I have often treated with derision the misapplication of the term "homophobia".  And some folks would probably apply that term to someone who finds any kind of specifically homosexual behavior disgusting.  While someone who finds such behaviors disgusting may indeed be a homophobe, they don’t have to be a homophobe to find behaviors disgusting.

But why should it matter if someone is disgusted by any or all specifically homosexual behavior? Let me clarify what I'm NOT talking about here:

1. Holding hands, hugs, or a light peck.
2. Someone who deals with their disgust by harassing or committing personal or property crimes.
3. Someone trying to use government force to prevent or punish private adult citizens from of for engaging in private consensual behavior.

Even with numbers 2 and 3, the problem comes not with the disgust that someone has, but with their actions that are a violation of someone else's rights.

Different people are disgusted by any number of things, including certain body types, certain foods or drinks, smoking, chewing tobacco, certain fashions, horror movies, My Name is Earl... you name it.  But who is ever sent to sensitivity training for expressing their disgust for, say, eating blue cheese?  No doubt, there are people out there who would be disgusted by some of the things my wife and I do together, but I don't spend a moment worrying about it.  There are people out there – including heterosexuals – who are disgusted by some normal heterosexual behaviors.  I'll refrain from inserting jokes about some wives here.  Heterosexual intercourse is how we all got here, but is a college student punished by school authorities for expressing a disgust of that behavior?

Yet what is likely to happen to someone - in a class or a workplace meeting - who expresses disgust towards sodomy between two men?  It's likely re-education time for such a person (training, therapy).  What about an elected or appointed official who expresses those thoughts?  Activist groups immediately freak out.  That's their right.  It's silly, but that's their right.  However, I think a student or someone in the workplace should be able to say "I am disgusted by homosexual behavior" without being sent to re-education - as long as Constitutional protections apply to those situations.[1]

I am not personally disgusted at the thought of homosexual behavior.  I don't desire to see it - I don't want to engage in it, but the thought of it (hard to avoid, given pop culture and politics these days) doesn’t make me ill.  I don't advise people engage in it; in fact, I would discourage them from doing so - not that anyone would listen to me.  I'm convinced that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites the sexes.[2]

But homosexuality advocates freak out if someone expresses disgust for any homosexual behavior.  Most meat eaters don't take personal offense at a vegetarian expressing a disgust for meat-eating.  Most marketers don't vilify people who are disgusted with the product or service they are promoting – they simply move on to direct their marketing towards a more receptive audience.  Perhaps the difference is that someone who is selling a service or product knows that it should be someone's choice whether or not they support their business by buying that service or product.  Too many homosexuality advocates are trying to bully us in to buying their "products" – a glorification of homosexual behavior; a disproportionate amount of public resources devoted to issues either exclusive to or prevalent in their subcultures; a discounting of the benefits of traditional marriage and parenting; and a neutered concept of marriage.  People who express disgust at homosexual behavior are more likely to say "no".  That seems to be the problem.  The advocates are demanding something from others.  That requires that enough of the others shut up and sit down, if they aren't supportive, in order for it to work.  If the goal was simply to be left alone, there wouldn’t be so much concern about what other people think or say.

Notes:
1. (Ultimately, I believe in separation of state and most schooling, and employment freedom.  This means that schools would be allowed to set a policy to expel anyone expressing disgust for homosexual behavior, and employers would be able to fire someone for the same offense.  However, schools and employers would also be able to reject anyone for engaging in homosexual behavior – or for any other reason or no reason.

2. I am disgusted and do have contempt for people – regardless of sexual orientation – who make babies when they haven’t provided those babies with a marriage in which to be raised – a marriage consisting of both a decent mother and father who treat each other with love, kindness, and respect.

Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff has the story on a new study that links parental reactions to problems for homosexuals.

Young gay people whose parents or guardians responded negatively when they revealed their sexual orientation were more likely to attempt suicide, experience severe depression and use drugs than those whose families accepted the news, according to a new study.

They never define "negatively" in the article.  There are parents who do not allow their heterosexual children to date.  Is that being "negative" towards their heterosexuality?  Parents can discourage behaviors without rejecting their child.  Although, if the child has absorbed the thinking of some activists groups, they may be unable to make the distinction between disapproval of behaviors and rejection of them as a person.

Among other findings, the study showed that teens who experienced negative feedback were more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide, nearly six times as vulnerable to severe depression and more than three times at risk of drug use.

As I often point out, correlation does not prove causation.  Things could be generally bad in such homes.  I don't wish depression on anyone.

One of the most startling findings was that being forbidden to associate with gay peers was as damaging as being physically beaten or verbally abused by their parents in terms of negative feedback, Ryan said.

Again, what does this mean?  Two teens who could be mutually attracted to each other not being allowed to be alone behind closed doors?

In the two-part study, Ryan and her colleagues first interviewed 53 families with gay teenagers to identify 106 specific behaviors that could be considered "accepting" or "rejecting." For example, blaming a youth for being bullied at school, shielding him from other relatives or belittling her appearance for not conforming to social expectations fell into the rejecting category.

Oh, brother.  My parents rightly pointed out to me that I would be bullied less if I stopped rewarding my tormentors will an emotional reaction (though I do believe vandalism or assault should not be tolerated in schools).  Why shouldn't parents shield their children from hostile relatives - regardless of why the relatives are hostile?  And parents have always had things to say about how their children choose to dress.

Next, they surveyed 224 white and Latino gay people between ages 21 and 25 to see which of the behaviors they had experienced growing up.

That's a fairly small sampling.

The responses then were matched against the participants' recent histories of severe depression, suicide attempts, substance abuse and unsafe sexual behavior.

How about some more control groups?  What about these behaviors in homosexual people who had "positive" parents compared to the general population?

Ryan recalled a teenage girl whose mother forced her to date a boy and sent her to live with her grandmother when she learned her daughter was a lesbian.

No teenager should be forced to date anyone.  Nobody should be forced to date, period.

In her paper for the journal Pediatrics, Ryan recommends that medical professionals ask young patients how their families have reacted to their sexual orientations and tell parents that negative reactions may prove harmful even if well-intentioned.

Great.  So now, the doctor you are paying to check out your kid is going to get on your case to encourage you let your kid do whatever they want with their genitals.  No thank you.  When my children are paying their own way through life, they can live as they please.

"When providers and adults and family members think of gay people, they think of sex. They don't think of emotional attraction or social interaction or spiritual connectedness or deep-rooted psychological feelings," she said.

Because that is what makes it different.  There are men I have been emotionally attracted to, have interacted with them socially, and felt a spiritual connection – but I have never wanted to see them naked to touch them in a sexual manner.

You know, a lot of parents want their children to follow in their footsteps - to find a spouse and make babies, thereby giving them grandchildren.  They get disappointed when their child remains unmarried, and when their teen tells them they are a homosexual, well, that dashes some hopes early on.

I'd like to point out that I couldn't comment on this story if it wasn't there.  These kinds of stories get a lot of MSM attention.

Steven Reinberg of HealthDay reports on a different look at "virginity pledge" data.

Teens who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have sex as teens who don't make such promises -- and they're less likely to practice safe sex to prevent disease or pregnancy, a new study finds.

Sounds bad for programs like "True Love Waits", right?

This method allowed Rosenbaum to compare those who had taken a virginity pledge with similar teens who hadn't taken a pledge but were likely to delay having sex, she said. She added that she didn't include teens who were unlikely to take a pledge.

So, in other words, making a pledge as a kid doesn't change behavior all that much, but the kind of parenting and community support that encourages pledging is also the kind that discourages teen fornication, pledge or not.

"Strikingly, pledgers are less likely than similar non-pledgers to use condoms and also less likely to use any form of birth control."

This is a form of denial, and it is a problem.

For the study, Rosenbaum collected data on 934 high school students who had never had sex or had taken a virginity pledge. The data came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

Rosenbaum matched students who had taken a virginity pledge with those who hadn't.

Not all students who didn't make pledges – just others who were likely to have similar behavior.

She said teens who are religious tend to delay having sex, but that has nothing to do with virginity pledges or abstinence-only sex education programs.

Like I said.

It isn't so much the pledge - it is clearly communicated parental expectations and boundaries, as well as supervision.  We also need to be sure to provide alternative activities for youth and coping skills.  Simply warning them about sin, disease, pregnancy, or broken hearts isn't enough if we don’t teach them how to be disciplined in dealing with feelings, peers, and pressure.  Abstaining sounds like "missing out".  Fornicating can feel good, and you don't get a tangible prize for saying "no".  But there are ways to promote purity, such as celebrations like purity balls.  And please note – I have never attended a purity ball, so I’m talking about the concept, not the execution.

It was easier for people to save sex for marriage when we lived in tight-nit, small communities where children often worked alongside parents and people were done with their education/training as teens and married as teens.  We don't live in that world anymore.  That doesn't make fornication okay, it just makes it easier to do.

The Los Angeles Times saw fit to put both Islam and homosexuality on the front page again, this time in a story that deals with a "gay Muslim".  Erika Hayasaki has the story, which we have never ever heard before: a lesbian's family rejects homosexuality, and that’s tough on the lesbian.

Aliyah is Muslim. It's a part of her identity she can't shed, like her sexuality, like her last name -- Bacchus, as in the Roman god of wine and merriment -- and like her ink-stained flesh: the angel tattooed between her shoulder blades, the dark dragons on her lower back, the polar bear on her stomach, the dying rose on her right wrist.

Actually, she can stop being Muslim.  It is called conversion.  She can choose how, when, and with whom to behave sexually.  She can change her name.  She can even get the tattoos removed.

In America, Aliyah knows, it is acceptable to be gay. But how, she wonders, can she be true to who she is while also adhering to her family's faith?

My faith doesn't call me to "be true to who I am" – it called me die to self and sin and be reborn as a follower of Christ.  I'm not Muslim, but I gather Islam teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Either live by your religion or get a new religion.  If you religion is true, then live by it.

She will tell her family to accept that she is gay, or lose her forever.

You know, my family didn’t like some of my past relationships.  I never gave them an ultimatum about it.  If they are willing to keep in contact with you, why cut them off?

By 13, suitors began coming to her father's door, asking for Aliyah's hand in marriage. When Aliyah argued with her father, he threatened to make her marry and drop out of school. Aliyah stopped paying attention in class. What was the point if her life was destined for marriage and kids, with no hopes for college or a career?

Uh, guess what – wives and mothers use edu-ma-cation in their daily lives.

She quarreled with her husband. She chopped her waist-length black hair into a bob.

Hey, that's like a lot of straight, thoroughly American mainstream wives!

Aliyah remembered her aunt telling her: If you're going to tell me you're a lesbian, I cannot and will not be associated with you. Her aunt hung up. Aliyah sat on the steps outside her apartment, staring at her phone. Not long after, she received an e-mail from her brother saying something similar.

Okay, well it sounds like her family doesn't want to maintain contact.  So going to them and telling them what they already know is kind of pointless.  It is sad that they are so rejecting.

"I am living an upright life. I try to be charitable," she says. "But who decides what is sin and what is not? It's not for man to decide."

Right.  That’s for God to decide.  When God tells us, though, we can't ignore it and claim to still be devoted to God.  Heck, if I ignore something my wife says, she's not going to believe me when I say I'm a dutiful husband.


Do you feel bad yet for voting for Prop 8?  Ready to give your money to negate your own vote?  No?  Well, then expect the paper to run more stories like this.

Not the Los Angeles Times is rooting for the “No on Prop 8” side, or anything.  The paper has an article puffing up religious same-sex “marriage” ceremonies in a blatant attempt to play on our emotions.  Carla Hall reports.

At the beginning of May, Edwards, the rabbi of the Beth Chayim Chadashim synagogue in Los Angeles' Fairfax district, had a single wedding on her calendar. Then the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in mid-May.

Between mid-June, when gay couples could legally begin marrying, and the first weekend of November, she will have performed more than 40 weddings. All but one are same-sex unions. And that's not counting her own wedding in July to her longtime partner, Tracy Moore, a fundraiser for public radio, which was presided over by a rabbi and State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.

I have absolutely no problem with these ceremonies – from a legal standpoint.  But I do have to wonder why some people bother with some traditions and not others.  There have been many times I have struggled with the conflict between my feelings and desires and what God has told me through the Bible.  No, I haven’t struggled with homosexuality, but these struggles I did have were extremely painful nonetheless.  Ultimately, I submit to what God has instructed.  And yes, that has meant losing relationships.  I can’t place my desire for someone else over my devotion to God.  I can’t place my own desires over my obedience to God.  God knows best.  Although it was painful at times, life went on.  And God brought me a wonderful woman to be my wife.  If I had done things the way I had wanted to before, there are so many ways I would be worse off now.

"Even though I've just been crazy busy, it feels like such an extraordinary moment in time and it feels like such a blessing to be with these couples," said Edwards, 56, whose temple -- better known as BCC -- bills itself as the first synagogue for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Jews. (The congregation has straight members as well.)

I still think it is strange to organize a synagogue (or a church for that matter) around the sexual attraction of the members, throwing in people who pretend to be the opposite sex.  Who cares if a man likes to wear a dress?  Should we organize a church for people who like to stick food in their ears?  Aren't these places supposed to be organized around God?

The rush to the altar is triggered by the possibility that voters might approve Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that would override the court ruling and ban legal gay marriage.

If you’re relying on the state to give meaning to your relationships, you are misplacing your faith.

The California Supreme Court ruling that the state cannot prohibit same-sex marriages doesn't require religious organizations to recognize them.

Not the ruling by itself – but what happens when you add in all of the other laws and court actions?  You get things like “Churches won’t be forced to perform same-sex marriages…as long as they are willing to pay hefty fines and settlements each time they turn down a request for one, and as long as they aren’t located adjacent to a public street, or within  the borders of a county, or listed in the phone book.”

"I have been swamped," said Rabbi Denise Eger at Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood. Eger, who in June presided over the ceremony of Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, the first official gay wedding in Los Angeles, estimates she will have done more than 50 weddings by next month.

Edwards and Eger are rabbis in the Reform movement of Judaism, which recognizes same-sex marriages, as does the Reconstructionist movement.

They strike me more as social clubs rather than religious institutions.

Conservative and Orthodox branches of Judaism do not officially sanction gay marriage, but Conservative rabbis are allowed to marry same-sex couples if they wish.

Predictable.

The Rev. Dr. Neil Thomas, senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church in Los Feliz, has also been busy performing same-sex weddings.

In church name parlance, “Metropolitan” = “Homosexual”

In general, Edwards won't legally marry same-sex couples just because she can. She has counseled some couples to wait and "not get caught up in the thrill of it."

Good advice for ANYONE planning to “form a corporation”, which is essentially what you’re doing when you enter into state-licensed marriage.

Cynthia Kern and Jane Boisseau, who live in New York, have been together 25 years, and Boisseau is a friend and law partner of Dean Hansell, a longtime member of the BCC congregation. Edwards and the couple planned the wedding by phone and e-mail.

"One of the things I appreciated was that she asked so many questions about our history, our relationship, our son," said Boisseau, who has a 7-year-old, Jeremy Kern, with Cynthia, a New York state judge.

It is impossible that those two women conceived that boy together.  Where is his father?  How sad that he is denied his father.  MEN: NEVER EVER DONATE SPERM.  (If for no other reason - you can be held financially liable for the children conceived.  Yes, it has happened.)

On the morning of their wedding, a dozen boisterous family members and friends sat in a semicircle of chairs at the temple as the two brides stood under a chuppah, the traditional Jewish wedding canopy.

So it is important to have that there.  Just not, you know, a groom.

Edwards, in a teal silk pantsuit and dark round-framed glasses, blended the personal with the political. "This ceremony takes place because of this," she said, holding up a document. "A California marriage license." The guests applauded.

So you would have never had a ceremony otherwise?  So much for this being about “love”.  Brides and grooms were getting married in religious ceremonies long before the state of California was issuing marriage licenses.  Thousands of years, in fact.

"The license has always been something you sign over in the other room with very little fanfare," she said describing what happens when a man and woman wed. "Especially for, I think, gay and lesbian clergy, the irony of signing other people's licenses when we ourselves couldn't get married was painful -- and why we didn't make a big deal out of it.”

So you’re telling me that if there a DMV employee who doesn’t have a driver’s license, they should feel pain?  Once again – people are free to do what they want with each other as consenting adults, but they don’t have a right to force someone else to license their union as a marriage.

How about a story featuring people who voted for Proposition 22, and how they felt when the California Supreme Court overrode their vote?

As expected, the paper printed a couple of letters regarding Father Farrow’s actions.  I discussed that story here.

Jeff Dix of Los Angeles goes for the obvious:

As a Catholic, I wish that the church hierarchy would have had the courage to respond so quickly and unequivocally when confronted with priests who were sexually abusing children. These men did much worse than openly disagree with the church, and, in far too many cases, went unpunished or were protected.

I agree, but it is so tedious for that to be invoked in this matter.  Whether or not the RCC supports or opposes a judicial imposition of neutered marriage upon an unwilling populace should be independent of the church’s handling of crimes committed by employees.  People are imperfect (with one exception), and so are organizations.  But that doesn't mean we should never fight for what is right.

Seeing the coverage of Palin and the prayers said around her and the prayer requests made by her, I am more certain than ever that most people running the MSM don’t really believe in God, and they’re betting you don’t either.  After all, if an omnipotent and involved God exists, wouldn’t it be a good idea to seek to be on His side?  And isn’t it possible that He can make a difference in our lives?  What’s wrong with praying, then?

Yet we repeatedly see mocking of those very ideas.  Talking with dead people, horoscopes, extraterrestrials managing to secretly travel billions of miles and interact with some Earthlings without being detected by others… all of that is taken much more seriously by these people than God.

I find it amusing when people who accept without question that time + matter is all it takes for natural forces to accidentally result in Beethoven, Einstein, Angelina Jolie, dolphins, sunsets, wine, and orgasms think we have strange ideas because we think that God is there and cares.

To them, God is like a bouquet of flowers that you’d only bring to a wedding or a funeral – good for decoration but not much else.  Treating God in a condescending manner is risky business.  Perhaps we should pray for the MSM?

...and that is bad for children and therefore bad for society.

Some marriages are arranged.  Most in our country aren't.  Some are about love, some are about lust, some are about money.  Some are about class.  Marriage is about many things, but from a societal interest, it is – and always has been - about forming a microcosm of society for the purpose of perpetuating it.  It is about joining the two sexes and providing any offspring with both a mother and a father – and that has been the universal core of marriage throughout all of human history.

In other words, licensed marriage on its most basic and level is about children.

But when laws are passed (or, in our case, a court decision is issued) neutering marriage licensing, so that two men or two women can legally be designated as “married”, this is a statement that marriage, as an institution, can't be about children – because it takes both a woman and a man to make a child.  Some marriages may be about children, but marriage in and of itself can't be about children - if there is a right for any two people to have a licensed marriage.  Rulings like the recent California Supreme Court decision make the statement that licensed marriage is about feelings, or benefits, or hospital access, or any number of things that have been cited by marriage neutering activists - all of which can be addressed without a marriage license.

If marriage can't be about children, a disconnect is created in the public consciousness between marriage and raising children.  Even libertarian atheist Tom Leykis, who insists that there is no benefit for a man to get married - that men can get everything they want without marriage - states that marriage benefits children.  Yet now we have an official state policy that makes it clear that marriage is not about children.

Although we are already experiencing a significant level of illegitimacy (thanks to a disconnect between sex and marriage), divorce (thanks to a disconnect between commitment and marriage), blended families rife with jealousy, insecurity, and confusion, and a disconnect between coitus and reproduction (thanks to IVF), we still have a society that expresses that it is ideal to raise children within a marriage that created or adopted them and associates marriage with children.  Except in gay circles, when someone says "We got married," one of the first questions people ask is "When do you plan on having children?"  Paternity is assigned to husbands by default when their wife births a child, even if she could have conceived the child by another man.  Ex-husbands often pay child support for children that where there before he ever met their mother.  Child support is expected from an ex-spouse even if the other ex-spouse is financially capable of providing for the child without assistance.  Even many people who cohabitate and procreate out of wedlock get married, in large part, “for the sake of their children.”

Why?  Because children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other, and it takes both a male and a female to create children.  Whether by design or as a consequence of evolution, children do best in having both that male and female parental authority as a model and with whom to bond.  That child will, throughout her life, interact with both males and females.  Even if you believe that our existence and the way we reproduce are sheer meaningless accidents, that socialization is important to perpetuating society in the best conditions.

Most, if not all, of the people who deny this appear to be motivated not by what is best for children or society, but what is best for homosexuals, fornicators, and divorced people politically and socially.  Someone who wants a child but doesn't have a spouse (of the opposite sex) will try to justify their actions, and those who think a marriage license will bring their relationship and themselves whatever (approval, benefits, etc.) they are seeking will likewise deny the importance of having both a mother and father (1).

If marriage is about children, then it ought to be restricted to the kind of unions that can produce children (2).  If it isn't about children, then it should be about whatever else benefits society.  Homosexuality advocates say that purpose is creating stability in "sexual" relationships.  But that is in conflict with their own insistence that sexual behavior between two consenting adults is a private matter in which the state should not be involved.

If we are going to continue down this path of neutered marriage licensing, we should expect higher illegitimacy rates and perhaps increased divorce rates and/or lower marital rates (3), because there will be less of an association between child-rearing and marriage.  If marriage is not about children, then a husband should feel no guilt in leaving the mother of his child if he feels she has neglected her vows.  If our statistical analyses do not make the distinction between bride-groom marriages and other unions, then we can also expect a statistical increase in "marital" domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, and physical and mental health issues, as these are acknowledged issues of increased frequency in the gay community.  That would be something else that would make licensed marriage less attractive, along with the presence of or desire for children being less of an incentive.

If we are going to continue down this path where marriage isn't about children, then we should at least be consistent and not assign default paternity to husbands, or require child support if the custodial parent earns enough to provide for a child, or require stepparents (almost always fathers) to provide child support in the event of a divorce.  This can probably have applications to inheritance laws, too.

I agree that the government should not be policing the bedroom, even if I think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.  I can understand why we have no-fault divorce laws.  But the government does have an interest in licensing bride-groom marriage that it doesn't have with same-sex couples.  Citizens are better off if they have been raised within a lasting marriage with both a father and a mother, and less likely to commit crime or be dependent on welfare.  We must not yield this beneficial construct to be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem.  We must not allow marriage to be devalued by denying the core universal thread that has made marriage what it is.

Marriage may be about love, but it is primarily about children, and giving them a mother and a father.

(1) Neutered marriage licensing under the guise that same-sex couples have a “right” to marry will make it impossible for adoption agencies, social workers, fertility clinics, laws, and courts to give any preference to bride-groom couples over same-sex couples in placing children (or academia or others from presenting bride-groom couples as the norm or ideal).  The advocates of this “equality” cite flawed studies to support their claim that there is no difference to children if they are raised by two men, two women, or a man and a woman, as long as it is two "parents".  There are two ways to demonstrate that this must be false: A) If “two parents”, regardless of sex, are better than one, then point out that surely three parents would be preferable to two, and four preferable to three, and so forth, and ask if preference should be given to the largest group parenting arrangement over “couple parenting”, and; B) The homosexual knows there is a difference between men and women - and therefore mothers and fathers - when it comes to personal relationships. Otherwise, the homosexual could just as easily be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

(2) Yes, not all bride-groom couples choose to or can create children, but they are the only kind that can without the aid of a third party, while no same-sex couples have ever been able to create children alone.  Regardless, bride-groom couples still form a microcosm of society by uniting the sexes, and we do not check fertility status of marriage license applicants as that would be a violation of privacy.  Indeed, sexual orientation is not a criterion either.

(3) The correlation has been noted in other countries that have recently implemented neutered marriage.  Although correlation does not prove causation, it is clear that the culture of these societies don't esteem marriage or raising children within marriage as much as ours - should we be striving to be more like them when it comes to marriage licensing?

Marriage is Dead (Part 1)

Marriage is Dead (Part 2)

It Takes a Bride and Groom to Make a Marriage

More on the Definition of Marriage

Why Marriage Matters

Bad Arguments for Neutering Marriage Licensing

Proposition 8 Won't Hurt Anyone

What Homosexuality Advocates Will Do After Neutering Marriage

Three Observations on the California Marriage Issue

Legislating For Feelings is a Bad Idea

What does the Presidency have to do with adopting children?   Why couldn’t McCain say that originally?  Adoption is a State/County issue.

Associated Press National writer David Crary reports:

Advocates for gay and lesbian parents are denouncing Sen. John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify Tuesday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice.

Duh.  It isn’t a federal issue.  How do gays and lesbians become parents, aside from adoption?  Either they had sex with someone of the opposite sex (even though we hear that they “can’t” choose to be with someone of the opposite sex, and thus “don’t” have access to licensed marriage)  - or they made the child in a lab, intentionally depriving that child of a mother or a father.

Only one state, Florida, outlaws adoptions by gays, which have become commonplace in much of the nation.

Yet the New York Times had to make in an issue so the homosexuality activists could scream and howl.

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain replied.

McCain then remarked that he and his wife, Cindy, were proud to be adoptive parents of a daughter born in Bangladesh, and he encouraged others to adopt. Asked if those adopting should be a "traditional couple," McCain answered, "Yes."

Good for him.

The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.

Who are promoting a selfish agenda.

"He's completely out of touch," said Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council.

I love that one – “out of touch”.  It means nothing.  Plenty of people were “out of touch” with chic opinion throughout history and thank God they were.  Oh- and no matter what, a family missing a mother or a father is never going to be equal to a family with both - at least not for kids.

"There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."

First and foremost, homes with a husband and wife should be preferred.  But in some cases, I don’t see anything wrong with teenagers, if there is no alternative, being placed with a gay person or couple – of the opposite sex.  But I have to wonder – would these homosexuality activists really think it is a good idea to place a little girl with a single heterosexual male?  What about two heterosexual males?  Why not?

"John McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue. ... He was not endorsing any federal legislation," a campaign statement said.

Right.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, among other groups, have expressed support for gay adoptions.

The question is why do they?  If it is because of politics, than their opinions don’t matter that much.  Remember, the APA used to classify homosexuality as a disorder.  Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now – so they can be wrong.  And I don't want to see any Leftists appeal to the AAP in this case if they reject the AAP when it comes to vaccinations.

A gay adoptive father in Atlanta, Ken Manford, said he and his partner have felt strong support and acceptance from neighbors and acquaintances since they adopted a son from Guatemala nearly seven years ago.

"If Sen. McCain came and sat down with us, I'd tell him we've proven that both parents are important in our family," Manford said. "It doesn't matter that both those parents are men."

Yes it does.  The child has no mother.  The child is learning that mothers are not important.  No matter how good a father, you can’t be a mother.

McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians.

It is self evident to most people who aren’t trying to assuage their guilt or advance a sexual agenda that children are better off with a mother and a father, married to each other.

This recent Dear Margo caught my attention.

UP AGAINST A BRICK WALL writes:

I am a 21-year-old female who's still living at home with my mother and stepdad. I am a lesbian and currently in a relationship. The only problem I have is that neither my mom nor her side of the family approves of my lifestyle.

Either live by their rules or move out.

I want to make her happy, but I also want to be happy.

Sometimes, that is not possible.  Many times, people pick partners of the opposite sex that their families don't like, too.  Your mother doesn't have to live your life.  You have to live your life.

How can I start a life with my girlfriend if my family looks down on me because they feel it's "wrong"?

People start lives all of the time even though their family isn’t supportive of their choices.  Sometimes that involves choices about schools, career, religion - you name it.  If that's what you really want, then do it.  But maybe you're conflicted  about your choices, hence the letter to an advice column?

Dear Margo, of course, doesn’t offer those nuggets.  Here’s what advised instead:

I would encourage you to live your life in a way that feels natural, not in an artificial way that you think would please your mother.

How about telling her to move out on her own?

I have to wonder if Margo would advise a man to do what “feels natural” if he naturally felt like sleeping around on his wife?  Or sleep around without being married?  Or was naturally attracted to kids?  Or naturally felt like urinating in public?  Or naturally wanted to overeat?  Sometimes, feelings needs to be dealt with in ways other than letting them dictate behavior.

As for your instinct being "wrong," tell your mom -- and her side of the family -- that in matters of sexuality, which is hard-wired, there is no wrong.

Gotcha.  So, polygamy, adultery, pedophilia, not caring about your spouse’s needs... none of those are wrong?  Maybe that's not what you mean, but that is what you're saying.

And because you say they are religious, tell them God does not make mistakes.

Funny, people never use that one when they go to get plastic surgery, or physical therapy, or a prescription, or complain about a natural disaster.  Maybe this has nothing to do with what God has done?  I’m convinced that God is ultimately creator, but creation has been marred by sin.

Then invite her to try to imagine her life as a homosexual, and you may have made your point.

Ah, the old “put yourself in my shoes” thing.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe her mother has thought of that, and doesn’t want her daughter to miss out on marriage and having children with a husband?  I wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect life isn't all that easy for people with homosexual feelings, if for no other reason than we live in a sex-obsessed society that is predominantly heterosexual.  But even though people we love face difficulties, we should not abandon our own convictions.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing (Explaining) the Religious Right.

Who am I to talk about the Religious Right?  I was politically aware long before I could vote.  I’ve voted in every major election since I became eligible.  I attend a church – one I didn’t grow up attending - where a significant percentage of the membership would likely identify as members of the Religious Right (RR).  For many years, I’ve analyzed the literature, media, broadcasts, voting guides, and fundraising mailers of organizations and their representatives regularly cited as being members of the RR – The Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Prison Fellowship, and others.

I aim to give an overview of what the RR does, what motivates the RR, and the positions of the RR.

Below, you will find my first installment.


The Religious Right Votes, and Has Every Right To

You can dismiss the Religious Right as just a bunch of hateful, backward kooks who blindly follow ignorant or unscrupulous leaders and superstitious ancient nonsense, but you would be doing yourself a disservice.

Just who is the Religious Right (RR), and why they do what they do?  Even if you are vehemently opposed to what the RR stands for, you should keep reading, because it could give you some useful insight or at least a more informed understanding of the RR.

The RR consists of Christians and Jews of a conservative political philosophy who are quite often traditional/conservative in their theology and understanding of Scripture, and who integrate their faith with their politics, as they integrate their faith with every area of their lives.

Both the RR and its detractors recognize the political and cultural clout and influence of the RR.  In fact, Democrat strategists are clearly looking for ways to “herd the sheep” to their camp, trying to capitalize on the natural fragmentation that occurs when a significant number of a population group (evangelicals, in this case) become politically active.  Inevitably, someone will come up with a somewhat coherent philosophical system that marries Democrat politics with evangelical issues, thereby providing what is perceived to be a viable alternative to registering as and voting Republican simply because they are a Bible-believing Christian who has become politically active.  After all, some people don’t like to be seen as marching in lockstep with too many others, or resist applying their faith to every area of their life, or simply have personality/taste/style clashes with those they identify as iconic Republicans.  If you’re not fond of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, you can’t possibly be part of the RR, right?

That Democrat strategy appears to focus mainly on the Bible-believer’s tendency to want to join do-gooder groups that do things like care for the poor and marginalized and  protect the environment (God’s creation); or feel like they are making a difference by going against what they perceive as the flow of power in an imperfect world; or feel like they are being forgiving and aiding redemption by protecting and going easy on criminals; and convincing the believer that government force is the best, most effective, or at least an appropriate way to reach these ends.

This tactic by Democrats is a refreshing change from the previous tactic, which seemed to be “You shouldn’t vote at all because there is a separation of church and state.” Or “You should ignore your faith when you vote, since there are other people here who do not share your faith.”  I always found the first argument false and that second argument ponderous, considering the people telling the RR to but out are surely voting based on their personal priorities instead of worrying about hurting the feelings of someone in the RR.

Aren’t Bible-believing, praying, church/synagogue/temple-attending folks equal citizens?  Don’t citizens have the right to vote as they choose to?  The last I checked, there was no clause in the Constitution or law in the land that said that some voters weren’t allowed to vote for a candidate or write in a candidate if their decision was going to be based on or influenced by religion, and that elected officials were not allowed to vote according to their personal principles.  Are Christians (evangelicals) and conservative (small c) Jews really not supposed to vote?  And if they vote, are they supposed to forget their faith?  Are they supposed to apply their faith and their way of looking at the world to every area of their lives except politics?  You vote how you want to vote - why shouldn’t the RR?  People may make their voting decisions based on things their union has told them, things their favorite news anchor has said, things their favorite author, celebrity, or talk show host has said.  Why can’t they allow their deepest convictions to guide them simply because those convictions were informed by their religion?

Furthermore, just like any other citizen, isn’t a person in the RR allowed to try to persuade others to his or her position?  It is laughable when people who forcefully proclaim their political views in the halls of academia, in journalism, in entertainment (plays, books, films, songs, concerts, television shows), on t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers, and in demonstrations/rallies bemoan that people in the RR are trying to “preach” to them.

In a democratic, representative republic with the freedoms of speech, religion, and association, members of the RR have just as much right to vote as any other citizens, and many of them do vote.

The RR, being conservative, also seeks to conserve such things as the nuclear family as the basic autonomous societal unit; the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; the country as a superpower; the Constitution; the Church, its place in the local community, and religious freedom; the place of Christianity and Judaism in the American culture; and certain laws, traditions, customs, morals, and standards.  It also seeks to re-institute some things that have been changed or eliminated in recent years, such as protections for the unborn, parental rights, and the public acceptability of certain behaviors.  In the process, they react to and attempt to counter the efforts of those seeking to maintain the recent changes and bring about additional changes.  The RR does this through legal, peaceable means such as personal choices, ownership and leadership of property, organizations and businesses, peer and family pressure, pressure on sponsors/advertisers, persuasive media, voting, voter registration and information drives, and courtroom actions.

Aside from a strong support of the U.S. military and self defense, in general, the RR does not advocate violence, such as wife beating, bombing abortion clinics, or assaulting homosexual people - in fact, the RR tends to strongly denounce violence against individuals and property.  A notable exception is when Pat Robertson appeared to advocate the assassination of a foreign leader.

Given the tactics employed by the RR and the percentage of the populace that somewhat agrees with most of the RR agenda, the RR is hardly fringe or extremist, despite what some critics claim.  There are three main reasons that the RR draws such strong criticism.  First and foremost is that the RR opposes the agenda of Leftist activists and some libertarian ideals.  Understandably, Leftist activists and libertarians would rather not have the opposition.  Secondly, some people oppose the idea of “mixing religion and politics”.  However, as I already discussed, why shouldn’t people apply their deeply held convictions to their political leanings and activities?  Are the critics not applying their deeply held convictions, or are they basing their politics on nothing in particular?  This objection is usually the first objection, thinly disguised.  Finally, some object to the RR because of the “attitude” of the RR, mostly that the critics perceive that the RR claims to have “the answers” and that “we’re right and everyone else is wrong”.  While humility is a good thing and there is no doubt in my mind that sometimes RR leaders fail to be humble or gentle, this often implies that the critics of the RR have little certainty about the rightness or validity of their own positions.  Only an illogical person or a coward refuses to conclude that if his position is right, any mutually exclusive position is wrong.

You may not like the RR, but you shouldn't just swallow that the critics of the RR say without taking these things into consideration.  That’s all for now.  I will continue this in another post.

(Edited to clean up mistakes.)

Much has been made in the last couple of days about a statistic that says households headed by married couples are now in the minority.  This no doubt garnered a lot of press due to a Leftist desire to promote the state over the family, and the Left figures that if married couples no longer form the majority of households, politicians and businesses can stop focusing on what married couples want.  They can now cater to people who want the state to be big brother or big sister.

Never mind the fact that by the same statistics, married couples still make up the largest percentage of households by far, because the rest of the pie is made up of a combination of:
1. Couples shacking up
2. Widowed people
3. Platonic roommates (divorced or never having been married)
4. Single parents living without a honey
5. Same-sex couples.

Also, how many people in the "unmarried" households either were married and would still be if they could control the matter, or are planning (or at least hoping) to get married?  Those are also people likely to support marriage-friendly policies.  Plus, a married couple represents two potential votes and more spending power in general than a single person.

Still, the statistics do show that households headed by married couples no longer outnumber all of those outer arrangements combined.

And is that any surprise?

For one thing, people are living longer in general, and that may mean widowed spouses are living longer as widows or widowers.  At the other end, people are waiting longer to get married.  Have you seen the percentages on college enrollment?  Lots of women, and many of them are staying single until after finishing school and some are waiting even longer until they've worked for a while in a career.  One of the positive effects of genuine feminism is that the days of women having to rely on their fathers, brothers, and then husbands for financial survival are long gone, so they have one less factor creating a need to get married young.

But yes, there are the other cultural reasons, too.  Divorce is more accepted.  We have separated marriage from commitment.

We have also...
Separated sex from childbearing.
Separated sex from marriage.
Separated living together from marriage.
Separated childrearing from marriage.

And now, many are actively trying to separate marriage from society (while still demanding societal sanction), making it strictly a personal matter between any two people based on criteria that can't be verified.  This counterfeiting of marriage devalues marriage while removing one of the core defining features - uniting both sexes.

And since we long ago separated sex from marriage, people can have sex without being married and without social disapproval.  They can live together...even raise kids together.  They can do all of this without being looked down upon, without even being admonished by their supposedly Christian church.  They can appear to "have it all" without having to go through a ridiculously expensive and stressful ceremony, which can also foment strife considering the ceremony is likely to draw some people who have divorced each other, there to sit near their sworn enemy as someone else they are related to promises lifelong commitment... just like they did at one time.

Of course, most women want to have that ceremony and the vast majority of women "marry up" financially and thus have a measurable incentive to get married.  Most people can understand it to be true when pro-family groups point out that women and children are better off in married households.

However, a growing number of men (and women with sons or brothers) doubt it when the pro-family groups say that men are also better off getting married.  They doubt it because most women DO marry up, and the laws of most states make that a losing partnership for the man if there is a divorce... and there is a very high chance for divorce. The divorce and child support laws in most states are such that a wife can sit at home, cheat on the man under his nose, spend up the credit cards, and give birth to his best friend's child, then divorce the man, take half of everything, even live off of his alimony payments for the rest of her life, AND get child support from him to pay for a child that isn't biologically his.  Here in California, a woman who was married to a man for ten years can live off his alimony for the rest of her life... as long as she doesn't remarry.  That is surely another factor is lowering the percentage of married households.

The fringe feminists once proclaimed that marriage is slavery (though now the lesbian ones are clamoring to make sure they can be in "slavery" to other women), and that all sex (male/female, of course) is rape.  Well, many american women bought into the first part, and even if they get married, they keep it from being "slavery" by telling their husbands "You have two hands, you cook it (or clean it, or fold it, or whatever) yourself!"  Men see their kids being raised in daycare instead of by their wives so that she can be a "liberated" woman.  (I know... some men pressure their wives to work... not talking about them here.)

And since women bought into the mantra that traditional marriage is slavery, but not that all sex is rape, they have "liberated" themselves by sleeping around.  More and more men notice this and say, "Good!  I don't want to get married either!"  As long as they have easy access to casual sex, these men do not see the benefits of getting married to women who do not cook, do not clean, will not raise their kids, become uninterested in sex with them, and will wipe them out financially if they opt to leave.

I'm sure there are also women who refrain from marrying for fear of going through a divorce.

And we wonder why the percentages have changed?

(By the way... I'm happily married... to a woman who cooks, cleans, and so very much wants to raise our kids once we have them.)