NOM BLOG

Brian Brown talks about D.C.'s gay marriage bill

 

Video Clip of Brian discussing the DC marriage bill that was introduced on Tuesday
10/7/09
News Channel 8, Washington DC

17 Comments

  1. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Is the fight against same-sex marriage primarily one fought between religious groups and the gay community? Are there any issues that a secular society should consider in this fight? We have found at least eight negative sociological outcomes that could occur if same-sex marriage is legalized.

    The first impact would most likely affect the number of marriages in the United States. Fewer people would see marriage as the ultimate covenant between two people. The proof of this lies in the state of Massachusetts where only 43 percent of same-sex couples who cohabitate have utilized the state law which grants them marriage rights. Heterosexual couples in Massachusetts are more likely to marry (91 percent) but the degree to which same-sex couples marry devalues the commitment for all couples and the number is likely to decrease. In the Netherlands, only 12 percent of gay couples have chosen marriage; this low number is consistent with countries that have legalized same-sex marriages.

    A second impact that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on our society would be that monogamous and sexually faithful relationships would decrease. Fidelity among same-sex couples in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage is extremely low. Several studies in the Netherlands show shocking figures: homosexual men who have a steady partner have had an average of eight other sexual partners per year; lesbians were found to have more male partners over their lifetime than heterosexual women. This lack of fidelity affects the view of marriage by the society in general, no matter the sexual preference.

    Third, same-sex marriage would negatively impact the number of couples who would remain married throughout their lives. As the transient nature of homosexual relationships becomes a normative ingredient of a society, all marriages will be impacted. One of the studies mentioned above found that the average male homosexual partnership lasts only 1½ years. This is a direct result of the widespread promiscuity among the homosexual community.

    Next, the effect of same-sex marriage could be felt in the area of polygamy. Once society is afforded the opportunity to choose a spouse regardless of sex, the next step is to take the limit off the number of spouses a person may have. In case you think this is an unlikely scenario, one lawsuit has been filed in the courts using the argument we have stated above.

    Moving on from marriage, we can readily deduce that the next influence same-sex marriage would have would be on children. More children would grow up without both father and mother to influence their lives. The social sciences are replete with study after study that commands our attention to the positive effect married, biological parents have on their children. Children are more emotionally stable and achieve higher test scores when they are raised by a mother and a father. Creating permanent motherless or fatherless homes dares to suppress the best standards for the next generation. Allowing gay partners to adopt will deny innocent children (who are unable to choose for themselves) the benefit of a home with both a mother and a father.

    Another negative impact same-sex marriage would have on our families is that schools would be required to offer information about homosexuality as a choice to students. Sex education classes would purport that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. In Massachusetts, a lesbian sex education instructor told her 8th grade students how lesbians use “a sex toy” to have intercourse. Though this is shocking, more so is the fact that a kindergarten parents was jailed because he protested against a book that was distributed to his son describing same-sex partners.

    Next, the impact of same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on the economy. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, all employers, whether they are public or private, will be forced to provide a benefits package for same-sex couples. This will broadly affect every US citizen as our consumer goods and services will increase due to the increase cost of benefits that companies (large or small) will have to bear.

    Finally, the conscience of each citizen and our religious liberties would come under attack if same-sex marriage became legalized. Once a law has been made, the interpretation of that law is managed by the court system, which has often seen opinion rise over the will of the people. Religious schools, colleges, and organizations might face becoming stripped of their tax-exempt status if they do not hire and admit homosexuals. Social workers, psychologists, counselors and other professionals could have their licenses revoked because they have chosen to “discriminate” against homosexuals.

    The types of issues we have stated above have already been found to be true in the countries and states in which same-sex marriage has been legalized. If you are as vexed as I am over this issue, make a stand for marriage.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2009/10/12/what%E2%80%99s_the_vex_of_same-sex?page=2

  2. John
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Adam, the ACP is nothing but opinion. The APA has years of studies to back their claims. Here's a few:

    Reviews of Empirical Studies: Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
    Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.

    Cochran, S. D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians' and gay men's mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American Psychologist, 56, 931-947.

    Gonsiorek, J. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.),Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Herek, G. M. (1998). Bad science in the service of stigma: A critique of the Cameron group's survey studies. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 223-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    This last one is a favorite of mine, it's one of many that discredits Cameron's work. A fave of your ACP.

  3. Jesse
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    After reading some comments, i can see why pro-marriage advocates do what they do. The anti-gays keep on attacking not only with religion, but with H8! Just like in these comments! Any rude response will prove me correct.

  4. Jesse
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    The fact that this web site exists is exactly why they needed the D.C. March on Equality. Wow, with all that Sam has written, is she really THIS fixated on assaulting poor gays and lesbians?

  5. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    What has hate got to do with anything Jesse?

  6. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    screaming "HATE" in a crowded forum is hardly a replacement for thought, reason and debate.

  7. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    Since one of the aims of marriage as an institution is to encourage the best for children, forcing children into sub-par relationships would infringe on their rights would it not? Calling it equal doesn't make it so. Children do not get to choose, they are the ones being denied one gender's parental role by design. If your parents are divorced, or if one has died, then other relatives try to step in to fill the void, and kids are flexible, they can adjust in most cases. However, putting kids in a situation where they have to adjust isn't equal for them. It comes down to weighing kids rights over adult's preferences. I have not been convinced that SSM can do the job that marriage does for children, and the price is too high to experiment with.

    Wouldn't it be better to allow adults the freedom to be with who they choose to and pursue the missing legal advantages separate from marriage? Colorado has recently adopted a plan I think is quite a good one. It gives benefits to any significant relationship between adults living in the same home. It could be a grandmother living with her college age granddaughter, or two lesbians, or three elderly sisters. It gives government protection and encouragement not because of the potential for the creation of children, but because of the stability created when people have loving charge over one another. Utah has a similar law. I hope it spreads because committed people deserve rights and privileges. That's a cause I can get behind.

  8. Laura
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Any heterosexual person who supports homosexual marriage must be out of his or her mind.

    I can understand insecure homosexuals, living in their own make-belief world, desperately trying to prove that they are just like everybody else. For them, their homosexuality is the essence of their existence. They do not care about the social consequences of their annihilistic and hedonistic crusade. They do not care about the kids who are deprived of a mom or dad from the start. They do not care about the mixed messages sent to our children about sexuality and about the importance of having a mom AND a dad. In fact, a complete transformation of our world in accordance with their own hedonistic and annihilistic vision is their ultimate goal.

    If the AIDS epidemic, which originated from homosexual activity, did not open people's eyes, what is it going to take? The annihilation of the entire human race -- just because we are too stupid/politically correct to say enough is enough?

  9. Mark Douglas
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Laura: AIDS did not originate from homosexual activity. That is a very ignorant thought. It originated in Africa from a now extinct species of primate. It manifested itself on Africans first, then the early 80's gay male population. Just need to set that fact, as I am a microbiologist, and have studied the virus for 20 years, now.

  10. ladyk
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Jesse, your fallback position is that we're all about hate, but opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with fighting people. It has to do with fighting ideas. Some people who experience same sex attraction identify so completely with their moral ideas and actions that they say they “ARE” their moral choices. I don’t find that to be an accurate description. Who you ARE is a person, a human being, a child of God. Nothing can change that.

  11. John
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Well this must be upsetting.....

    Judge in Gay Marriage Case: Ability to Procreate Not Required

    The battle over California’s gay marriage ban is set to continue at least through January.

    The WSJ’s Geoffrey Fowler reports that today in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker refused to grant a motion from backers of the ban, known as Prop. 8, to throw out a constitutional challenge to it filed earlier this year.
    -------

    There goes that whole, "it's all about making babies" argument.

  12. John
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    ladyk,

    I think you are confused on several levels. In the eyes of the law, gays are not deemed immoral. In fact, not all christians believe gays are immoral. So you are wrong to assert that this isn't a fight against people, you very well intend to target gays as less than worthy of rights afforded to others.

    The intent to defame is quite evident in the postings here. If I were to use Samantha's logic, every "Girls Gone Crazy" video is evidence that all woman are promiscuous women.

  13. ladyk
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    "In the eyes of the law, gays are not deemed immoral. In fact, not all christians believe gays are immoral. So you are wrong to assert that this isn’t a fight against people, you very well intend to target gays as less than worthy of rights afforded to others."

    I'm sorry. I don't follow your logic.
    The law doesn't believe in God
    Not all Christians believe in God
    ergo
    I hate gays?

  14. ladyk
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    My point was that you are not your sexuality. You are a human being. In my faith, you are a child of God. There is no hate there.

  15. John
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    ladyk,

    This statement of yours says volumes.

    "Some people who experience same sex attraction identify so completely with their moral ideas and actions that they say they “ARE” their moral choices. I don’t find that to be an accurate description."

    love the sinner not the sin is not acceptable, and still has nothing to do with civic law.

  16. John
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    ladyk, from my earlier post you come up with:

    "I’m sorry. I don’t follow your logic,  The law doesn’t believe in God, Not all Christians believe in God, ergo, I hate gays?"

    So you assert that you have to believe that gays are immoral to believe in God?  Your way or the highway? 

    Again, your religious viewpoints are, well, are yours. They have absolutely nothing to do with civil law. 

  17. Laura
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Mark, your, at best, incomplete, description of how the AIDS epidemic started is a classic example of politically correct lunacy pervasive in this country. Just to educate you, a homosexual man, infected with HIV via bestiality, introduced the HIV virus into the homosexual community. Homosexuals, through anal intercourse, particularly conducive in transfer of blood and feces borne diseases, took it from there.

    Homosexual men are still, nearly 30 years later, the greatest contributors to the AIDS epidemic in this country. Not to mention syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, etc. Really healthy lifestyle. Something that we should endorse, encourage and promote through the farce of homosexual "marriage."

    If you are a heterosexual supporting homosexual "marriage", you are either out of your mind or you are being handsomly paid for your support.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.