The Forgotten Victims of “Gay Marriage”

SameSexThumbby Linda Harvey
When I was eight years old, my Christmas list held one item: a bride doll. Oh, how overjoyed I was when “Santa” left under our tree that beautiful, white-veiled icon of future girl dreams. And my simple dreams included a wedding, a bride with her groom.

What will eight-year-old girls be allowed to wish for in the coming new era of “gay” marriage?

Because if “equality” advocates have their dreams fulfilled, all American children will march to a new tune. Is the U.S. Supreme Court hearing about this?

The radicals dream of connecting the dots now only marking partially-conquered territory. Like California, where by law, no schoolchildren hear any critique of homosexual or “transgender” behavior, or Massachusetts, where the Department of Education has decreed that gender confused children must have access to opposite sex restrooms and locker rooms.

In the realm of silencing opponents, this isn’t nearly enough. The militants’ vision is that, in every schoolroom, in the Boy Scouts, on TV and from Hollywood, all voices in the American public square unite in the same song to little children: when you grow up, you may date and marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, or you may change your own sex, and this is good and progressive. All other views are “hate.”[pullquote]when you grow up, you may date and marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, or you may change your own sex, and this is good and progressive. All other views are “hate.”[/pullquote]

It’s immensely frustrating to read the transcripts of the Supreme Court oral arguments on the two marriage cases and realize how tepidly man/woman marriage is defended and the consequences of same sex marriage unexplored. Our side studiously avoids the core issue: same sex marriage is wrong because homosexual behavior is wrong.

In the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, Attorney Cooper did say, “Redefining marriage will have real-world consequences,” and Justice Kennedy mentioned “uncharted waters,” or possibly, “a cliff.” Indeed!

And no one who’s thoroughly assessed the issue believes that homosexuality is inborn, a fixed status, as Attorney Olson claims. This is an enormously important point! If homosexuality is not inborn, the highest court in the land might want to seek input from the largest group of potential victims–all the children of America.

Yes, a small subset of children was mentioned. Justice Kennedy gave a hat tip to children residing in homosexual households in California, around 40,000, he says. Same sex marriage would “help” these children, he believes. Is that true? The Regnerus study, validated even after “gay” outrage, noted the decidedly harmful outcomes of homosexual parenting.

And what about the millions of other children throughout the country whose lives would be impacted by a new cultural paradigm about dating, masculinity/ femininity, courtship, future dreams and permissible sexual behavior?

Olson and others contend that sexual orientation is like race. This sweeping assumption, challenging most of the human historical record, has no hard supporting evidence.

If it’s not true, children are at risk. The widespread embrace of homosexuality at the very least would mess with their minds and innocence at critical stages of development. More experimentation, even for a time, will yield more STDs, more anxiety, depression, more teen angst in general. Where’s a critical risk assessment?

And even though marriage deconstruction doesn’t really address the lunacy of gender confusion and its potential harm to yet-unformed bodies and minds, this agenda is a fellow traveler, bundled into the deviant “LGBT” special interest package.

Does this guaranteed revolution bother only me?

Put yourself for a moment in the minds of eight-year-old Morgan or James a few years from now. They are little children, new to all this. Homosexuality as marriage has been legalized in many states, because conservatives including the GOP failed to launch a coherent, or any, defense. Churches were mostly silent, while some heretically jumped on this gruesome bandwagon.

So it’s future shock and just as now, more moderate voices will not restrain the radicals from enacting their spite-fueled plans. All schools, even Christian institutions, will be forced to teach only one sugar-coated viewpoint.

The new standards become “best practices” in teacher training degree programs and even law in many states, and every grade school child learns that his/her future may include attraction, dating and marriage to the same sex and some are born that way, so there’s no choice.[pullquote]So it’s future shock and just as now, more moderate voices will not restrain the radicals from enacting their spite-fueled plans. All schools, even Christian institutions, will be forced to teach only one sugar-coated viewpoint.[/pullquote]

Mentioning ex-homosexuals will be the equivalent of honoring the Ku Klux Klan.

The developing heart and mind of these children becomes destabilized. Morgan prefers her little girlfriends now. James thinks his buddies are much more fun. But most grown-ups are a mommy and daddy. Will I be different?

Fast forward to age twelve. Now Morgan and James know about sex through middle school sex ed that explains all in detail, including homosexual practices. They also learn from the usual route of TV, music and movies, where some teen stars are now proudly “gay” and storylines and songs now include same sex romance.

Explicit teen novels describe mutual masturbation among middle school boys, and are chosen by enlightened librarians because these are “coming of age” tales. James may believe his interest in trying this means he is “gay” or bisexual, but he has dutifully learned this is okay.

At sleepovers, Morgan and a girlfriend may experiment as well. And really, what’s the harm? There’s no pesky outcome of pregnancy with same sex “fooling around.” And enough parents will be on board that often, kids won’t even have to hide their actions. “We’ll be upstairs in my room, Dad!” “Okay-have a good time!”

Indeed, what’s the big deal at age twelve, or age ten, or how about age eight? How young can we start this? If it’s “consensual,” and among peers, and no pregnancy results, don’t children have the “right” to be sexual? Pornography will fuel this trend. SIECUS, Planned Parenthood and the other “comprehensive sex education” propagators are certainly on board with explicit sex ed in middle school and many are fine with elementary school as well.[pullquote]Most major homosexual advocacy groups, GLSEN and others, vehemently oppose abstinence-until-marriage sex education. If kids aren’t abstinent, they think it’s cute. All they find horrifying is pregnancy.[/pullquote]

This seems like a recipe for future barbarians, proud placeholders in anarchist Occupy movements of the future. Dating patterns change. Appropriate behavior for children changes. One may think, “Oh, no, we have more sense than to permit children to be engaged in sex!” No, we don’t. Are you observing lots of common sense? Sure, there’s a remnant, but is it enough to stop this madness?

Most major homosexual advocacy groups, GLSEN and others, vehemently oppose abstinence-until-marriage sex education. If kids aren’t abstinent, they think it’s cute. All they find horrifying is pregnancy.

And we have not even begun to delve into the real possibility of more child-adult sexual encounters, that our moral outrage will be whittled away on that, too.

The evidence about where this revolution takes us is already available. Won’t someone out there start to look at “gay marriage” through the eyes of our precious children?
__________________________________________________
MissionAmericaThumbLinda Harvey is president of Mission America and hosts a talk show on Salem affiliate WRFD in Columbus, OH. • (2388 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to The Forgotten Victims of “Gay Marriage”

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    They are. That’s why we have books like Heather Has Two Mommies, and have had them for a couple of decades (at least). Liberals seem to hate innocence.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      You must start brain-washing at a young age, innocence be damned!!!

      Anyway, NAMBLA and other such groups believe you can’t start too soon to develop the next generation of pedophiles.

      And oh by-the-way, there is no big conspiracy going on. Just ask a progressive or Libertarian.

  2. faba calculo says:

    I don’t know what the progressives or libertarians will say, but this empiricist says that the Regnerus study was flawed.

    Show me, in a credible, probability-based, large sample studies a stable result of kids being better off, worse off, or the same with same-sex parents as gay parents, and I’ll believe it.

    • griffonn says:

      Yes, the study was flawed. That is why Regnerus himself was so quick to point out its flaws – because what really differentiates the Regnerus study from the other studies claiming to say something about being raised by gay parents, Regnerus alone acknowledged from the start that there isn’t enough data to settle the question.

      Where is the outrage over all those other studies? The ones employing convenience samples, deliberately comparing affluent, mostly white activist lesbians recruited from political events? The ones that ask irrelevant questions while ignoring the core issues? That rely on the testimony of the kids themselves, without addressing the fact that the very fact that they are Exhibit A (and the only evidence on file) is a “duress” situation? That treats the opinions of psychologists as if opinions were somehow “scientific”?

      But what’s worse than that is the entire idea of reducing kids to things – testable products, rather than human beings with rights.

      Even if it were true that “science” could test every single variable, proving that the child is not “harmed” from a quality assurance standpoint, it doesn’t change the reality that these children have certain rights:

      – Every child who cannot have a relationship with his or her own real biological parents has the right to have his second-best placement determined according to the “child’s best interest” standard. Children are not being placed with “two mommies” because it’s best for the child; they are being placed with “two mommies” because the gay woman’s ‘rights’ are being prioritized over what’s best for the child.

      – Both relationships – mother and father, same-sex and opposite-sex parent – are unique and valuable. Deliberately depriving a child of either relationship is not a harmless or victimless act; the child is losing something highly valued – irreplaceable and precious.

      – Any child who is motherless or fatherless has the right to grieve openly, and expect the full support of his family, guardians, or caretakers. But how can a child grieve a loss when his family is committed to the idea that there is no loss to grieve – that having a “second father” is “just as good” as having a mother? (Is there even any reason – other than ideological wishful thinking – to suppose a wrong-sex stepparent is “just as good as” having a mother or a father?)

      The gay’s desires are in conflict with the child’s needs. The child is expected to simply accept the losses – apparently just because the child, being young and powerless, is not in a position to protest. The lesbians want their own “perfect” wedding, so ‘their’ daughter will never have a father to walk her down the aisle, or to dance the first dance with her – but what is a huge loss for the lesbian is somehow not even very important for the child. They say they shouldn’t be “forced to live a lie”, but again – they have no problem with forcing their child to live a lie, because children are willing to love all but the most overtly abusive of parents, and will do as they are taught even to the point of self-harm. Always with the double standards and the cognitive dissonance.

      • faba calculo says:

        “- Every child who cannot have a relationship with his or her own real biological parents has the right to have his second-best placement determined according to the “child’s best interest” standard.”

        Which is why we need the studies: to determine the ranking of the placements.

        • griffonn says:

          We don’t need studies. We just need to prioritize the interests of the child, instead of being guilted, intimidated, or downright bullied into prioritizing the interests of others at the expense of the child.

          There is no reason at all why any person, gay or straight, needs to raise a motherless or fatherless child – other than lack of commitment to that child’s welfare.

          There is no reason why any child should be forced to pretend that missing out on the chance to have a mother or a father is no big deal. No child should be stuck with parents who ask them to. Especially not for such selfish, trivial reasons.

          A genuinely loving parent, whether gay or straight, would never make the mistake of confusing their own needs and desires with their childs’. A genuinely loving parent would never ask a motherless or fatherless child to pretend that being motherless or being fatherless does not involve loss. It does involve loss. It is a huge loss. The child has the right to grieve – openly, and with the full support of the entire family, and without having to worry about whether that grief interrupts or contradicts some emotionally needy stepparents’ “narrative”.

          • faba calculo says:

            “We don’t need studies. We just need to prioritize the interests of the child”

            Lacking a systematic empirical analysis, how are we to determine what those interests are and how much alternate arrangements matter?

            We could all just do our own analysis via just using our eyes and then vote accordingly, I suppose, if that is what you are suggesting. Sides with the most votes would then be the consensus on whether or not gay parents are as good as non-gay parents.

            Of course, that assumes that it’s the objectively measured good of the child that is guiding the vote. In either direction, for gay parents or against, that’s a debatable assumption (to say the least).

            Furthermore, I’ll admit to not knowing any gay parents, and, likely, many others from both sides of the issue are in the same boat.

            However, with a series of studies building up a body of knowledge, studies that are open to peer review and critique (or at least the latter), even those of us who don’t know any gay parents can have a basis for making up their own mind, and those who do know some can have the additional info.

            “There is no reason why any child should be forced to pretend that missing out on the chance to have a mother or a father is no big deal.”

            And is that what, in general, happens with gay parents? Or do they, again, in general, to the best of their ability, help their child with such regrets, as would any other caring parent who is not part of a two-biological-parent-marriage?

            This is why I get nervous when people suggest that “we don’t need studies”.

            • griffonn says:

              “We don’t need studies. We just need to prioritize the interests of the child”

              Lacking a systematic empirical analysis, how are we to determine what those interests are and how much alternate arrangements matter?

              We already have an extensive legal framework establishing how we decide what is best for the child.

              It’s actually not difficult at all. The only difficulty is that we currently hold the belief that “gay rights trump kids’ rights”, and that therefore if gays want something, then everyone else should lose whatever rights happen to be in conflict.

              Children are not products. They are human beings with rights. The same arguments that gays use to “prove” that they are entitled to blah blah blah apply equally to the child – for instance:

              1. the argument that relationships are important, and that we can measure the importance of relationships by looking at how treasured those relationships are for those who have them – this is one of the core arguments upholding gay rights. Do you imagine mothers are less treasured than spouses? Those who have mothers treasure them very highly. Also, the other measure – societal valuation – upholds that mothers are important. So if it is true that depriving a gay man the right to marry is unfair, then it must also be true that depriving a child of the chance to experience a mother-relationship is too..

              Because, y’know, kids are people – they’re not just things you own.
              They have rights.

              2. Relationships are gendered Male and female are distinct, not interchangeable. That is why it’s unfair to make a gay man marry a woman: because men and women are not the same.

              Mothers and fathers are THE most gendered relationships out there. Science has proven that men and women do not interact in the same way, or parent in the same way.

              Likewise, same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents have very distinct, very different relationships. There is absolutely no reason to suppose having a second same-sex parent would in any way negate the absence of having an opposite-sex parent; the two parental roles do different things.

              3. “Nobody should be forced to live a lie”. Unless it’s your kid, because your kid “doesn’t mind”. (And why doesn’t he mind? Because it was decided before he was even born that he wouldn’t.)

              4. “Marriage isn’t procreative” That’s the whole argument for gay marriage, isn’t it? That marriage “isn’t procreative” so there’s no reason why non-procreative couples should be excluded?’

              So – okay – put your money where your mouth is: if marriage “is not procreative”, then there’s no reason at all why the two of you need to pretend you have a child in common. You don’t.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                “Lacking a systematic empirical analysis, how are we to determine what those interests are and how much alternate arrangements matter?”

                This is the argument which is too often used by those Progressives with a political agenda, i.e. virtually, all of them.

                Having lost their belief in anything higher than themselves and too often seeing the world through a nihilistic lens, they see no greater meaning in life than “I WANT”. Thousands of years of human history mean nothing to them. Biology means little to them.

                Social science studies are notorious for being sloppy and slanted. Perhaps the most famous of these is the Kinsey Report which has been shown to be false in many areas. Social “science”, I would prefer the term “studies”, does not lend itself to the same strict standards that the hard sciences do. The scientific method is too often replaced by bias, conscious or not.

                And one must not forget that it is the Progressives who infest the realm in which such studies are performed, i.e. academia and the government bureaucracy. Such studies can be used, not only to further their political ends “scientifically”, but they also support these same Progressives financially. A real twofer.

                Finally,given the trend in the politicization of the hard sciences, I am even less convinced in the use of such “studies.”

              • faba calculo says:

                “This is the argument which is too often used by those Progressives with a political agenda, i.e. virtually, all of them.”

                But it’s also the argument used by people with an interest in actual, empirical results.

                “Social “science”, I would prefer the term “studies”, does not lend itself to the same strict standards that the hard sciences do.”

                That’s just blaming such studies for not being what they aren’t. They aren’t studies of mechanistic cause and effect. Free will is involved, and, yes, that makes things less precise. So what? A question about human behavior isn’t a question concerning purely mechanistic cause and effect.

                “The scientific method is too often replaced by bias, conscious or not.”

                And in that way, they’re almost a tenth as bad as personal feelings, which, after you’ve dismissed studies, is about all you’re left with.

                “And one must not forget that it is the Progressives who infest the realm in which such studies are performed, i.e. academia and the government bureaucracy.”

                Which is why a range of studies by a range of authors is required. Also, while sociology is pretty much liberal hell, other branches of the social sciences, especially economics, isn’t nearly so one-sided. Not even in academia.

              • faba calculo says:

                “We already have an extensive legal framework establishing how we decide what is best for the child.”

                Yes: do what is in the child’s best interest. But that begs of the question of which outcomes tend to do the best and by how much.

                “Do you imagine mothers are less treasured than spouses?”

                No, just that whether or not same-sex couples do a significantly worse job of raising children in happy, healthy adults is an empirical question that should be addressed accordingly.

                “So if it is true that depriving a gay man the right to marry is unfair, then it must also be true that depriving a child of the chance to experience a mother-relationship is too.”

                Except that the only way for gay men to truly so deprive a child of a mother is through use of a surrogate or adoption. On the latter, I’m prepared to hold off until the issue is empirically resolved. After all, adoption is a zero-sum thing, such that, if one couple gets a child, all others don’t. However, on the former issue, since the child in question cannot possibly exist except via THAT surrogate and THAT (gay) man, surrogacy is pretty much the only way that child is going to come into the world. And, while I’ll admit to a few rare cases where a child might have been better off never having existed, it’ll take more than a hunch to show that this is the case of the children born via gay men and surrogates.

                “There is absolutely no reason to suppose having a second same-sex parent would in any way negate the absence of having an opposite-sex parent; the two parental roles do different things.”

                But if the child is better off having his/her shot at life, it’s not required that the same-sex partner fully make up for whatever feelings of loss the child experiences. Again, applying the principles you seem to suggest at the strength you seem to suggest will only enforce one right of the child: that of not existing in the first place.

                “Unless it’s your kid, because your kid “doesn’t mind”. (And why doesn’t he mind? Because it was decided before he was even born that he wouldn’t.)”

                As I pointed out above, you’ve given no reason for believing that gay parents are any more inclined to force their children to not express grief over not having both biological parents than are other parents who are raising a child in such a situation (e.g., adoptive parents, foster parents, step-parents when the original is mostly or totally out of the picture, etc.).

                ““Marriage isn’t procreative” That’s the whole argument for gay marriage, isn’t it?”

                No. The closest would be that marriage isn’t NECESSARILY procreative, which is a well-established fact.

                “So – okay – put your money where your mouth is: if marriage “is not procreative”, then there’s no reason at all why the two of you need to pretend you have a child in common. You don’t.”

                By that argument, no couple where one of the members isn’t biologically related to the child in question have a child in common.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’ve waffled a couple times on the gay marriage issue until I came to understand that gay marriage wasn’t about gay marriage. It was about forwarding the destructive Utopian Leftist agenda. And in that agenda is a sour and poisonous juvenile Freudian component best summed up as “Blame your parents for everything.”

    That is, like all things Leftist, it is premised on replacing the family, religion, and personal liberty with the state. The Left doesn’t care about homosexuals except as a hammer to hit straight people over the head with. This is in line with a rare moment of honesty from Christopher Hitchens wherein he noted that the Left in England didn’t favor the mass flood of Islamic immigrants because they cared for third world peoples. They supported it because they hated the English. That some people have bought into this shtick of “marriage equality” — licking the icing off of the whole cake (and this includes the once-thoughtful Jonah Goldberg) — simply goes to show the shallowness of our culture.

    If gay marriage was ever and only about gay marriage, I could support it on purely libertarian grounds. But it isn’t. So I don’t.

  4. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “As for Hitchens, he wasn’t talking abou the left in general but the Marxist left (see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html).”

    As is your wont, you mis-characterize Hitchens’ article. While he did mention radical Leftists, he also used the term left without the adjectives. The article goes into the damage massive immigration has done to the U.K. and was more of a mea culpa on Hitchens’ part and his acknowledgement that many haven’t changed their minds. He didn’t only blame the Marxist left.

    Quote:

    But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold and – with the recent, honourable exception of David Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was wrong – they will not change.

    Unquote

    If anyone needs further proof that the Left (radical or otherwise) is out to change our culture just read the following articles.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html#ixzz2i25zuVFK
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

    More of this information is available if anyone wishes to see proof of the Leftist hate of the West, particularly Anglo-Saxon culture.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Thanks for the solid defense, Mr. Kung. Faba has become (or always was) so fundamentally obtuse and propably intentionally disengenuous regarding political issues that I just don’t bother anymore. Faba seems to have fun playing the troll.

      I’ve got Peter Hitchens’ The Abolition of Britain” in hardcover on my bookshelf. I hope to eventually get to it. I picked it up for $4.00 on the Amazon Marketplace (including shipping). The book is in near-mint condition. I often find such deals and don’t see how anyone makes any money.

  5. Linda — good discussion — one that’s hard to have these days without suffering the wrath of the Left. I wanted to add one thing. I am concerned about the pro-gay attitude actually producing more homosexuals and the narcissism that seems inherent in that life. Marriage between a man and a woman forces us to step outside of ourselves and see the world from a foreign point of view, thereby producing personal and spiritual growth. I see no such benefit from gay unions and I see our society becoming more and more self-involved with less and less counter-influence.

    I once taught a modern dance class in which one third of the class was loudly homosexual — it almost destroyed the social fabric of that class. All rules of propriety were gone and the usual social patterns didn’t work. It was a scary microcosm of what we’re going to be facing.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      “I once taught a modern dance class in which one third of the class was loudly homosexual — it almost destroyed the social fabric of that class. All rules of propriety were gone and the usual social patterns didn’t work. It was a scary microcosm of what we’re going to be facing.”

      Such behavior by homosexuals is not uncommon. In most activities of life, most heterosexual people do not go around trumpeting their sexual preference. At least they didn’t when I was younger.

      Propriety is one thing lacking in many homosexuals. The obnoxious and bizarre behavior on display in so-called “gay pride” parades is proof of this.

      Unfortunately, propriety is something we are presently short of.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s a matter of identity politics. Homosexual activists define themselves very loudly on the basis of their sexuality, and they press this on other people for their own advantage (making use of anti-discrimination laws, which are an abomination when it comes to things like homosexual behavior). This is, incidentally, one reason why I opposed getting rid of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military: It meant that obnoxiously visible homosexuals could not be removed no matter how much harm they do to discipline and cohesion.

  6. RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

    Homosexuality has been around since people have been but…
    homesexual marriage has not been until this generation when the tyrannical few imposed it upon society.

    The victims are cake bakers sued of business for refusing to bake a same sex cake.

    They tyrannical few have imposed upon society, a society who has followed general rules of behavior for millennium to ignore those millennia. Any who speak against the tyrannical few or dare to disobey the tyrannical few are to be shunned and they have been. The next step will be worse.

    The tyrannical few have shredded the constitution and our lives will be in tatters for the doing…

    • faba calculo says:

      A few things:

      A) Agree entirely with you that those who don’t wish to cater, do photos, whatever, for gay promise ceremonies are having their rights of association grossly violated. And I’d take it further, to say that those who might not, for whatever reason good or bad, want to do white marriages, black marriages, interracial marriages, etc.

      B) So far, however, that’s what’s been involved: promise ceremonies, not civil marriage, as the states in which this has arisen allow. Someone, I think it was KFZ, pointed out the case where someone is peremptorily suing in a state that does allow gay marriage to protect them from having to let gays use their property (which they allow others to use for marriages) for their marriage. And there is the case of the Catholic Charities not being able to renew their license for helping arrange adoptions because they don’t want to provide those services for gays. But, other than in Boston, these cases don’t involve gay marriage but rather the non-discrimination laws. These cases existed before gay marriage and will continue with or without them.

      3) There’s nothing tyrannical about shunning, as long as it stops there.

      4) If time-honored traditions of what is permissible are, only slowly, to be overturned, then gay sex itself should still be outlawed, as it was prohibited for numerous centuries, over a millennium as I recall, in the countries where the Abrahamic religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have dominated.

      5) Following up to #4, when we talk about victims of legal mistreatment, let’s keep room for the fact that the legal mistreatment of gays in my (and likely your) lifetime went a good deal further than fining them for not working the weddings they didn’t want to. This is not to say that I think you aren’t keeping room for it, mind you. It’s just a general point.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I would say that there’s a big difference between no longer banning sodomy (though I disagree with the SCOTUS decision that such laws are unconstitutional, I don’t think I’ve ever supported them) and banning discrimination based on sexual behavior. The latter is a gross violation of religious liberty, not that this matters to liberals (unless, as with Livia’s comment in the first episode of I, Claudius that she was not at all indifferent to the fate of Marcellus, this is actually another reason for it).

        • faba calculo says:

          I disagree with just about every law banning this or that form of (private) discrimination, as things like bans in housing discrimination, job discrimination, etc. is a violation of freedom of association.

          I especially dislike it in the case of small employers / renters, as there the association being forced is a much stronger when than when the stock owners of company X are forced to hire this or that disliked minority.

          I merely advocate for equal protection of law and a resulting ban on governmental discrimination against gays int the form of such things as the (former) ban of gays in the military or the ban on gays of the same gender getting civil marriages with each other.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Actually, under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the only ban was on open homosexuals in the military. I have no personal commitment on this issue, naturally (I never served, and would be far too old to do so now), but I do have concerns. One is cohesion; the point of basic training is to get the recruit to submerge the “I” into the “we” of the unit. Open homosexuals are those who place that group identification above any other, which probably makes them poor soldiers. Another problem is what one friend referred to (in the latest issue of FOSFAX) as “sexual privacy”. This probably only matters out in the field, or perhaps in some barracks.
            The basic problem I have with the way the issue of open homosexuals in the military was handled, as also with allowing women in combat (which also raises the question of lowering standards to make sure there are enough), is that these decisions were made for the sake of the identity group activists, not for the good of the services. If these are good ideas, fine; but if they aren’t (and the people making the decisions didn’t care if they were), it can have literally fatal results for too many people.

            • faba calculo says:

              “Open homosexuals are those who place that group identification above any other, which probably makes them poor soldiers.”

              How so? Certainly those who beat you over the head with it are discipline problems and should be dealt with, but if they’re merely as open about it as are heterosexuals (e.g., holding hands and kissing in public, Bob casually mentioning his spouse named Brad, etc.) I can’t see how that should be harmful to unit cohesion. Of course, others may make it a problem, but then it is they who are the problem to be dealt with.

              “I never served”

              I was never active, but I did 8 years in the infantry reserves, and that required basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia in 1985. I recall our training in driving the armored personnel carrier by a sergeant who regaled us with his story of how he’s once served in a unit that had two gays. These two were unfortunate enough to accidentally set their radios to communicate with all the APCs in the group rather than to just each others. The story ends with the rest of the squad (or perhaps company, I forget) finding the two later and beating them severely. I also my first get together with a friend who went to Marine boot camp about the same time I went to Benning and how he casually mentioned hating someone “almost as much as I hate fags, and I beat up fags in the streets”. I feel nothing but pride at having served in the US infantry, even as just a reservist. But it is a pride that is somewhat dimmed by the open and violent hostility against gays that was openly encouraged.

              “Another problem is what one friend referred to (in the latest issue of FOSFAX) as “sexual privacy”. This probably only matters out in the field, or perhaps in some barracks.”

              Definitely a potential issue. I’ve actually argued this point with a female liberal who insisted it’s not an issue. I asked her how she would feel were I just to lean in sometime when she was showering to get something, pointing out that she knew me well enough to know that I would never actually attack her in any way. Just looking for my watch. Her look was all the response I needed. If the military is wise, it will look to upping privacy, especially in the showering areas.

              “The basic problem I have with the way the issue of open homosexuals in the military was handled, as also with allowing women in combat”

              I also share your concern about women in combat, especially due to the issue of lowering standards. And, frankly, the military needs to redo its physical standards so that they jibe better with the requirements of the job at hand. It’s hard to see how being able to do 40 sit-ups is vital to being a combat soldier. On the other hand, it’s easy to see how being able to run 2 miles IN FULL GEAR is relevant. And once those standards are in place, they should be the same for everyone in a given job.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I would agree that many homosexuals can be included in the military without problem (especially in non-combat roles). But what about the flamboyant, identity-politics types? You tacitly admit that they would indeed be a problem. How would they be gotten rid of now?

      • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

        Yes I agree on the shunning, nothing inherently wrong with that (of course shun the left and see what happens). My fear is what the LEft does next after they shun the infidels, the historical record does not bode well for enemies of the left.

        Sodomy waxes in and out of favor (greeks romans, monks and samurai) – nothing unreasonable in legislating for or against it, its when the courts are activist one way or the other that I have a problem (the constitution gives the state the right to legislate to ensure the public safety, health and morality) thus there is a role for society to declare what it wants as moral. Its interesting to note that anti-sodomy laws have been on the books and still are but have been ignored for decades and decades. I’m sure politician could easily remove those laws if they wanted to (as society accepts people can do in privacy what they desire in this regard).

        But public preference for sodomy or not has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It will take more than judicial activism to convince society otherwise. And I fear the attempt by the minority to coerce the majority in this regard will lead to vastly greater harms then crying ‘harms’ because society doesn’t believe same sex marriage is acceptable reasonable and normal.

        • faba calculo says:

          “nothing unreasonable in legislating for or against it, its when the courts are activist one way or the other that I have a problem”

          Then you don’t object to (even if you don’t agree with) the voter / legislature approved measures that have created civil gay marriage in some states?

          “But public preference for sodomy or not has nothing to do with marriage.”

          But the extremity of past anti-gay measures does speak to the likelihood that at least some of the support for the ban on gay marriage IS born of animus.

          “Its interesting to note that anti-sodomy laws have been on the books and still are but have been ignored for decades and decades.”

          Outside of the military (and likely things such as custody hearings).

          “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

          But it hasn’t always been about romantic love. That turning point came much more recently. Once it did, all that kept gay marriage as an issue under wraps was the suppression of gays themselves. Once the decay of that limit started crumbling (faster) post-Stone Wall in ’69, it was just a matter of time. And a short matter at that, with gay marriage hitting the Supreme Court just three years later.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            For myself, the reason I voted for the constitutional amendment “banning” homosexual marriage and civil unions in Kentucky (in 2004) was precisely to take the issue away from arrogant juristocrats. I would even have been willing to accept civil unions, except that this was the Trojan Horse liberals used in California to impose homosexual marriage (in other words, they refused to compromise). Perhaps, as states and foreign countries establish homosexual marriages, we will eventually learn that they are indeed as harmless as you think. But until then, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, the fact remains that it involves the forced redefinition of marriage, and I don’t recognize any court’s right to do that.

    • griffonn says:

      The victims are anyone whose needs or desires are in conflict.

      Like most left wing issues, it all looks perfectly reasonable if you isolate just the one person whose needs “matter”, and look at it solely from that person’s point of view – without any context.

      The problem, of course, is that “Hell is other people”. For every one person who gets to be Center Of The World, many many people end up “dancing backwards”. Gay marriage is not by any means the only issue (sexual revolution issues in particular are bad for this – how many children suffer poverty or even death so that adults can enjoy their unrestrained sexual satisfaction?) The left wing person whose “rights” are in question is the only one who matters. All other stakeholders are dismissed – either their stake is minimized (‘the kids are all right’, the kids “don’t mind”) or the person with the conflicting stake is demonized (religious people don’t deserve their religious freedom, because blah blah blah).

      That is what happens when rights are separated from responsibilities. Rights for me, obligations for you. My feelings are all-important, but your very life is disposable if it happens to be in my way. You shouldn’t mind giving up blah blah blah just because I need you to, because whatever I want is reasonable and whatever you want isn’t.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    Kung Fu Zu’s argument (afternoon of October 23) about the lack of anything higher than “I want” is a very significant point. I’m sure most readers here will recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s concept of “defining deviancy down”. It’s this loss of any sort of higher moral code that leads to this result. Right now, pedophilia (and the closely related hebephilia) is considered seriously wrong even by many liberals. But there is a movement (NAMBLA) devoted to it, and many liberals (such as Nancy Pelosi) are already active supporters. Eventually this will become a liberal cause because there is no argument against it aside from traditional morality. Many liberals who today oppose it (especially in the Catholic Church or Boy Scouts, of course) will, within a few years, start to waffle and eventually support it.

  8. faba calculo says:

    “But what about the flamboyant, identity-politics types? You tacitly admit that they would indeed be a problem. How would they be gotten rid of now?”

    Nothing in the new law grants gays immunity to military discipline. They simply can’t be kicked out for being gay. Just as blacks can’t be discriminated against on those grounds though they can be kicked out for bad behavior.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Do you honestly think that if such a soldier were given a dishonorable discharge he wouldn’t sue? And of course, the current obamized military would never do anything like that anyway.

      • faba calculo says:

        I have a strange feeling that commanders are about as interested in overall discipline as ever.

        I mean, how flamboyant are we talking here? Is this “seems kind of effeminate” or more like “gets caught doing the nasty in back seat of the old boy’s Jeep”? As with pretty much everyone else, they’re going to actually have to break the rules to get in much trouble.

        Not for nothing, but I recall some of the older NCOs regaling us privates about their methods from getting their car back onto post when they were clearly too drunk to be driving. The method that most stands out in my memory was also the simplest. Wait until you get almost close enough to the MP guarding the gate for him to see your license plate, then hit the high beams and accelerate straight towards him on the theory that no MP standing in front of a a charging car is going to try to read the plate before diving out of the way. After that, a few choice turns, and you’re home free. It’s just a guess, but I’d say they’d court marshal Liberace over a stunt like that.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Do you really think the top leadership — Obama appointees all — would go along with that? Note that the Army Chief of Staff hinted at lowering standards for women when that subject came up. Note their eagerness to cooperate with Mikey Weinstein militant atheists in removing all traces of religion from the military. Recall how the Army leadership responded to Nidal Hassan’s attack at Fort Hood by hoping that this wouldn’t hurt their diversity program.

          • faba calculo says:

            Again, what type of behavior are we talking about? And who is doing it? If it’s not a higher officer, discipline is handled by people much lower down, people who weren’t appointed by Obama. Let a gay private come in once wearing rainbow pins instead of rank, they’ll still get the talking to. Let them insist on doing it every day, they’ll still likely be looking at an Article 15.

            (OK, I am kind of guess here. I don’t actually know what the punishment generally is for chronically being out of uniform. But I’d be surprised if such regular disobedience couldn’t get you an Article 15.)

            This is not to say that the military justice system always flows smoothly, no matter what the issue, and there are plenty of stories about the lack of prosecution of sex offenders. Indeed, among the many cases, there are already examples of a male being charged with raping a male being allegedly covered up. But this is an issue, if it’s an issue, of a defective justice system, not (in general) of gay violence.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Leadership and policies flow from the top down. If Colonels know that they will be judged harshly for punishing homosexuals, they will make sure it doesn’t happen, and so will officers at a lower level. So the moral corruption (due to careerism) of the top brass has a baleful effect on the whole force.

              • faba calculo says:

                But the people who judge privates aren’t even known to the big brass, let alone judged by them. So unless we are to believe that there turns out to be this virtual conspiracy where generals watch colonels who are then pressured to watch majors who are then pressured to watch captains, all the while lacking any evidence that Obama doesn’t want gays who are poor soldiers to be treated like any other poor soldier, I see this as an unlikely scenario.

                Again, I can see the possibility that sexual assault, perhaps already a weak spot on their radar, might go under-punished with gays. But I can see that possibility in general.

  9. Timothy Lane says:

    Responding to faba calculo’s October 24 afternoon comment: Do you really think the military isn’t hierarchical in structure. Lieutenants are watched by captains, who are watched by majors and lieutenant colonels, who are watched by colonels, etc. In the end, they ultimately answer to the top brass, who are appointed by Obama and — as firm careerists — do his bidding regardless of its effect on their services. The vicious mistreatment not only of World War II but of the families of those killed in combat, at the behest of Obama, during the partial shutdown (mistreatment that no one at the Pentagon openly opposed) was the final proof of that.

    • faba calculo says:

      I don’t doubt that it’s a hierarchy, I just have seen no reason to believe that each level watches how each lower level disciples its gay soldiers and promotes accordingly.

      Take blacks. One could argue that Obama would be at least as interested in seeing that they get an easy ride as he is in gays. But is there evidence of a general bias against disciplining blacks working its way down the ranks.

      Or take women. Again, there have been many and widely reported incidences of sexual assaults by one soldier (or member of one of the other branches) against another going unprosecuted, unpunished, or even having commanders overturn punishments against their subordinates after they were convicted. Given that it’s almost always men assaulting women, I hardly see how that comports with the idea of a progressive agenda being enforced down the ranks.

      I’m not saying I’m necessarily buying into this theory of a military that is lax in punishing sexual assault, but at least there is considerable evidence of soldiers (et. al.) claiming this in general from surveys, which, as far as I know, is a lot more than we have for the theoretical gay immunity to punishment for outlandish behavior.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I’ve read scattered reports for nearly 20 years of a very politically correct treatment of women in the military, especially the Navy. I have no idea how accurate the reports, or how widespread the abuses are, but they do exist. One example came when a woman was killed in an airplane crash trying to land on a carrier. The Navy of course fobbed it off somehow or another, but there were claims that she had been passed (carrier flying is very exacting), in effect, as an affirmative action selection. (I referred to the Navy as “Patsy-whipped” in “honor” of Patricia Schroeder, who pushed this sort of thing.) As for the evidence of mishandling of abuses by homosexuals, exactly what sort of evidence do you expect to have a year or so after the policy was changed?

        • faba calculo says:

          “As for the evidence of mishandling of abuses by homosexuals, exactly what sort of evidence do you expect to have a year or so after the policy was changed?”

          None either way. So, until we have some, we’ve nothing with which to conclude that gays are being discriminated for or against. I don’t fault you have having suspicions as I have some myself. But, lacking actual evidence, that’s all they are.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The problem is that maintaining a policy that worked for 20 years (and I wonder if Colin Powell, who got Clinton to compromise on “don’t ask, don’t tell” instead of removing the ban totally, decided to change his mind when Slick Barry decided to junk it; I suspect he did) was a lot less risky that bringing in a new policy that was entirely likely (given who’s in charge until 2017) to lead to very negative results. The military is not a place for social experiments. Note that blacks had been in military units for nearly a century when Truman decreed integration, and that Navy ships were already somewhat integrated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *