Running Scared on Same-Sex Marriage


Pages: 1 2

This week, David Frum – who had been holding on to his self-proclaimed conservative label by his fingernails – dropped into the abyss of moral relativism, embracing same-sex marriage.  “I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state’s vote to authorize same-sex marriage,” he wrote for CNN.com.  “I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction either.  Most conservatives have reacted with calm – if not outright approval – to New York’s dramatic decision.”

What was Frum’s justification for his shift from traditional marriage advocate to same-sex marriage friend?  “The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality.  The case has not passed its test.”  Where, you ask, has the case against same-sex marriage been tested?  Frum doesn’t give statistics, other than broad national statistics, pointing out that “the 2000s were the least bad decade for American family stability since the fabled 1950s.”

This, of course, is supremely idiotic.  Same-sex marriage has not been tested nationwide.  It is sanctioned by the government in precisely six states now: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  California is on the fence.  Not much of a sample size.

Beyond that, the argument against same-sex marriage is not that it will undermine traditional marriages already in existence.  It is that same-sex marriage contributes to the general decline of traditional marriage by granting the same benefits to people who live together under virtually any circumstances.  More importantly, the argument runs, children need a stable mother-father household, and any measures that make such households less common are negative.

Frum finishes his column by totally missing that point.  “By coincidence, I am writing these words on the morning of my own 23rd wedding anniversary. Of all the blessings life has to offer, none equals a happy marriage. If proportionally fewer Americans enjoy that blessing today than did 40 years ago, we’re going to have to look for the explanation somewhere other than the Legislature in Albany.”

Again, nobody is accusing same-sex marriage of being the sole determinant of marital decline.  But it is a symptom of a broader devaluation of marriage.  The same people who push for same-sex marriage push for registered partnerships, for civil unions – for governmental benefits for non-traditional marriage.  As those legal situations become more available, more people will take advantage of them, and less people will buy into traditional marriage.  We’ve already seen it in the Netherlands, where the number of marriages has declined consistently since the legalization of gay marriage; it’s down 10 percent since 1999.  Meanwhile, registered partnerships have exploded 500 percent over the last ten years.  According to William C. Duncan of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, “Nine in ten couples plan to live together before marrying and two-thirds of cohabiting couples plan to marry ‘but keep postponing marriage.’”

Pages: 1 2

  • Dave Saunders

    "Six states not a big sample"? What nonsense! Civilization did not crumble when Massachusetts became the firs US state to recognize equal marriage in 2004. Now several millions live in six states that do (and DC). What about the entire countries of Canada, South Africa, and for a few years now, (nominally Catholic) Spain? "O mores, O tempores!". A bunch of religiously minded busy-bodies who claim with zero evidence all manner of calamity. Well, it hasn't happened and only good will come of acknowledging and supporting honest relationships that are natural to a significant fraction of humanity. I say Bravo New York!

    • Loupdegarre

      Rome didn't crumble in a day. You have set yourself on a collison course with Radical Islamist that seek to impose Sharia Law and are making some headway. When the moral hole left in the Consitution caused by your selfishness is filled by Islam and Western Civilization falls they will come after you and you will beg for someone to help you but no will answer because we will have had our hands tied by you.

    • intrcptr2

      Blame religion all you wish, Dave, science most assuredly does not support homosexual behavior.
      Although perhaps you ought to read what Ben actually wrote in the first place. He did not say civilization would collapse because Doogie Howser likes boys. Comparing European state to the US is illegitimate on its face, and the five states that have approved of same-sex partnerings before NY are NOT a valid statistical sample for a nation of over 300 million.
      As for your "busy-bodies" with zero evidence concerning a proper family, lets take a closer look at that, shall we? http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP10-14-Fhttp://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publhttp://psychcentral.com/news/2010/09/30/loss-of-thttp://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/research_briefs/file818

      I could go on, but the point stands; you are wrong.
      Notice also, though, this sample of the research shows that it is the lack of an explicit marriage relationship that harms the children. It also shows that the presence of one can counteract, to a degree, the earlier absence of a father who is committed to the mother.
      Ben's point is that legalized gay partnering is an additional stress on the concept of marriage, and that that comprehensive assault undermines marriage, which is what harms those children found in "alternative" marriages.

      And I am sorry, but <2% does not count as a "significant fraction of humanity".

    • Freedom John

      You only think MA hasn't crumbled. Look at it and tell me if it looks like a blessed place any longer except for the Bruins winning. I go there often. Not anywhere close to what it used to be.

    • aspacia

      LOL, I am waiting for the stones, as I too believe in equal rights in marriage. The main claim for homosexual marriage is the lack of benefits in a domestic partnership regardless of hetero or homo. Most companies, and many state refuse to recognize domestic partnerships, and hence deny benefits for the partner.

      Additionally, homo or hetero sexual couples who have resided together for 10+ years have been denied visitation rights, and death rights. That is, if the family chooses, they can deny parental, hospital visitation, or burial rights to a domestic partner.

      Ben Franklin never married his domestic partner, yet their children and she retained all rights. Read the First American for insight.

      • zsqpwxxeh

        The states and companies that refuse to grant benefits for non-spouses are perfectly within their rights to deny any benefits to spouses. This is an empty, bogus argument. One might as well demand benefits for anyone of whatever relationship to the claimant.

        Granting benefits and state recognition to patently aberrant and unnatural relationships is truly the Mother of All Slippery Slopes. Enjoy the freefall. Most of us won't.

        • aspacia

          Okay, I understand your claim. However, if I am unmarried, and have to choose between having children, or not what will I opt for if the company pays zero benefits for the spouse or children?

          • zsqpwxxeh

            Your decision on whether to get married or have children is based on what employers offer in the way of bennies? Surely you jest.

          • aspacia

            I know many individuals who chose not to have children because they would have to pay $400.00 monthly for health benefits sans dental and optical with a $500.00 deductible then 80/20 benefits. Now try doing that with a family of 3, and earning $12.00 an hour. Think about it. Purchase a home? How about a car and insurance? How about basic utilities? Computer? Most would be stretched even if both husband and wife worked and decided to have one child and both earned $12.00 hr.

          • Loupdegarre

            The institution of marriage between a man and a woman began long before anything like benefits came along

    • Solinkaa

      It's "O tempora, o mores," incidentally.

  • waterwillows

    There are simply no mortals that have more wisdom than the Lord. None at all.

    Because you do not immediately get banged on the head, does not mean that error is not coming. Once a people have set their feet on the wrong path and continue to follow that path, they begin to see, eventually, that there is no bottom to error. The facts are that is can always, but always, get worse.
    It is a whole lot harder to put the animals back into the barn once they are loose, than it is to simply lock the barn door.

    • Guest

      The Lord does have wisdom, he had just two commandments, love God, and love your neighbor.

      In Luke, Jesus is asked who is my neighbor, and through the parable of the good Samaritan, He made it clear that your neighbor could be a complete stranger, and that you should show mercy.

      So deny homosexuals insurance benefits, and inviolate hospital visitation rights, and the happiness and comfort that those things bring. Deny those things at no cost to yourself. Deny those things for no reason but self-righteous mean spitefulness.

      Then you explain how that is merciful and compassionate when you are judged. Justify how you violated His commandment. You don't need to convince me, you know who you will need to convince.

  • waterwillows

    One might perhaps have noticed that in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah there were no persons, or families that were not affected. It was prevalent, swamping the people whether they wished it or not. Something like the Afghans today.
    The Lord did not destroy the cities out of hatred. It was simply the only thing left that could be done.
    Think carefully about just what it is that you choose for your community and country.

    • Gamblor!

      Any 'Lord' who would punish the innocent for the supposed crimes of the guilty is not a Lord worth worshipping.

      • g_jochnowitz

        Since there is no evolutionary justification for homosexuality, its existence has to be a miracle. Why did God create homosexuals? So He could lead them into temptation and then punish them? After all, why did God create Satan?
        For that matter why did God create Hell? Could anyone–with the possible exception of a Hitler–deserve eternal torture?
        Furthermore, God is an embittered anti-Semite, as I explain in my poem. http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/AfterTheBinding….

      • daniel rotter

        Amen.

    • Jason B

      waterwillows,
      A really good movie I saw was "For the Bible Tells Me So". There's a very interesting segment about Sodom and Gomorrah, that were supposedly very nice cities of that time (probably where you would want to raise your kids). People in these town were refusing to provide room and board to all their traveling brethren as required by Jewish law. The king punished them by ordering his soldiers to rape them – men and women. As it turns out, the story is not love, pleasure, or even sexual excesses. It's a story about a king using his power in the worst way possible – to sexually indignify his own people.

  • Chezwick_mac

    Gay marriage is a stepping-stone to legalized polygamy. Once marriage is redefined as no longer applying exclusively to one man and one woman, the courts will inevitably overturn prohibitions on polygamy. And once we have legalized polygamy, we'll witness the cultural devaluation of women and the rise of a new patriarchal despotism. It fits perfectly with the Sharia project.

    • Me123

      Oh my goodness……….. You’re right…………
      I used to not care about who other people “marry” but I am fed up with homosexuality being pushed in the media but now u make this comment and I see why calling it “marriage” is so wrong. Why are the left DETERMINED to destroy good countries. :(

    • Aaron

      That's odd… the Bible is just chock full of polygamist marriages… that seems to be God's preferred method of marriage… defintitely not a 'sin'!! :-)

      • Chezwick_mac

        You're looking at the issue through a religious prism…I'm looking at it through a sociological one.

        Truth is friend, whatever the Old Testament may say, monogamous marriage IS the Judeo-Christian tradition and has been at least since the inception of Christianity. Conversely, polygamous marriage is the ISLAMIC tradition and has been since the inception of Islam.

        The contrasting ethos between a monogamous culture and a polygamous one can be seen clearly in the difference of status between the Western woman and her Muslim counterpart. The former is free to live the life of her choice and has equality under the law; the latter is severely constricted by religious and cultural dictate and suffers distinct legal liabilities that are overtly discriminatory.

        In other words, your attempt at moral equivalence failed miserably.

    • Guest

      There are many references to polygamous marriages in the Bible, and it isn't legal, if the slope is so slippery, it would have started here :

      Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygamist. He had two wives.

      Subsequent men in polygamous relationships included:
      Esau with 3 wives;

      Jacob: 2;

      Ashur: 2;

      Gideon: many;

      Elkanah: 2;

      David: many;

      Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;

      Rehaboam: 3;

      Abijah: 14.

      Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

    • g_jochnowitz

      The Old Testament vigorously supports polygamy. As for Jesus, he never said a single word against it. His silence implies approval.

      • Chezwick_mac

        Even if that's true, unlike Islam, there is no polygamous tradition in the Christian world. Not a single Christian country (nor Israel) has legalized it. But that will surely change if we redefine marriage and open it up to multiple interpretations…the courts will rule the current prohibitions against polygamy to be discriminatory.

    • Morrisminor

      The old Shariah bs, it's a replacement for the red menace in the reactionaries worldview

      • Chezwick_mac

        So, it's all a canard, eh?….Sharia doesn't even exist, eh?…Or perhaps Muslim immigrants are a completely different breed than their counterparts in Darul Islam?…you know, they're somehow "progressive" and not inclined towards wanting to live under "God's law?

    • Solinkaa

      Brilliant comment! Thank you.

  • Chris

    All arguments for same sex marriage have to do with religion. Hello we are a nation separate of church and state ….read the constitution. Furthermore the The Declaration of Independence was based on Common Sense written by Thomas Paine, one of the founder's of America. Common Sense as well as his latter publication The Age of Reason published in the 1790s clearly state why we are separate from church and state so please stop shoving YOUR RELIGIOUS beliefs down my throat. I do not care what you do in your own home but please do not make me follow it. Finally Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Netherlands, Iceland, and South Africa all have gay marriage for many years now and are doing just fine. Furthermore if NOM believed in marriage so much where were they when the show Married by America or Married by Dwarfs aired.

    • Jerome

      It is not the religion that says homosexuals cannot "marry" but biology. Two men or two women can NEVER produce new life. One man and one woman have the POSSIBILITY to produce new life. Not the Bible, my friend, but Mother Nature says homosexuality is unnatural (or against our nature).

    • winoceros

      Silly. These people seek to redefine my definition of marriage. My "being married" implies something about me, my availability, my gender preference, my possible status as mother, my responsibilities as a spouse.

      The activists seek to shove their expanded definition of marriage, nullifying the special meaning of being married. Why the holy hell can they not even get their own word? Must they co-opt even that? Since gay marriage has nothing to do with straight marriage other than emotional attachment, why can they just not get their own term?

      • nina

        Interesting. That is exactly my point also. I would also like to say that many non religious people are also uncomfortable with the legitimization of same sex marriage. It deligitimizes a marriage between a man and a woman. It is also a social experiment as regards to these couples bringing up children. With all the love in the world, we can't know what the result of this experiment will be as regards to these childrens understanding of life. This would also trickle down to their peers. Will this be another nail in the coffin of Western civilization?

    • Harold

      "All arguments for same sex marriage have to do with religion."

      Bull crap. I can't figure out how to link to a single comment, but this is lifted whole from comments at Ann Althouse:

      " JimMuy said…
      Monogamous marriage between one man and one woman isn't something that "society decided" (as if such a thing is even possible). No. It was arrived at after hundreds of thousands of real-life, real-time experiments using real, live test subjects. Humans, with the same emotions, same drives and same intelligence as modern humans, have tested every type and manner of marriage–including those types you think to your modern, smug self are new and better."

      The comment thread from this http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/mistake-that

      Pretty much sums up my beliefs. If SSM helped a civilization to prosper, it would already be widespread.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Thank you, Ben Shapiro again for the honest coverage of the dishonesty of the eroded "conservatives". Yes, the argument for same-sex marriage is actually dangerous! As a famous satirist back in USSR put it in a sketch "The truth emerges in a discussion": "There are topics for which a discussion is … harmful!"

    And the homosexual "marriage" exemplifies the topic which cannot withstand any open discussion:
    http://www.resonoelusono.com/Prop8TalkPoints.htm

    Just ask the New York State Senator Ruben Diaz
    http://atlahmedianetwork.org/?p=16229

    who was shut up in his attempt to argument against the bill. What is the next: legalizing the bestiality and farms of the "specially trained" animals like in the Netherlands? Embracing of coprophiliacs and hate crime laws protecting them?…

    God sees, but waits…

  • Ferret

    And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

    • Devonshire

      Stupid. Stupid. To criticize you would be to waste time on unresisting stupidity.

    • michelle

      Sounds like scripture, but you made it up.

    • Foolster41

      Ah yes, the Gnostic "Secret gospel of Mark". Considering the tone, style (compare to the actual gospel of mark, the way this stops and starts awkwardly) and message does not match the rest of the gospels, it is considered by most a forgery.

      You might as well quote the Elders of the Proticals of Zion in an article about Isreal.

    • zsqpwxxeh

      And the Lord spake unto Ferret, saying, "Verily I say unto thee, tis easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than to pass a troll who doth corrupt the word of God into the Kingdom of Heaven."

    • KuhnKat

      You DO realize that the Mystery of the Kingdom of God is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God is the way and the life and none shall be saved except through him??

      Sorry, even in your cheap attempt to debase the gospels you can't pull it off.

  • CateLaurel

    Traditional marriage is the bedrock of civilization. A stable and flourishing society is dependent on the nuclear family. Why? Because children who grow up with a mother AND a father are more likely to be healthier psychologically. Are couples MORE likely to stay together if they are married as opposed to if they just live together? The answer to this is yes because they are more committed to each other and the relationship. The problem with changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is that this opens the door to other forms of marriage such as polygamy. People scoffed when this argument was brought up in Canada when the government was debating the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, but that is exactly what happened after same-sex marriage became legal. This is not well publicized, but right now the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not the ban for polygamy violates the rights and freedoms of Canadians. You can see where this is leading.

    • Gamblor!

      That's funny, 'cause in every example of civilization I've ever seen or studied (and I've seen/studied a lot of civilizations), including all the Christian ones, the leaders of the civilization openly practised Polygamy, had multiple children to multiple wives or, at the very least, had whores.

      • Solinkaa

        Yes, and this is probably why the most successful civilisation in the world today (ie the Western one), abandoned the practice of polygamy hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. The ability to pass your inheritance on to *legitimate* offspring only enabled people to amass wealth and for the Western civilisation to flourish.

  • Eleonora

    After the New York Assembly voted for the construction of a mosque on the spot of the barbaric destruction of the Twin-Towers by the Muslims, nothing can be surprising any more. Adopting same-sex marriage is just the next step to self-destruction. The example of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to have taught humanity no lesson, and those who don’t learn after one lesson are doomed to repeat it again. Wake up, Americans, before it is too late.

    • Morrisminor

      The cultural center is a quarter mile away from Ground 0 and the NY Assembly had nothing to do with it. So save your right wing paranoia for Mark Levin or the Savage Nation.

      • Solinkaa

        You know, when some years ago Catholic nuns and priests put up some crosses outside the museum that used to be the German concentration camp called Auschwitz, the outcry against this from the Western intellectuals, who deemed the move "offensive," was deafening. This in spite of the FACT that thousands of Christians were murdered in Auschwitz, including women and children. Today, the same intellectuals are not in the least offended by the Victory mosque. The 9/11 murderers were very clear when they explained what motivated them. A mosque/cultural centre is a symbol of what motivated them. Or, to make it clearer for you, how about planting a huge monument with a swastika on top outside Auschwitz? Why is one objectionable, and the other a "right wing paranoia"?

        A more constructive question would be "why do I respond to a troll"?

  • cedarhill

    I can't find whether Darwin never addressed homosexuality but it he had, he would have to have addressed in biologically with "but of course, they contribute, but they contribute nothing to the species future. They go extinct in one generation."

    In many ways, they should be pitied. Here they are, out trying to find some meaning in their lives knowing that their genes are swept into the dust bin when they die. Be compassionate, let's just declare Homosexual Marriage, or HM, and be done with that. Then we should pass laws that exclude HM or homosexuals from having children, adopting or children or having any contact with kids. You want ones that have a stake in the future to raise the next generation.

    Eventually, we'll get to quarantining those with HIV/AIDS. At least until a vaccine is found. Same rationale, we don't really need those not having a stake in the genetic pool being a source of infection.

    • leonidas

      great idea!

    • Solinkaa

      With regards to quarantining those with HIV, I'll give you an example of what happens today with tuberculosis. Foreign students coming to American universities from parts of the world where TB is common are compulsorily tested for TB. If found positive, they are given medication and, if they refuse to take it, can me MADE to take it. This is the law which protects the public from this infectious disease. Such a law does not apply to HIV and is unlikely to, but this is for political reasons and political reasons only. Does this do the gay community and the community at large a favor in the long run? I'm not so sure.

  • not a gay-hater

    so this is the place where religeous gay-haters gather? nice. what next, discussing whether gays have the right to gather, to dress as they like, to live?

    • intrcptr2

      Perhaps you should pick a different tag, like "not a reader".

      I mean, seriously now, because a person disagrees with you does not mean that person hates you.

  • Paulie

    I have a sister who has been in a committed lesbian relationship for over 15 years. I love her and I love her mate. But that does NOT mean I have to accept their way of life. I can and do love them AND disagree with them. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want a same-sex union, then call it a same-sex union. Call it anything you want, but do NOT call it marriage because that's not what it is. You are only fooling yourselves and those gullible enough to fall for it. You may as well try to redefine the color blue to mean red. Go ahead, but it's still going to be blue.

  • tanstaafl

    Hey, maybe gay people have cooties as well. 'Course, if you get a cootie shot, everything will be okay.

  • myomy

    Liberals/progressives are always the first to tell you "think global"…. until it comes to gay marraige. No, don't think globally about gay marraige, think you're a homophobe and say yes to it. But the fact is there are around 2 billion muslims on the planet and at least half of them follow Sharia law. And that means it's their duty to kill gays and to wage jihad in places that condone and endorse gay marraige. Congratulations New York, you just gave the jihadis another reason to keep you in their crosshairs. Another reason muslims will be dancing in the streets the next time their jihadis does it to you…. You morons!

    • not afraid of jihad

      so now you fear the big bad jihadists? go hide under your bed. do you know they would kill you anyway because you're not a muslim?

      • myomy

        maybe you should go take a course on reading comprehension….. My post doesn't imply fear of jiihadis, on the contrary I'm a 8 year veteran and I'mj not worried about it. So how much time did you serve in our military?

    • Grand-Floridian

      Every Christian country should become Muslim so the Muslims won’t attack us, fear the Muslims the 2 billion Muslims in the world will kill you if they don’t like you. Just when I thought I have read all the possible stupid arguments against gay marriage I run into this :/ if you are against civil gay marriages come up with a good argument, one that has evidence that is bad for society, one that shows how it affects other people, one with actual proof and refrain from using religion as this country supposedly has a constitution that clearly states religion freedom and the separation of the church and state :)

    • daniel rotter

      "And that means it's their duty to kill gays and to wage jihadis in places that condone and endorse gay marriage. Congratulations New York, you just gave the jihadis another reason to keep you in the crosshairs."

      So you're basically saying that American policy (at least at the state legislative level anyway, given the specific context of what we're talking abou) should automatically fall in line with what the jihadis believe. Talk about appeasement!

      • myomy

        No Daniel, that's not what I'm saying at all. Go back to logic 101 and start over. I'm just pointing out a fact. It's not appeasement to follow and conform to our traditional Christian values which Americans have respected for over 200 years. I wish the gay marraige statute could be put to a national vote instead of state rule because if it was up to the majority of Ameriicans there would be no approval of gay marraige. The majority of Americans would vote it down. And the same thing would happen to abortion as well. Let's allow we the people to decide on abortion and gay marraige in a national vote. America has killed over 50 million unborn babies on the say of non elected rulers wearing black robes. Lets be democratic about these core value issues and let the majority decide.. The majority of Americans would vote to end abortion and gay marraige if given the chance. And Islam is a lot less tolerant than Christianity. Recognizing that fact is not appeasement, it's profound logic.

  • tagalog

    We will undoubtedly survive this moment of cultural self-mutilation, and, like other times in all cultures, we will survive after time has taught our civilization to reject this twisted parody of human relationships, which it seems likely we eventually will as time eventually grinds its way over our lives.

  • Grand-Floridian

    The sad part of our society is that there are people ignorant enough that would believe anything a homophobic/racist/xenophobic/bigot would say with an extremely weak argument. In this case the author’s lack of argument is so evident that is pathetic he says that gay marriage declines the number of healthy marriages. Well let me remind him that massachusetts ( the first state to legalize gay marriage years ago) has the highest percentage of healthy marriages in America and guess what happened to this marriages after this “radical state” legalized marriage equality? NOTHING the divorce rate actually has dropped and to say that 6 US states,Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hamphire, Iowa, Vermont, New York And the cities of Washington DC and Mexico City(With 20 million people has a population bigger than most states and many countries) and the entire countries of Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Argentina, Portugal, Spain and Israel (recognizes foreign gay marriages) all these countries and states have a combined population of over 150 million people that is not a small sample it’s very big and diverse with gay marriage being recognized in some parts of the caribbean, North America, Indian tribes, South America, middle east and Europe.

  • Wally

    This New York vote will likely prove a problem for Obama and other top Democrats who officially have taken a "No to Gay Marriage" stance. When most of the coastal populations they depend on for votes are now living in states where gay marriage is legal, Obama will have to risk losing some of those voters or make the switch to "For". At this point, he begins to lose the more conservative middle states. On the other hand, Republicans in New York and California (& other "Yes on Gay Marriage" states) can run for office without being hammered by the MSM for keeping gay people in a less-than-equal status.

  • waterwillows

    Since when was there some kind of gag-order on the discussion of homosexuality?

    It seems to me that when a small community wish to impose their lifestyle on the entire population, even requiring them to 'celebrate' their choices, then they had better be prepared for some honest investigating and questions.

    To refer to all inquiry as "gay haters" is nothing short of an immature temper tantrum and smacks more of the Islam-style reaction than of western culture.
    Before any people, decide to change their entire culture, it is most necessary for open discussion about the path they are deciding about.

    Blind acceptance is more likely to be hateful, than open inquiry will ever be.

    • Morrismajor

      There is no gag order. Paranoid bigots and crackpots like you always run their mouths about crap like this

  • StephenD

    Having grown with foster kids and getting re-acquainted with them years later discovering one is gay wasn't that disconcerting. What was, was to find the memories shared fondly are the same. Even he recognizes the immeasurable contribution to his life that a Mother and a Father in the home made. I don't suppose he'd speak openly about it but I KNOW he sees that it could not possibly be the same in a same sex union. He does advocate for calling it a civil union and never wanted it to be called "marriage." Take this for what it is worth.

  • Samatha

    From a practical point of a view a marriage is a contract that supposedly protects the couple and the children of that couple. From that point of view anyone should be able to sign a contract with anyone else. The problem as I see it is legalizing marriage can be considered as approval of an arrangement which is not good for children. Gay couples adopt or use surrogacy to have children and these children grow up without a mother or father. Legalizing gay marriage is also seen as social approval of gay relationships. Many people, and not just because of religious doctrine, have a gut feeling that such relationships are immoral.

    • tanstaafl

      Very thoughtful post. I belong to a church that is a welcoming congregation.

  • smeloche

    Thanks for this article. You made very straightforward and logical arguments. I am constantly frustrated hearing the "marriage is on the rocks so let's fix it by changing the definition" arguments (overstated premise, really stupid solution).

    I now expect that the largest percentage of comments condemning you in these responses will fit into two groups:
    1: you are a "hater" so your argument is invalid (ad hominem dismissal)
    2: everyone knows you're wrong (or "your wrong") because my boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/significant other/roommate/dog/barnyard animal/inflatable doll/etc and I love each other and you can't say that's wrong (anecdotal story).
    (continued..)

    • Morrismajor

      And you are a perfect example of both, Show me some real evidence that gay marriage is going to hurt straight marriage?

  • Pathena

    Those supporting same-sex "marriage" are attacking marriage itself. No one prevents adults from living together, with or without sexual relations, so those supporting same-sex marriage are dishonest. And to reply to the Kate Ohanlan comment, homosexuality is NOT "just another orientation." It is a form of mental illness, and was only removed from the list of psychiatric disorders by bullies breaking up a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The function of sexual behavior is reproduction, throughout the plant and animal kingdom, so homosexual behavior is aberrant.

    • Morrismajor

      A bigot and reactionary speaks his mind on Frontpage, same old story

  • winoceros

    A homosexual already has a right to marry. What is your point? Are you going to put the "love o meter" to people now? Is "love" somehow the defining feature of marriage all of a sudden?

    I'm sorry to see someone identifying as a doctor actually using the words "harmless to all" when describing a homosexual lifestyle. Do you stand by that position?

    Also, those organizations are not researchers, they are professional advocacy groups, who publish available research. Their imprimatur does not create a logical proof, only an endorsement. Curious to see which publications they do not accept.

    Marriage is a male-female contract. Gay unions or contracts are certainly possible and many people happily enjoy their relationships, which is wonderful. But it isn't marriage.

    What you're not seeing is that a tiny minority of advocates don't get to change the definition of words. They can advocate for policies, but they can run and get their own words. I hope that's clear, Doctor.

    • StephenD

      Bravo Winoceros!! Bravo indeed!

  • Aaron

    The kind of people on this site demonizing others for how they were born are the same type that has been on the wrong side of social issues every single time. People like you have been prominent in the Inquisition, in beating down blacks, in suppressing women… some character flaw inside you can't stand the notion of someone who doesn't share your particular beliefs of religion or sin as being looked-upon as a fully equal human being.

    You can't just live your life, practice your religion in private, and allow others to live their lives without endlessly worrying about how they love or have sex with each other. You are not God, you are not Jesus, you are not the only religion in the world. You do not have the right to interfere with anyone else's love-life, let alone who they choose to join in spiritual and/or civil union with.

    • trickyblain

      You're right. The funny thing here is that many of these folks simultaneously denounce homosexuals while parading around in flamboyant 18th century garb, talking about small government at tea parties. They ignore the fact that none of our founding documents give gov't the power to say who can and who can't get married. They only like the Constitution when they can twist it to fit their needs (not paying taxes).

      A despicable lot of idiotic, ugly filth.

      • Renate

        People are not born homosexual. There are no scientific studies to back up that lie which is being promoted by activist homosexual groups. I will NOT practice my religion in private only. Who do you think you are telling me to be quiet about what I believe. Do you think you are the only one allowed to parade your belief system outside your home? I am not worried about your sex life. However, when you insist on telling my children that marriage isn't what it is, that 2 momies or 2 daddies make a marriage, -well, then I will not be quiet, no matter how many times you try and shout me down.

  • Aaron

    I don't see these type of 'Christians' marching to oppress people who have viewed their wife naked during her menstrual cycle, people who have eaten shell-fish eaters, people who wear polyester and cotton clothing…. all listed as 'abominations' in Leviticus .., it's okay for your children to see that all around them, and yet this one 'sin' is the one you pick out of all of them to scare each other over. Question where that fear comes from on this one particular issue. Most likely you are afraid of facing the empathy you will find inside you.

  • Aaron

    typo: "people who eat shell-fish"… no people who eat shell-fish eaters.. :-)

    The argument here is that you can believe that homosexuality is a sin because your own church or pastor tells you so, but what you cannot do, is force that religious view on other free Citizens who do not view themselves as a 'sin', and who do not share your religious beliefs.

    • Renate

      It isn't about "believing" that homosexuality is a sin. IT IS A SIN. God says so. Whether you believe that or not doesn't change the fact that God says it is. By me believing God and thus agreeing with him on homosexuality being sin, does not mean that I am forcing my religious belief on you. Activist homosexuals & cowardly government representatives are changing the rules that we've lived by for 2000 years, and I'm the one that's FORCING my religious views on you? I think it's the other way around, let's be honest here. The institution of marriage is being destroyed due to a bunch of people that define themselves by their sexual appetites, no matter what the cost. I am being accosted, not you. I wonder how much this will cost NY and it's "free" citizens.

      • Aaron

        No… that is false… 'homosexuality' as a word or concept didn't exist prior to the 19th Century, so the Bible never could have used that word.

        The Levitical laws were purity laws designed for the priesthood and specifically forbade a priest from having intercourse with a sacred male prostitute of another religion, such as existed in the middle east at the time.

        Regardless… again… it is also a 'sin' to eat shellfish… where's your outrage over that? And regardless… people who do not share your religious views do not have to live their lives according to 'your' beliefs..

        • zsqpwxxeh

          Aaron, your ignorance of history and theology are on full display, along with fallacious argument…I'll just list your mistakes in the above comment.

          1. Renate didn't say that the Bible used the English language term "homosexuality," so you are attacking a strawman. But whatever the word used, no one was ever unclear what it referred to.

          2. The laws in Leviticus were not solely for the Levites. Read it again; it contains the Decalogue and the Golden Rule, among other things. It is part of the Law for all Jews.

          3. Any sexual intercourse with Gentiles is forbidden by the Torah, not just involving priests. Any homosexual activity by any Jew is singled out as an abomination in the eyes of God. Want the chapter and verse? Moses is speaking to all the people.

          4. You don't understand Kosher, either. An observant Jew cannot eat shellfish. A Christian is not a Jew and does not observe the Mosaic Law.

          5. "People who do not share your religious views do not have to live their lives according to your beliefs." Of course, genius. But when New York or the United States says that it is going to redefine the family, which antedates Judaism or Christianity, then it is saying that all beliefs are equally valid. Heather can have two mommies, or five, or can marry mommy herself, or…whatever. Whatever gets 50% plus 1 vote in the legislature.

          And don't worry, Obama will sign off on it. His views are "evolving," remember?

          • Aaron

            We'll just have to agree to disagree on who the ignorant one is here.

            You said: "You don't understand Kosher, either. An observant Jew cannot eat shellfish. A Christian is not a Jew and does not observe the Mosaic Law."

            Then your whole argument about having to follow Leviticus 20:13 is hypocritcal… you don't get to pick and choose which Levitical laws to condemn other people with. If you're going to ignore Leviticus 11:9-2 that eating shellfish is an 'abomination' to the Lord… then you can ignore Leviticus 20:13 as well.

            Regardless, since you aren't my god, and you aren't anyone elses', and because this is not a Nation run by a priesthood.. 'your' condemnations of others perceived 'sins' are meaningless and have no hold over other free citizens.

          • Aaron

            We'll just have to disagree on who the ignorant one here is.

            You've just destroyed your own argument…

            If you're going to ignore Leviticus Leviticus 11:9-12, then you cannot use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuals with..

            You can't pick some and ignore the rest… unless you're a hypocrite of course.. but that's glaringly obvious.

            Regardless… America is not run by a priesthood, and 'your' views of others' perceived 'sins' will not be used to oppress or discriminate against other free citizens.

  • Johan de Vries

    Mr. Shapiro, if you wish to make a statement against same sex marriage it would suit you to present the whole picture when making the statement: "We’ve already seen it in the Netherlands, where the number of marriages has declined consistently since the legalization of gay marriage". Yes indeed, marriage rates have dropped about ten percent since 1999. Then again, in 1999 they had dropped about 10 percent compared to ten years before that. With the exception of a major peak in number of marriages at around 1970, the rate has slowly since the early 1960s. Likewise, the United States marriage rate has also seen a steady decline since the mid 60s.

    You may attribute declining marriage rates to a lot of things, but I have yet to see a scientifically proved causality between the increase in same sex marriages and the decrease of opposite sex marriages.

  • BOB PASCARELLA

    Instead of decrying, we will celebrate, what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to in describing the devolution of a society, as “Defining deviancy down”. Leave it up to the issue obsessed democrats, and some cowardly self-serving republicans, with help from the media, press and the entertainment industry, to lead the way on our journey of descent. New York is now one of six states to recognize same sex marriage, God forgive us.

  • Freedom John

    It isn't a wise thing to change G-d's Laws. Because they probably to believe in or even recognize G-d's Law, then just because man thinks he's got a better idea doesn't mean it is. Most of these people really don't want to get married, but to destroy the traditional family unit because of their anger and it is anger . But what they don't realize is that won't make them happy either. It's a return to all things pagan. Noone is going to try to tell them what is right or wrong or anything else for that matter. So, here's the gist of it for me. At some point, your rights are going to stomp all over our rights. But you're are only based on sex. Nothing more. That will someday fade and what will you have produced except sex? Incidentally, my brother is gay so I've got just a little bit of info on this subject and I've seen the results.

    • trickyblain

      psst…God's laws are man's laws. They were all written by men who loved genealogy but hated shellfish.

  • trickyblain

    Yet you are free to marry another left handed person, right?

    • winoceros

      Maybe the concept of analogy is a little beyond you. One doesn't conflate the analogous elements with the compared scenario.

      If you want an analogy that fits your silly conclusion, it is this: I have a dog. Some men have girlfriends. They are free to marry their girlfriends, therefore, I am free to marry my dog.

      What on earth do they teach in schools these days?

  • Reason_For_Life

    The government has no business in interpersonal relationships, none at all. It should neither encourage nor discourage marriage between any individuals. There should be no tax breaks or penalties for marriage.

    Just what is "traditional" marriage? A man treating his wife like property? There's a much longer tradition of that than there is for any romantic joining of equals. Marriage licenses began in the late 19th century and was hardly a divine institution ordained by God. It was an attempt to prevent miscegenation. Even the blood test had little to do with preventing disease.

    Who people choose as life partners is not the domain of government. Get government out of the marriage business and then you can have any kind of marriage you want. You just can't force that kind of relationship on anyone else.

  • Guest

    You will know them by their fruit, you can not pick grapes from a thorn bush or figs from a thistle. A good heart speaks nothing but good words, and a evil heart speaks nothing but evil.

    Jesus said at the time of judgement every person will be held accountable for every word they have spoken. Your words will save or condemn you. Many will cry Lord! Lord! And he said he will turn away saying I have never known you.

  • Politologist

    Some of what passes for scientific research is not impartial and is not scientific, but rather is influenced by the socio-political fads and fashions of the day. This is especially true when it comes to issues with high political content.

    Witness for example the recent scandal of "global warming" advocates unethically massaging some data and deleting other data, to ensure that their "impartially gathered statistics" would support their political preferences.

    Remember the "nuclear winter" theory? It was echoed mindlessly by many, worldwide, and taken as proven fact, until the theory was revealed to be an exercise in propaganda and disinformation, with no scientific basis whatsoever.

    The proclamations of the American Psychiatric Assn., for one, are no less subject to political considerations and pressures than the planks of the platform of a political party.

    • winoceros

      My favorite was the AMA advocating for just a ceremonial "nick" in a girl's labia or clitoris hood to appease the female genital mutilation "It's not Islamic, it's just cultural!" crowd.

  • Chezwick_mac

    You're making the asinine assumption that I'm a practicing Christian and that my opposition to gay marriage is based on religious conviction.

  • Renate

    Religious groups are NOT meddling in the private lives of homosexuals. Activist homosexual groups are meddling in society using the argument that homosexuality is somehow a civil right and to disagree with it is racism. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Also, I do not believe that homosexuals practice "sex". It should be called something else. Stop telling me that I am trying to meddle in your homosexual private life. How about you stop FORCING your belief system on me and trying to hijack the definition of marriage and sex. Christianity has not and does not foster hatred toward homosexuals. It defines marriage between one man and one woman. God defines homosexuality as a sin, as he does sex outside of marriage. Your argument is with God, not us" antiquated" Christians who choose to trust in God's Word.

    • Aaron

      That's odd… I see people like you attempting to deny them the same freedom to marry the soul they love, and that loves them, as you posess..

      And yet… they do not attempt to deny 'you' the right to marry the soul you love..

      Hmm… you must have rose-colored glasses on that makes it impossible to see the Evil you perpetrate on other human souls and their right to exist just as freely and equally as you do..

  • Renate

    Deny homosexual insurance benefits? they have them. Deny hospital visitations? give me a break-they can visit their loved ones in the hospital. Christians ARE kind to homosexuals. However, the practice of homosexuality is a sin, defined thus by God. To Him homosexuality is abhorrent. Your arguments are with Him, not man. As far as "inheriting" eternal life- the Bible tells us "Believe on the name of Jesus and you will be saved." There is nothing that we can "do" to inherit eternal life. That's the whole argument behind Luke 10. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father, but through me."

    • Guest

      A family member can deny a homosexual's partner hospital visitation, even if they have been together for 40 years. Family insurance benefits, you know coverage under their partner's insurance, like how a husband or wife can get coverage on their spouses insurance plan.

      So yep what I say holds, it is not compassionate to deny these things.

      So you weigh a statement in the Bible as having more weight than one of the two commandments of Christ. Interesting.

      What about the the part about Christ saying condemn not lest ye be condemned? Just another ignorable piece of His doctrine? Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone? Trivia?

      Do you understand Christianity, do you understand Christ? He has an incredibly simple message, love god and love your fellow man. He says plainly he does not want sacrifice, he wants compassion.

      The only fire and brimstone Christ preaches are for those who can't follow his two simple commandments, of whom every careless word will be judged, and their words will save or condemn them.

  • lorraine

    I think thirty states have passed Marriage amendments and two, or three more are in the process. Iowa voted out three of the judges that legalized same sex “marrige”, because the majority of the people don’t want it in their state. So that is still the majority of the states that want marriage to be between a man and a woman as it has always been.
    I believe in all the religious reasons for marriage being between a man and a woman. I also think homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle. Few seem to want to talk about that fact. Conditions prevalent among homosexuals are aids, stds, [along with these things short average life spans], alcoholism, drug addictions, “domestic” violence and suicide. Many of the former practicing homosexuals I’ve heard talk about how they got involved in homosexuality was being sexually abused and raped by an older man. There is nothing healthy about this whole situation. Yet in schools where same sex marrige has been legalized in their states, young children are being taught homosexuality is normal. Even though the average homosexual male life span is forty years old. They are taught smoking cigarettes is terrible, because of the health problems involved and a possible shorter lifespan, but homosexuality is just another life style. George Burns lived to be almost one hundred and smoked cigars for many years and yet the average lifespan a of a practicing homosexual man is forty years. The states where same sex marrigae has been legalized, have told schools that must teach young children about it, but they are not allowed to talk about any health problems. That can’t be good for our children.

  • Paardestaart

    But what's wrong with civil union?!

    Will the rest of us calling their relationship ‘a marriage’ actually convince gay people that they are indeed in a real marriage? That they are no longer ''special'? That it is nòt a learned response of polite society to keep a straight face, every time a gay man or woman mentions his husband, or her wife? Come on people, get real! It is a game! It's correct make believe, but as polite people we ignore that because we don't want to hurt or judge gays by calling their emperor butt naked!
    No matter how desperately you twist and squirm: the union of equal sex partners is the union of equal sex partners – not a marriage. No matter how much you rant and rave, no matter how fanatically you use lawfare and lobby for 'your rights' – gay people are not ‘married’, not even when they wear a sign on their backs to say they are. They just sáy they are, and we congratulate them.
    In a civilized society gays should be left in peace to live their lives and arrange their affairs in any way they see fit as long as they don’t hurt others. What will never happen is that they have managed to persuade the rest that they are nòt ‘special’ – not even if they take measures to brainwash our children as soon as they are out of diapers.

  • Aaron

    What's wrong with civil union? It is not equal to a marriage, or else everyone would be just fine giving up their marriages and calling them merely civil unions… Since no one wants to do that, the lie of it being 'equal' is exposed.

  • Jake DeSnake

    And what proof do you offer that SSM hurts traditional marriage or families? Better some gay marry someone of his sex than to marry a woman, start a family then pass gay genes down then break up

  • Christian G. Lover

    Jesus only blessed heterosexual marriage. He provided wine for "the wedding at Cana," not "the wedding at Sodom."

    As Ben cogently argues, America's rejection of Jesus has sent this country to hell. And anyone who rejects Jesus will burn in the real Hell for all eternity. Bless you, Ben!

  • Christian G. Lover

    Absolutely, waterwillows!

    The Godly response to child sexual abuse is to put the children out of their misery, so they can spend eternity in heaven with Jesus and all true Christians.

    Like the rest of the Bible, "suffer the little children" is a command from Jesus which must be followed literally.

  • zsqpwxxeh

    I've read a number of your comments in this thread. If you in any way are representative of the caliber of our opponents in this debate, well, beating you in any open forum is going to be child's play. Your facts are wrong, your arguments (such as they are) specious, and your tone is one of juvenile triumphalism. You are merely demonizing people who have presented valid moral and rational arguments against the travesty that is homosexual "marriage."

    I don't think I will even bother responding to your points. Let me just say this: In about 17 months you are going to see who is really on the losing side of history. Think last year's rout of the Democrats was an aberration? Wait and see. And the 2013 Defense of Marriage Amendment, the one that will be ratified by 38 states with the speed of summer lightning, is really going to upset you. You'd better man up.

  • Aaron

    If you're going to ignore Leviticus 11:9-12, then you cannot use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuals with..

    You can't pick some and ignore the rest… unless you're a hypocrite of course.. but that's glaringly obvious of the people who do such things.

    Regardless… America is not run by a priesthood, and 'your' views of others' perceived 'sins' will not be used to oppress or discriminate against other free citizens.

  • bubbbba

    Homosexuality is an abomination. (L 18:22). But selling your child into slavery isn't. (Ex 21:7)
    You know, there's nothing wrong with having a 5th grader's knowledge and understanding of the Bible. If you're a 5th grader.

    (Good thing I'm not writing this on a Sunday. I'd go to hell with the gays.)

  • waterwillows

    The ancient world had no concept of liberty and freedom. It was an idea still waiting to be born. To speak to the ancient mind of no slavery would be like speaking to modern man of having no automobiles. To him, they were just tools.
    Instead laws and rules were given to guide the people into decent treatment of slaves. To them, it would have been like how to take care of your automobile.
    In time, the concept of 'freeing their slaves' was born. It was not popular and much resisted. But the idea of freedom was beginning to take root and has been growing since.
    Nor did ancient man know about germs or refrigeration. Instead, laws were given to keep the people healthy. There was no point in the Lord discussing germs with them.
    When the student is ready; the master appears.

  • waterwillows

    It is not a question of 'look at New York or look at what has happened in most modern cities'. It is very much a question of looking at history. There, is where one can get a much bigger picture and far more accurate about outcome.
    Whenever humans have set their direction to error and self-destruction, there has ALWAYS been only one answer from the Most High Throne. If they will not listen and turn away from this evil, then they will face destruction. And those left standing will build again, hopefully wiser than before.
    Think of the Afghan society. It this a future we would wish for ourselves or our children? No, I do not think anyone would want that kind of no-future to be dominate.
    Be certain of this; history will definitely repeat itself. Again and again, until we learn. The Lord does not change. His answer will remain constant. So, choose wisely.

  • mrbean

    Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done in order either to reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics. Hmmmm… maybe a solution?

  • Jason B

    They said interracial marriage was unnatural too. Perhaps we need to get past it. We have an odd hetero, same-race couple on our block whose pairing seems anything but natural, to say the least. Maybe my opposite sex wife and I should not be judging them, but old habits die hard. I feel as though my opposite sex, same race marriage, is pretty natural because we do well most of the time and we are well known in our community.

  • http://home60515.com Wayne Lela

    The American Psychiatric Association for decades (until it was taken over by the PC) logically deemed homosexuality a disorder. And how is a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body NOT a disorder? How is the fact that homosexuals are basically impotent with the opposite gender NOT indicative of a disorder? Why is homosexual heterophobia NOT a disorder? And it is unethical malpractice to treat a disorder (e.g., syphilis, heart disease, schizophrenia, etc.) as if it was not a disorder. The homosexual movement simply makes no sense. It should not be catered to. Let's defend high moral standards instead of compromising and lowering them.