than 10 years (see HERE and HERE).

It is uncertain what proportion of homosexual couples have legally married in the U.S. where possible (as differentiated from civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the like), but according to the National Review: "in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state." (See HERE)

Using the national average of 1.7 percent, the adult gay population is Massachusetts is estimated at around 117,000 (see HERE). This means that even were all of the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts to have been in state, then at best that would amount to only 5% of homosexuals getting married each year.

And, it appears that after the initial burst in 2006, the number of same-sex marriages drastically declined. (See HERE, as reported HERE)

Thus, all the hoopla yielded very little, if not disappointing results for those on the Left.

[Update 6/22/2016: According to this Atlantic article, Gay Marriage in the U.S., After Obergefell v Hodges, "A new Gallup poll released Wednesday estimates about 9.6 percent of LGBT adults are currently married to a same-sex spouse, up from 7.9 percent before the landmark court decision last June. Gallup estimates about 123,000 same-sex marriages have taken place since the ruling: Gallup currently estimates 3.9% of U.S. adults are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, and 0.4% of U.S. adults are married to a same-sex spouse. These figures can be used to estimate there are approximately 981,000 U.S. adults in a same-sex marriage and, thus, 491,000 same-sex marriages in the U.S. That latter estimate is up from roughly 368,000 a year ago." This means that even though homosexual couples have, for a year, been able to leagally marry anywhere in the U.S., at best less than 10% have done so. Evidently, homosexuals are not the marrying type--particularly when compared to heterosexuals.]

[Update 12/6/13: Washington state officials recently released figures showing that over the last year that gay marriage was legal, around 17 percent of the marriages in the state were same-sex couples. (See HERE) "About 7,071 same-sex couples got married in Washington between December 6, 2012, and the most recent complete month of data, September 2013. There were 42,408 total marriages in the state during that time, according to the Washington State Department of Health. So far, most of Washington state's same-sex marriages, 62 percent, were between two women....During the five years before Washington's gay marriage law, when the state had what was affectionately called "everything but marriage," only 9,500 couples registered themselves as domestic partners, including about 950 who were not gay, said state Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle....About a quarter of the gay couples who got married this past year in Washington were from another state. " (ibid)

In one respect this seem rather impressive and at odds with what I claim above. If gay adults represent 1.7 % (see HERE) of the 5,312,045 adult population in Washington (see HERE), this means that about 12% of the gay population got married in one year as compared with .14% for heterosexuals. In other words, proportionately there were more than 8 times as many gays that got married as heterosexuals.

However, in another respect it is underwhelming, particularly when one considers all the adults in the state of Washington who were already married or in domestic partnerships. When given the opportunity to legally marry, only 12% of the gay population thus far opted to marry and are currently married in Washington, as contrasted with on average about 95% of heterosexuals who have married and 55% who are currently married (see HERE).

It is even more underwhelming when one considers the fact that 5303 in-state gay couples married, whereas there were already approximately 8550 gay couples in Washington who were in domestic partnerships. (See HERE)  In other words, at best only 62% of the gay domestic partnerships in the state opted to convert to marriages).].

[3/28/15: According to the Washington Post, only 1 in 4 gay couples in the U.S. are "married."; see a;lso Gallup Poll April 2015, although in June of 2015, Pew Research published an article indicating that earlier estimates erred by inflating the numbers by almost double. In 9/10/215, the percent of gay couples that have married is less than 1/3, though the author may be working with earlier inflated numbers. ]

NEXT in SERIES    START SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

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]

Same-Sex Marriage--Hurting the Children

In my estimation as an observer and researcher and active participant for decades in public debates on the matter, nothing has served to move the cause of homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" forward more than making the issue about children, if not also indoctrinating young people from grade school to high school and beyond, while countenancing and collaborating with child abuse organizations.

For a good while, the predominate sympathy ploy of gay advocates was that adult homosexuals were prevented from visiting their partners in the hospital and couldn't share health care insurance like heterosexual couples, to name just a few government benefits allegedly denied to them (see HERE), and so in order to right this supposed wrong, the argument was made that homosexual relationships should be legalized--forget that these government benefits could have been extended in other ways without legalizing homosexual relationships or mangling the definition of marriage.

And, while this ploy gained some emotional mileage, it wasn't enough to tip the scales towards broad or majority public appeal. What was needed was to also include children in the mix, and make the issue about alternative "families."

Accordingly, in the early part of the new millennium, arguments began to crop up on advocacy websites and in legal cases concerning adoption restrictions and the children of homosexual couples not receiving the same public support as heterosexual families.

For example, a writer for the NY Times recently put it this way: "The history of this issue is filled with stories of hardship and heartbreak befalling children whose parents are not recognized as — well, as parents. There are the cases of mothers and fathers turned away from a child’s hospital bed because they are not 'family.' There are the cases of beloved adults denied visitation rights after a breakup. Many states restrict the ability of a gay parent to adopt or to respond to a child’s medical emergency. Divorce laws were created in large part to assure that children get financial and emotional support when marriages end: no marriage, no divorce, no support." (See HERE)

These emotional appeals, while perhaps well intended, though seemingly oblivious to other forms of legal status--like civil unions and domestic partnerships--and the growing body of child protection laws, give the impression that children of same-sex couples have fallen between the societal cracks and are being "cruelly" neglected.

However, this is demonstrably false, as made evident by the fact that homosexual parents tend to receive more public assistance than heterosexuals with children. According to the gay advocacy website, Williams Institute, in 2010 approximately 3.4% of lesbians raising children, and 2.7% of gay men with kids, received public assistance, as compared with only 1.3% of heterosexual parents. (See HERE)

In other words, children of homosexuals were proportionately more than twice as likely as children of heterosexuals to get government help. So, where is the crack?

Why, then, have gay advocates been conspicuously silent about this inconvenient fact? In all my years of research on this topic, the first I learned of this statistic was a few days ago, and even then it was by accident and buried within an article on so-called "income inequality," and wasn't intended to speak to the question at hand.

Nevertheless, to bolster their recently formulated child-centric case, liberal and sympathetic groups have commissioned a number of dubious studies intended to selectively sift through the data for even the most tissuey confirmation of their bias and prop up the counter-intuitive perception that children of gay couples fare as well if not better than children of heterosexuals, and that they would suffer psychologically if gay marriage were not legalized. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

And, as expected, these dubious studies were widely trumpeted by the liberal media (ibid), presumptuously and mistakenly deemed the final word, and have found their way into legal briefs and court rulings, and were marshaled to elicit the endorsement of seemingly respected organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (see HERE) and the less surprising American Psychiatric Association (see HERE), and to bamboozle not a few federal judges (see HERE).

Aside from these studies having recently been debunked (see HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE), followed by the expected circling of the liberal wagons lamely dismissing the debunking (see HERE and HERE and HERE), they conveniently omit a number of relevant facts, such as:

At best, only about 25% of homosexual ever enter into a legalized relationship, of which only a portion of them get married where available, as compared with 95% for heterosexuals. (See HERE)  So, we aren't talking about a demographic that is largely bent on legitimacy or marriage.

Very few homosexual couples live in the same household (30%--see HERE), and fewer still end up with children (only about 19%), and this number is on the decline (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), as compared with 66% for heterosexuals, which number is also in decline (see HERE). So, again, we aren't talking about a demographic that is clamoring for children.

Even more disconcerting, homosexual relationships are disproportionately transient, even when legalized. In terms of relationship longevity, only 29% of homosexual couples stay together up to 7 years, as compared with 70% of traditional marriage lasting more than 10 years. (See HERE)  And, homosexuals are 2 to 3 times more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. (See HERE and HERE)

This may be due in part to several factors. First, the disproportionately high rates of infidelity among homosexuals--4.5 - 25% monogamy as compared with 70 - 88% among heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE) Second, the disproportionately high rates of promiscuity among homosexuals--they average 20 - 106 sexual partners per year, as compared to heterosexuals who average 8 per lifetime. (See HERE and HERE) And, third, the disproportionately high rate of domestic violence among homosexuals--4.6 - 5.8% annually, as compared to 0.035 - 0.27% annually for heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

So, yet once more we aren't talking about a demographic largely intent on providing stable and safe homes for children.

In fact, for most of the 19% of same-sex households raising children, the vast majority of the children came from prior opposite-sex relationships. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

In other words, by and large, and contrary to the propagandized impression, not only aren't homosexuals clamoring to raise children, nor desperate to get married so as to raise those children in a stable and safe home, but most of the children they have been raising came from breaking up traditional homes.

[Update: according to the 2014 U.S. Census (see the spreed sheet for 2014), Of the estimated more than 5.7 million  homosexuals in the U.S. only 27% of them were in committed relationships (married or otherwise), as compared with 89% for heterosexuals. Of the 27% of homosexuals in committed relationships, only 17.3% had children in the home, of which 16. % were there own--presumably biological from previous heterosexual marriages. ]

Given the uncontroversial and relatively undisputed view that divorce and other unstable parental relationships can have serious and lasting ill-effects on children (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and given the even less controversial view that domestic violence has a debilitating impact on kids (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and given the significantly higher rates at which divorce and domestic violence occur among homosexuals, the implications are clear and a matter of common sense...and yet the good folks on the Left actually expect us to believe the agenda-driven reports that children of homosexual parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexuals, including and more particularly those homes with two biological parents?

Were this not enough, I report on a number of other potential ill-effects of same-sex marriage on children in my article on the Ripple Effects of Same-Sex Marriage.

Children are also being exploited in other ways. It was little more than a third of a century ago that homosexuality was not only generally considered as morally repugnant, but the psychiatric community also deemed it a mental disorder. (See HERE)  Whereas, nowadays, homosexuality has become generally accepted and even celebrated in pop culture. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

How did this happen?

The relatively short transition from condemning to condoning to embracing was a function of multiple factors, but none more key than the heightened indoctrination of our Nation's children. Kids as young as fourth grade have been the intended target of sustained and skillfully executed PR campaigns, which have manifest themselves both in popular media (ibid) as well as throughout our public school system (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 this under the guise of "Multiculturalism" and "Safe Schools". (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

[Update 7/26/15: Eroticizing the Classroom: Protect Your Kids]

Here is a Top 10 list of strategies homosexual activists have used in public education. (See HERE)

And, it isn't just Right-wingers making this claim. Homosexual activists have also owned up to it (see HERE and HERE), and have included it as a plank in their manifestos and agendas. (See HERE and HERE and HERE),

In spite of liberals and gays scoffing at the notion of a "gay agenda" (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), as mentioned in some of the links above, the primary architects of the real, massive, and rather detailed public relations campaign were Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (a.k.a. "Erastes Pill"), by way of their 1987 article in Guide Magazine, "The Overhauling of Straight America," and their 1989 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s."

One may easily peruse the last several decades to see ample instances where most, if not all the Kirk and Madsen PR strategies have been adeptly employed, and even less unmistakably, the intended results of escalated favorable opinions (see HERE), particularly among young people. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Now, understandably, homosexual sympathizers have been quick to distance homosexuality from pedophilia (see HERE and HERE and HERE) even though studies have raised serious concerns somewhat to the contrary (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE). And, clever semantics have been employed to give the impression of greater distance than in reality (see HERE), and bold declarations by gay activists about child recruitment have been ardently downplayed (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Never mind the fact that gay rights organizations like Boston-Boise Committee and the Mattachine Society and Gay Activist Alliance gave rise to the pedophilia/pederasty movement (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and several leading gay voices in the 1970's went on to become founding members and staunch supporters of NAMBLA and other pederast causes (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), not to mention that until the late 80's and early 90's, NAMBLA published a gay pedophilia magazine (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and was a part of several gay alliances (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and was even a welcomed participant in gay pride parades (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) until it became politically inexpedient (see HERE), even though not a few people on the Left are in denial about this (see HERE).

It should come as no surprise, then, that pedophilia, which is estimated to be as prevalent if not more so than homosexuality (see HERE), has surged in reported incidences following the successes of the gay movement (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and that the movement has become a springboard for so-called "intergenerational sexuality" ( and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), which is the new code word for adults having sex with kids (see ibid, and HERE), as well as emboldening the movement towards pedophilia rights and normalization (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)

This is not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, or even suggest that homosexuals are generally in favor of sex with children. Rather, it is to show yet another way in which homosexuals have not only countenanced, but have used kids for their adult purposes.

To summarize, one of the most disturbing aspects of the presumably adult issue of  "same-sex marriage," and the Leftist LUNC here is, how children have been falsely exploited to promote the cause, and yet sadly, as has been and will be shown in the following articles, if not also in due time, these children are at most risk of suffering the consequences of this radical social experiment. 

NEXT in SERIES    START SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

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] 

Equality and Civil Rights--Same-Sex Marriage--Intro

For a quarter of a century or more liberals have attempted to make the world safer and more accepting of homosexuals and homosexuality. And, they have intended to provide "marriage equality" to homosexuals by radically altering the legal definition of marriage. They have allegedly done so for the purpose of extending government benefits and to encourage stable, long-term committed relationships among homosexual couples, presumably with the intent of providing good homes for children and diminishing the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and other domestic problems associated with promiscuous sexual behavior--just as with legal marriage for heterosexuals.

I say "allegedly" because to an extent the purposes listed above were fulfilled with the enactment of domestic partnerships and civil unions, though evidently that wasn't enough.

Be that as it may, in 2008, then candidate Obama promised: "As your president, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws" and "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans." (See HERE)

Sounds compassionate and reasonable?

The good news is, the world outside the closet has become increasingly welcoming to homosexuals to the point that these days it would be absurd to consider the world, on balance and for the most part. as hostile. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

And, to some extent, heterosexuals should be flattered that homosexuals are so envious of the decidedly heterosexual convention of marriage as to exert inordinate amounts of time and effort and money in an attempt to attain it--or at least make a pretense of being just like heterosexuals.

However, while rightly making the world safer for homosexuals and assuring them the same civil rights as other citizens, what resulted in going to the extreme and mangling the several millennial-year-old definition of marriage through legalizing same-sex marriage, has, in many respects, produced the opposite results than what many intended.

Here are some of the same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs: (Update: several of the points made in the following posts are touched on in a more recent article written in anticipation of a 2015 Supreme Court Ruling. The article provides compelling evidence that many of the LUNCs listed below were anticipated and desired and even a part of the over-all manipulative plan: You Will Be Assimilated: The same-sex marriage bait and switch. Also, the points to be made below, and others that could be made, havew motivated Daniel Payne to pen a stirring article on "The Big Gay Marriage Lie: Gay Marriage Doesn't Hurt Anyone".)

• Hurting the Children - Children have been wrongly exploited in the pursuit of "gay marriage," and sadly they stand to bear the brunt of this radical and unprecedented social experiment.
• Too Few - Just a measly 6% of homosexuals have entered into legalize relationships where possible. Was it all worth it?
• Spike in Social Ills - Liberal efforts to decrease health and mortality risks among homosexuals, has resulted in the opposite.
• Degraded Traditional Marriage -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.
• Marriage in Crisis -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 accented to the destruction of the traditional family--and for the life of them, they can't see it.
• Ripple Effect -With the decline of marriage and family and social mores brought on somewhat by legalizing same-sex marriage...there are other Leftist LUNCs rippling therefrom.
• Costly Gov Expansion -Legalizing same-sex marriage by liberals could cost trillions of dollars during the Nation's second wprst financial crisis and spiraling national debt..
• No "Marriage Equality" -Legalizing same-sex marriage didn't, and won't, and can't produce "marriage equality" as claimed. This liberal concept is an illusion and a ruse.
• Loss of Freedom -Gay marriage was intended to extend freedom, but will take away some freedoms for opponents and proponents alike.
• Opened Floodgates -Moral and legal groundwork has now been laid for liberal legitimization of other alternative, socially unpopular and repelling marriages, lifestyles, and behaviors.
• Destructive Compassion -The destructive power of liberalism is manifest in the promotion of homosexuality and gay marriage. People are literally being killed by liberal kindness.
• Blurs Critical Male/Female Distinction -Through liberal promotion of gay marriage and other cultural causes, the value of women and mothers has been diminished.
• House Divided When it comes to homosexual issues, iberals are now at each others throats. 

NEXT   INDEX

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]

Equality and Civil Rights--Zimmerman/Martin case

To me, what is most disturbing about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin issue is the Leftist LUNC in seeing the once noble and compassionate civil rights movement ultimately morph into the now spiteful and self-serving uncivil wrong movement.

Where once the Left courageously marched against racial injustice and gallantly advocated for basic rights for all mankind and healthy racial sensitivity, in recent times they have mobilized the media, celebrates, and even governmental entities into fomenting racial strife, vigilante-like injustice, bullying, and racial hyper-sensitivity.

It is expected that the usual suspects (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP--see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) would feature prominently in the virtual manufactured racially-charged fray of the Zimmerman/Martin case (there is no legitimate or significant racial component--see HERE and HERE), and exploit it to mobilize support and funding for their lucrative and powerful race-baiting businesses, and that their divisive rhetoric and propaganda would be trumpeted by the sympathetic leftist media. (ibid.).

However, things reached a new low when the President of the U.S. discriminatingly joined in the mob mentality (see HERE and HERE and HERE) and, through Eric Holder (see HERE and HERE), in a non-federal case, turned the justice department into a community organizing and protest unit (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), biased against a citizen who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The department whose constitutional duty it was to protect and defend rights and insure justice, became the instrument of quite the opposite, and this presumably as a part of its extra-constitutional anti-gun agenda (see HERE).

The hypocrisy here is that President Obama promised to "rid the [Justice] department of ideologues and political cronies…the Civil Rights Division will actually be staffed with civil rights lawyers who prosecute civil rights violations, and employment discrimination, and hate crimes."—09/28/07, Washington, D.C.(See HERE)

With the Left having weaved this strand of the hell-destined hand basket, it comes as no surprise that homegrown terrorists would be embolden to pay violence on innocent people, at times under the guise of "this is for Trayvon Martin "(see HERE and HERE and HERE), and call for the beheading of Zimmerman (see HERE).

And, of course, no leftist agenda would be complete without the self-serving mangling of the English language. During the trial, and as a part of public discourse surrounding the Zimmerman/Martin case, specific racial categorizations typically favored by the Left (that is, when its suites their purposes--as with diversity issues) like Jew, Hispanic, etc., were soon abandoned.for the general label of "white" (or the intentionally discrediting "self-proclaimed Hispanic") because its better fit the more inflammatory "white vs black" narrative.  And, terms typically considered as racist or bigoted, were conveniently, if not hypocritically, deemed otherwise. (See HERE)

Ironically, the Left, who is renown for inclusion and peace and unity amidst diversity, and is supposed to be, to a fault, deferential to minority needs and issues, has through the course of this controversy corroded race relations, passionately engaged in discriminatory and divisive rhetoric and actions, and scathingly decried the ruling of an all female jury (see HERE and HERE and HERE), in the trial of a Jewish Peruvian (see HERE and HERE), who fatally defended himself from being beaten for allegedly being gay and a predatory pedaphilic rapist. (See HERE .and HERE and HEFE).

How did the civil rights movement eventually go so wrong? I explain it, in part here:  The Politics of Race, and The Politics of Compassion

Subject Index  

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: The Politics of Race, Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization