Who are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies?

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Celebrating behavior that leads to disease and an early death is closer to hate than love. According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? If I have good reason to think you are on the road to destruction—if a truck is about to run over you—the only way to love you is to urge you to get out of the street. If I tell you to keep walking down that road—that I celebrate the road you’re on—how could I hate you more?

But isn’t homosexuality like race? No. Race has nothing to do with behavior, but homosexuality is a behavior! Skin color affects no one, but destructive behavior affects many. Moreover, sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African-American.

So if you don’t approve of a man because of his race, you are a bigot. But if you don’t approve of a man’s destructive behavior, you are wise.

The “born that way” argument doesn’t work either. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” non-existent, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.

First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because homosexual unions don’t reproduce.

Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.

Third, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something far more obvious and important— they were also born with a specific anatomy. We can’t know if our desires are inborn since we can’t remember anything from birth, but we are 100 percent certain that we were born with our anatomy. So why do homosexual activists choose to follow their desires rather than their anatomy? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.

Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean you should be an alcoholic? If you have a genetic attraction to children does that mean you should be a pedophile? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Don’t blame me—I was born with the anti-gay gene!) Certainly, those that oppose alcoholism, pedophilia and gay bashing are not “bigots”—they are wise.

The bottom line is that the standard arguments for homosexuality and same-sex marriage don’t work. That’s why some homosexual activists will continue to smear conservatives as “bigots” in order to bully them out of the debate and even out of their jobs. In America today, it’s much easier to win with demagoguery than evidence. If you convince the majority that your opponents are “bigots,” then you automatically win even if you’re the bully actually practicing bigotry (read the bigotry and bullying by homosexual activists of conservative but suspended “Teacher of the Year,” Jerry Buell, here, and my own case here).

Will they get away with their bigotry and bullying? Not if Americans start thinking. Thinking people realize that equating homosexuality with race, though presently fashionable, is just as fallacious as calling marriage based in biology a form of bigotry. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

(This column first appeared on Townhall.com)

66 replies
  1. Charles says:

    I’m sorry, but I cannot help but think to myself, ‘ this is why democracy is going to fail”. Its that lie that keeps popping up telling us that truth is relative. What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me and when your truth backs me into a corner I have cause to label you so I can justify my truth. Its wacky and convaluted nonsense; but Western Culture is buying it because it is “Politically Correct” and doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.

    Feelings and emotions are now excuses to do whatever we want regardless of its overall effect on society as long as no one’s ego is damaged; forget about damaging moral fabric. Morality is spiralling out of control because of this. Leaders are making decisions based on how the public “feels” regardless of inadiquacy for perpetuating humanity. In other words, a government for the people; by the people.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do NOT advocate communism, dictatorships, monarchy, or even “human” kingdoms either. I really don’t see any other solution to this…….other than the Kingdom of G-D; but we have so many that hate the idea of G-D and so the idea of His Kingdom is diminished along with every other form of government.

    The mere acceptance of the principles of G-D’s Kingdom would do this world a lot of good whether we all believe in G-D or not because they are universal and relavent to every person. There is no prerequisate or criteria other than being human. I think people are against this Idea because of religion being a method of control; but I don’t believe control is what G-D is after. I believe G-D desires order and there is a difference. It’s simply the difference between being forced to do things because someone said so and being encouraged to do things because they are the right things to do.

    Not to offend anyone; but gold is refined by fire, diamonds by extreme pressure and iron sharpens iron. If a person cannot be challenged without labeling the challenger then we are cowards. On the other hand; I believe with courage, a by-product of faith, we can stand in adversity come out stronger rather than running and hiding behind our “feelings”.

    Reply
  2. Toby R. says:

    “It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts.”

    This is not the definition of bigotry. Here’s a wiki entry that’s a pretty good definition:

    “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.”

    First point: The Genetic Question.

    “Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation.”

    Yes, the genotypes are identical, but the phenotypes are different. Genotype is what genetic information you have, phenotype is that genotype responding to environment (which will never be the same for any two people even if they are twins—in a universe with such vast amounts of variables no two people will be alike). For example, identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. This is just one of a myriad of things they do not share.

    Points 1 through 3 are actually the same points. It’s not the choice or behavior that’s the issue. It’s the basic idea that offends. Man with man. Woman with woman. Throw out the garbage about genetics. Throw out choice vs desire. And, here’s the big one—really the only point being stood on here, throw out the idea of HIV. Without an infection then what are you even arguing about? Women can get cervical cancer from sex with some with HPV. Therefore women shouldn’t have sex. What an awful argument.

    Reply
  3. Frank Turek says:

    Toby,

    Agreed. The “born that way” justification for homosexuality is an awful argument. Or is that not what you meant?

    BTW, you can’t just “throw out” elements of the counter argument without justification. Choice is a central element of our humanity and morality.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  4. JJ says:

    Frank, I was surfing the net for material for my religious studies classes for material on moral relativism. Love your website and resources- I’ve wandered far from my original quest … I’ll probably include your material in my lessons.

    Keep up the good work (while it’s still legal)

    JJ (from the UK)

    Reply
  5. Carrie H. says:

    TOBY– Your definition of bigot is correct up until after intolerance you should have wrote “hatred”.I don’t think that it is intolerance or hatred to want people to stop destructive behavior. What’s it called when I keep my child from sticking her finger in a light socket? What is it called when a parent takes the keys away from their teen who goes out drinking & drag racing? Destructive behavior is destructive behavior period, it does not matter the example. You cannot throw out elements of examples that lead to an alternate conclusion,just because you don’t agree with the conclusion.You see I was a smoker for 20 yrs,is it hatred or intolerance that has lead to laws inhibiting places people smoke,or what about the pictures of cancers they are now planning to put on packages. I say people can’t smoke in public areas because the health risk is to high the same as the electric outlet,stopping the drunk teen from driving and stopping the encouragement of homosexual behavior,the risk is just to high. And to The caller Aikeem that’s says its heterosexuals spreading HIV through blood transfusion,they are in part but also during blood drives the info given is purely voluntary. I have stood next to a homosexual as he lied about his past encounters just so he could get the free test results. Also about cancer n HPV,(Toby),the argument could be made that if all would live according to the perfect word of our Creator that all these diseases and consequences could be avoided. One last thing,if it keeps you healthy & avoiding destruction isn’t it love not hate that tells you the TRUTH. There is no double standard in Truth.

    Reply
  6. Steve Skeete says:

    “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts”.

    My old Oxford dictionary defines “Bigot” as “one who holds irrespective of reason, and attaches disproportionate weight to, some creed or view”

    My understanding of this definition is that to be a “bigot” I must hold strongly to a view which is unreasonable, which suggests that I either do not know the truth concerning the view I strongly hold, or I know the truth and deliberately choose to ignore it.

    So, a bigot may be anyone who shuns truth or facts because they have already made up their minds about a particular matter.

    What I dislike about the homosexual “debate” is that first, people on both sides seem to have pre-set answers to every question answers which they simply spew out, often without even hearing the question. Second, some “debaters” use words like a cudgel not to enlighten but to beat down others; words such as “bigot”, “intolerant” and “phobia” come easily to mind. All these words tell us is how those using them feel towards their opponents, nothing else. Third, the persons using these terms seem incapable of understanding how these terms can also apply to their own vitriolic and venemous rhetoric and behaviour.

    It is a strange thing to me as well, that some still fail to see that one can condemn a behaviour or lifestyle without feeling hatred or animosity towards persons involved in either. As Dr. Turek pointed out, and I clearly understand, parents do this all the time. We hate the use of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs but this does not stop us for loving our children who may become caught up in these practices.

    Some one said that the “battle over homosexual practice was over, and that the “gay lobby” had won”. My feeling is that the homosexual “victory” is merely a temporary setback on the road to common sense, and until the day that reason is allowed to prevail.

    Reply
  7. Toby R. says:

    “Agreed. The “born that way” justification for homosexuality is an awful argument. Or is that not what you meant?”

    From what I wrote above: “. . . the genotypes are identical, but the phenotypes are different. Genotype is what genetic information you have, phenotype is that genotype responding to environment (which will never be the same for any two people even if they are twins—in a universe with such vast amounts of variables no two people will be alike). For example, identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. This is just one of a myriad of things they do not share.”

    “Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything.”

    How would you respond if I said that definitions change over time? Take the word “dork” for instance. Now it means silly person, but the original use was quite different. The very basic definition of marriage is – union. Beyond that you’re just appealing to tradition and body parts in order to add “of opposite sexes”.

    Reply
  8. Jamie H says:

    GOD created one man and one woman,therfore,marriage is a union between one man and one woman. That’s the marital union that GOD will bless.
    My cousin is a homosexual. I learned that 2 years ago when we started talking again. He just came out of nowhere and sent me an e-mail telling me. Obviously,I had to learn to ‘deal’ with it because it took me offguard-that was something I was not expecting,lol.
    Does that mean I love him any less?No.Do I still want to see him again?Very much so yes.
    “Celebrating behavior that leads to disease and an early death is closer to hate than love.”
    I agree with Frank on this. I have got my point across to my cousin that I don’t support his behavior.

    Reply
  9. Spencer says:

    Frank wrote:

    “Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.”

    As I’m sure you know, procreation is not – and has never been – a legal requirement for marriage. A straight couple can marry even if they can’t have children. So, if procreation is NOT a legal requirement for marriage for straight couples, it can’t be legal requirement for marriage for gay couples. You need to ground your opposition against SSM on something else — on a difference that doesn’t undermine opposite-sex marriages.

    Reply
  10. Frank Turek says:

    Hi Spencer,

    Good to hear from you again.

    Of course, procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage, but the ONLY marriages that do procreate are between a man and a woman. Procreation and the nurturing of children, along with other arguments I layout in my book, are good grounds for preserving the institution of marriage as it is. Certainly, the burden of proof to change marriage is with those on the other side of this issue.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  11. Spencer says:

    Frank,

    “procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage, but the ONLY marriages that do procreate are between a man and a woman.”

    And what’s the significance of this fact, given that procreation is not in any way a requirement for marriage? The ability or intention to procreate plays NO ROLE whatsoever in the granting of marriage licenses. So how can it a premise in any argument against SSM? Please explain.

    Reply
  12. Spencer says:

    “Certainly, the burden of proof to change marriage is with those on the other side of this issue. ”

    The argument would be the following:

    1) There is no relevant difference between SSM and OSM.
    2) If there is no relevant difference between SSM and OSM, then the former should be legal if the latter is legal.
    3) Therefore, SSM should be legal if OSM is legal. (from 2, 1)
    4) OSM is legal.
    5) Therefore, SSM should be legal (from 4, 3)

    SSM opponents attempt to attack 1) via the route you take here: gay couples can’t procreate. But this move overlooks the fact that procreation isn’t in any way a requirement for marriage, since if it were, then many opposite-sex couples couldn’t get married. Opponents need to point to a relevant difference that justifies the prohibition against SSM.

    Reply
  13. Toby R says:

    In regards to any argument based on illness associated with homosexuality we could make a much better argument against heterosexual sex. Less than 1% of deaths in this country are from HIV/AIDS. On the other hand septicemia and kidney disease are in the top ten. The majority of UTIs in young women are from sexual activity. To be clear this does not mean STD, but common infections from E. coli and Staph. and many others. Urinary infections increase the risk of kidney infections which increase the risk of septicemia. This is due to the poor design of their bodies—the proximity of the urethra to the anus and the shorter length of the urethra compared to males. I would wager that more women die per year from complications from sexually acquired UTIs than anyone in this country dies from HIV/AIDS. Therefore women should not have sex.

    Reply
  14. Charles says:

    Isn’t procreation the ideal or hope for the institution of marriage? It strikes me as peculiar that homosexuals would want to “marry” unless it is striclty for the legal benefits such as for tax reasons or something. Well, we already have civil unions so why can’t this suffice?

    The union of a man and a woman represents the order of life and is hope for perpetuating life; this is something to celebrate. Two people wanting to be together for carnal reasons only with NO hope of procreating seems to be an irrational romance based on infatuation and emotion. Agape + Phileo(OSM) + Eros = Life / phileo(SSM) + eros = 0 …is my logic flawed here?

    Reply
  15. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    Suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to marry but have absolutely no intention to procreate (i.e. because they’re against procreation). Should they be allowed to marry? According to you, their union would be an “irrational romance based on infatuation and emotion.”

    Reply
  16. Toby R says:

    I don’t know about that. I think plenty of people get married simply because they love each other. There are plenty of couples out there that didn’t want and haven’t had children.

    I don’t think Frank would agree with you on civil unions. What does a marriage or civil union really give you other than legal benefits? I guess it makes it harder to split up. People, any people, don’t need a ceremony in order to be together and love each other. I don’t recall feeling any different after getting married. The only thing that changed is my wife changed her last name and we changed our tax status to married.

    “Two people wanting to be together for carnal reasons only with NO hope of procreating seems to be an irrational romance based on infatuation and emotion.”

    All romance is irrational and based on infatuation and emotion.

    Reply
  17. Frank Turek says:

    Gentlemen,

    The main reason governments recognize marriage is NOT because two people romantically “love” one another– in fact most marriages around the world are arranged. The main reason is because governments recognize what is already self-evident by the facts of nature– that ONLY heterosexual relationships can procreate and that a committed biological family unit best nurtures children and propagates and stabilizes society.

    While some heterosexual marriages do not reproduce, they still culturally affirm the connection to childbearing. Moreover, sterility is not generally known on the wedding day . And in those instances where sterility is known, as with older couples, the man-woman union still models to society what is generally a procreative relationship. There is a difference between having old plumbing and having the wrong plumbing.

    It would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine on their wedding day which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not . However, since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual relationship can fulfill this basic function of marriage

    In short, the central reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all is because of children. Calling homosexual unions “marriage” would be to teach culturally and legally (and the law is a great teacher) that marriage is just about coupling and not children. Well, if marriage is not about children, what institution is about children?

    There’s a lot more about this in my book here: http://www.impactapologetics.com/product.asp?P_ID=937.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  18. Charles says:

    ** “According to you, their union would be an “irrational romance based on infatuation and emotion.”

    Right; and romance is not a reason to get married. Romance “should” be a byproduct of marriage in which procreation is a resulting gift to G-D that we are given the benefit of nurturing For Him.

    Even if one doesn’t believe in G-D the concept still works as a means for perpetuating our species.

    ** “Calling homosexual unions “marriage” would be to teach culturally and legally (and the law is a great teacher) that marriage is just about coupling….”

    I agree with Frank here; coupling is an over-romanticized concept that western society has promoted through our media. This has only propagated into even more of a “retail” society where spouses are expendable.

    Reply
  19. Spencer says:

    Frank,

    “The main reason governments recognize marriage is NOT because two people romantically “love” one another”

    Nevertheless, romantic love IS a reason why governments recognize marriage. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

    “While some heterosexual marriages do not reproduce, they still culturally affirm the connection to childbearing.”

    How so? Suppose an opposite-sex couple is AGAINST procreation, and have no intention whatsoever of producing children. How would this union “affirm the connection to childbearing?”

    “And in those instances where sterility is known, as with older couples, the man-woman union still models to society what is generally a procreative relationship.”

    How do sterile couples serve as a “model” for procreative relationships? They don’t.

    “It would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine on their wedding day which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not .”

    Why not? What would be so horrible, according to you, to condition marriage on the ability and intention to procreate?

    “In short, the central reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all is because of children. ”

    News flash: gay couples raise children as well, and many do a job better than their heterosexual counterparts. So even based on your logic, the state does have a reason to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses: for the children.

    But again, this is all besides the point, since procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage. If procreation doesn’t serve as a legal barrier for opposite-sex couples, why should it serve as as a legal barrier for same-sex couples? Please explain the imposition of this double standard.

    Reply
  20. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    I still didn’t an answer to my question. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to marry but have absolutely no intention to procreate (i.e. because they’re against procreation). Should they be allowed to marry?

    Reply
  21. Spencer says:

    Frank,

    “Calling homosexual unions “marriage” would be to teach culturally and legally (and the law is a great teacher) that marriage is just about coupling and not children.”

    This is another logical slip. You assume that marriage is either “just” about coupling or “just” about children, but not both, which is a false dichotomy. Even if same-sex marriage unions have NOTHING to do with children (which is blatantly FALSE), it doesn’t follow that all marriages are “just” about coupling – not children. It doesn’t follow that this would be the “cultural lesson.”

    Reply
  22. Charles says:

    ** “I still didn’t an answer to my question. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to marry but have absolutely no intention to procreate (i.e. because they’re against procreation). Should they be allowed to marry?”

    Mr. Spencer,

    It throws me to think that anyone regardless of percieved sexual orientation would be against procreation. Do you mean to say that said couple is unwilling to bear children or do you really mean they are against procreation all together?

    For arguments sake I’ll just go with the former. A couple that doesn’t plan to have children should be allowed to marry as it is consistant with the foundation of family structure. This foundation adds substance and depth to the structure of a perpetual society.

    I haven’t found any concrete statistics that I can think of at present, so I assume that this has a strong effect in early child development. I say this because of how important, I believe, it to be for children to be exposed to fundamental concepts that will urge them to make future choices that will continue our species. Mere romantic (eros) love alone cannot achieve this; it can only support it as a byproduct of marriage. However, as long as children are exposed to the model that has actual potential for procreation there should not be much of an issue.

    Reply
  23. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    “It throws me to think that anyone regardless of percieved sexual orientation would be against procreation. Do you mean to say that said couple is unwilling to bear children or do you really mean they are against procreation all together?”

    I meant the latter, actually, but it doesn’t matter. Both unions, according to you, would be an “irrational romance based on infatuation and emotion.” So why should they be permitted to marry?

    “A couple that doesn’t plan to have children should be allowed to marry as it is consistant with the foundation of family structure. ”

    How can a couple who is unwilling to procreate be the foundation of a family structure?

    “However, as long as children are exposed to the model that has actual potential for procreation there should not be much of an issue.”

    On the contrary: children are exposed to models where procreation is not a necessary or even desired aspect of marriage. A married couple unwilling to procreate serves as an example that for some marriage unions, procreation just isn’t part of the purpose of marriage. Why, then, are you so willing to allow such unions to take place?

    Reply
  24. Charles says:

    Just an aside:

    I do not intend to sound crude and if I am wrong please accept my apology and correct me; but aren’t human beings the only organisms that actually experience pleasure during copulation? Again, if I am wrong let me know, but it would seem to add more depth to this discussion if pleasure, if you will, was seen as a “gift” that honors matrimony and that any act of fornication is more or less a selfish abuse of this “gift?

    Truly, this would have a profound effect on young minds as they try to come to terms with the fundamentals of a healthy perpetual society.

    Reply
  25. Charles says:

    ** “So why should they be permitted to marry?”

    The foundation of family structure is that of a husband and wife joined together to create. How else is a society generated and continue to regenerate? Are you going to tell me that homosexuals are capable of regeneration? Even if they abhorred bringing ANY more children into this world who’s to say they couldn’t change their mind and decide to bear children? Under the circumstances it would be possible so this would be the model.

    Reply
  26. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    “The foundation of family structure is that of a husband and wife joined together to create.”

    If so, then it’s an utter mystery why, on your view, opposite-sex couples who have no intention or ability to procreate should be allowed to marry. They would not be good “models” of “the foundation of family structure.”

    “Even if they abhorred bringing ANY more children into this world who’s to say they couldn’t change their mind and decide to bear children? Under the circumstances it would be possible so this would be the model.”

    But why shouldn’t the granting of marriage licenses be conditioned on a couple’s intention and ability to procreate? Suppose a couple has no intention of procreating, and yet seek a marriage license. Why can’t the state then say: “Come back when you’re ready to procreate and start a family?” In other words, why shouldn’t marriage licenses be conditioned on a couple’s CURRENT intention and ability to procreate?

    Reply
  27. Spencer says:

    I believe what’s been established is that proponents of the “Procreation Argument” are guilty of a double standard: the inability to procreate is viewed as a reason against same-sex marriage, but that same inability is not at all a reason against many opposite-sex marriages. In regards to to so-called “purpose” of marriage, there is no relevant difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples who have no ability or intention to procreate — procreation will not result in either group. And yet, the latter gets preferential treatment. Why?

    To be consistent, proponents of the argument should insist on procreation as a requirement for obtaining and maintaining marriage licenses. Again I ask: if “procreation” is so FUNDAMENTAL to marriage, such that marriage without procreation is nothing more than an “irrational romance” (Charles’ words), then why SHOULDN’T marriage licenses be conditioned on a couple’s ability and intention to procreate?

    why shouldn’t it be

    Reply
  28. Charles says:

    ** “…… then why SHOULDN’T marriage licenses be conditioned on a couple’s ability and intention to procreate?

    This is what happens when humanity takes G-D out of the equation; Matrimony is supposed to be Holy; now its been reduced to a government affirmed institute with no regard for natural order…

    Why not marry a sheep?

    Reply
  29. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    I believe you are avoiding my questions. Do you think marriage licenses should be conditioned on a couple’s ability and intention to procreate? If ‘no,’ then there is a deep inconsistency in your position against same-sex marriage. If ‘yes,’ then while your position may be consistent, is it deeply contrary to the views of even same-sex marriage opponents.

    So tell me: Do you think marriage licenses should be conditioned on a couple’s ability and intention to procreate? Yes or no?

    Reply
  30. Charles says:

    Mr. Spencer,

    The answer to your question is a resounding yes, absolutely and without a doubt.

    I think the institution of marriage has been utterly degraded and undervalued and the pleasure of marital copulation trivialized into lustful, gratuitous revelling. After the act what’s the point?

    This is not to say that I am not guilty and that I am just being judgemental for I am a product of western culture and ideology; however, this same western culture has undoubtedly twisted sound natural order. I do not doubt that what I am saying is contrary to same sex marriage opponents, but these same SSM opponents, I wager, would at least agree with the logic.

    If you don’t mind me asking; how does a species grow with a steady encouragement of SSM and homosexual behavior? I ask only because, though I see your point, I see SSM as selfish indulgence in terms of natural order. If you have a credible and logical point of view on this I would like to understand.

    Reply
  31. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    Before we move forward, let me see if I understand you correctly: on your view, not ALL opposite-sex couples should have the right to marry — marriage, rather, should be limited to couples who have the ability and intention to procreate. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

    Reply
  32. Charles says:

    On the same note; I understand that western culture’s establishment is what it is. I am not naive to the notion that SSM will continue so I do not have anything against individuals that are part of SSM or homosexuals in general. I simply do not agree with it and I am willing to tolerate it given that I recieve the same respect for my logic in disagreeing with it.

    Reply
  33. Charles says:

    Spencer,

    I wouldn’t say “not ALL opposite-sex couples…” Honestly, I am not trying to sound like a complete monster here. My position holds that I believe the intention “should” be to procreate; however, I know that some couples cannot produce sexually with one another. I do believe that marriage is an institution that hinges on the hope of reproduction; therefore I believe it should be a pivotal criteria in the process of obtaining a marriage license.

    If a couple, whether SSM or OSM, wish to solidify their union by Church or State with only a romanticized understanding of marriage I don’t believe there should be a license granted. This would only add to more divorce and family degradation.

    Reply
  34. Charles says:

    Spencer,

    My apologies as I seem to have misread your post.

    Yes, that is my position and you should see that from what I wrote.

    Reply
  35. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    “therefore I believe it should be a pivotal criteria in the process of obtaining a marriage license.”

    You must, realize, then, that your position is fundamentally at odds with even opponents of SSM (including Frank Turek). You are the first person I’ve seen to have adopted this extreme, though consistent view of marriage.

    Given your position, would you agree that if procreation isn’t a requirement for OSM (as it is currently the case), then it can’t be a requirement for SSM either? Perhaps you recognize it is deeply unfair to impose a requirement on same-sex couples that isn’t currently imposed on opposite-sex couples.

    Reply
  36. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    Let’s move on. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wishes to marry, but they have no intention or ability to procreate. However, they DO have the intention to adopt and raise kids. This couple, on your view, shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    Do you find this to be an acceptable consequence of your position?

    Reply
  37. Charles says:

    ** “….would you agree that if procreation isn’t a requirement for OSM (as it is currently the case), then it can’t be a requirement for SSM either?”

    I can agree with this. I mean, like I said before; western culture is what it is. My personal view I find quite logical but it is also hugely minority. Don’t get me wrong, there is a place for romance. I think it just happens to be within the confines of a marriage that leads to the growth and nurturing of a strong, stable and productive society.

    Reply
  38. Spencer says:

    “I can agree with this.”

    Good, let’s move on. Please answer my previous question, which I will repaste here:

    Suppose an opposite-sex couple wishes to marry, but they have no intention or ability to procreate. However, they DO have the intention to adopt and raise kids. This couple, on your view, shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    Do you find this to be an acceptable consequence of your position?

    Reply
  39. Charles says:

    ** “Let’s move on. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wishes to marry, but they have no intention or ability to procreate. However, they DO have the intention to adopt and raise kids. This couple, on your view, shouldn’t be allowed to marry. ”

    *** “Do you find this to be an acceptable consequence of your position?”

    I would on the grounds that this couple did not try naturally first. The entire point of my position is to promote the idea that natural families are stronger and more stable. Of course, there are tragic events where parents pass away or are imprisoned but the idea here is to lessen the impact of these tragedies by placing orphaned and abandoned children in homes that adhere to natural order.

    I understand that two people of the same sex “can” raise a child, its all over the media (Two and 1/2 Men, Three Men and a Baby, etcetera)
    but that doesn’t mean that the children will be better off than with a traditional family structure.

    If the parents at least tried and could not conceive, then yeah, by all means adopt.

    Reply
  40. Spencer says:

    Charles,

    “I would on the grounds that this couple did not try naturally first. The entire point of my position is to promote the idea that natural families are stronger and more stable.”

    Are they? Why? Why are natural families necessarily “stronger and more stable” than non-natural families?

    “but that doesn’t mean that the children will be better off than with a traditional family structure.”

    Please identify the claim you endorse:

    a) Children in traditional families are *always* better off than children in non-traditional families.
    b) Children in traditional families are only *sometimes* better off than children in non-traditional families.

    Reply
  41. Charles says:

    ** ” Why are natural families necessarily “stronger and more stable” than non-natural families?”

    Generally speaking, and this is out of personal experiences; families that are “intact” with sound paternal and maternal leadership do tend to have more of a success rate in child rearing and development. I cannot say this is the “absolute” case with every circumstance.

    *** “Please identify the claim you endorse:”

    I choose neither a) nor b) due to the fact that this is not an academic issue nor can I marginalize an answer because circumstances vary. Suffice it to say; I believe that “Generally” Children in traditional families are *always* better off than children in non-traditional families.

    If this answer is unacceptible than may I offer that I “side” more with a) than with b)?

    Reply
  42. Spencer says:

    “Generally speaking, and this is out of personal experiences; families that are “intact” with sound paternal and maternal leadership do tend to have more of a success rate in child rearing and development.”

    Notice the shift from “natural families” to “families with sound paternal and material leadership.” Why, generally speaking, are “natural families” stronger and stable than non-traditional families that have sound paternal and maternal leadership (i.e. families with adopted children)?

    “Suffice it to say; I believe that “Generally” Children in traditional families are *always* better off than children in non-traditional families.”

    On what basis do you believe this?

    Reply
  43. Charles says:

    ** “Notice the shift from “natural families” to “families with sound paternal and material leadership.”

    I see no shift here. This happens to be what I believe a natural family foundation consists of. I don’t see what you’re getting at.

    *** “On what basis do you believe this?”

    I base this on personal experience. Not all circumstances are the same. I have seen highly successful people raised from a single parent.

    Is there something that you have against traditional *natural* family structure? Does it strike you as odd to think that a paternal father and maternal mother can do a better job at raising children in an environment conducive to natural order?

    Reply
  44. Spencer says:

    “I see no shift here. This happens to be what I believe a natural family foundation consists of. I don’t see what you’re getting at.”

    A “natural family,” according to you, consists in (I thought) a husband, wife and a biologically related child. Hence, a family that consists in a husband, wife and a ADOPTED child is NOT a “natural family.”

    But now it appears you are defining “natural family” to mean children with good opposite-sex parents. I’m confused. How are you defining “natural family?”

    “I base this on personal experience. Not all circumstances are the same. I have seen highly successful people raised from a single parent. ”

    While you base your claim only on personal experience, you seem prepared to make very broad generalizations that transcend personal experience. Why doesn’t this strike you as bad reasoning?

    “Is there something that you have against traditional *natural* family structure?”

    Absolutely nothing. However, what I *am* against is the idea that the traditional is necessarily better, or that non-traditional families can’t properly raise children, given the utter lack of evidentiary support for these claims.

    Reply
  45. Charles says:

    ** “A “natural family,” according to you, consists in (I thought) a husband, wife and a biologically related child. Hence, a family that consists in a husband, wife and a ADOPTED child is NOT a “natural family.”

    Right. While bearing a “natural” structure I don’t see this as a actual natural family. I define natural family the same as I would biological family.

    *** “Why doesn’t this strike you as bad reasoning?”
    Coming from a rather large extended family (17 aunt/uncles + around 35 first cousins and countless more 2nd) scattered around the country in various living situations and paying attention to the differences in surroundings and motivations I can say that I’ve got quite a bit of experience with family dynamics; first hand.

    Now thats just me. I can’t say I speak for a majority. I’m just saying that from personal observations of various relationships I believe that intact natural families produce more intact natural families.

    This isn’t to say that some children of larger natural families do veer off and make poor decisions that put them into impoverished or desolate situations. But on average, from what I’ve observed, natural families are stronger and produce strong families and family structures.

    I haven’t looked for any recent studies or anything so I cannot give you the substance I think you’re looking for; but I believe my reasoning is sound. Would you like any particular examples?

    **** “…what I *am* against is the idea that the traditional is necessarily better, or that non-traditional families can’t properly raise children…”

    May I ask what you mean by “Properly raise Children”?

    Reply
  46. Toby R. says:

    Wow, you guys got a lot going on.

    “but aren’t human beings the only organisms that actually experience pleasure during copulation?”

    Most animals probably enjoy sex. If they didn’t get some form of gratification from it they wouldn’t do it. Dolphins have sex for non-procreative reasons. And they also have homosexual encounters. Many animals in nature have homosexual encounters. I’m sure we’ve all seen a male dog mount another male dog.

    Reply
  47. Charles says:

    ** “Many animals in nature have homosexual encounters.”

    Not to get away from the subject at hand; but in response to this statement, I understand that felines don’t particularly “enjoy” copulation as it has been observed as a painful interaction by biologists. You may be correct in general as far as I know. As far as any organism outside of humanity I think, because of complete carnality, that male mammels are more willing to relieve themselves without regard for anything other than relief…

    Reply
  48. Toby R says:

    “The main reason is because governments recognize what is already self-evident by the facts of nature– that ONLY heterosexual relationships can procreate and that a committed biological family unit best nurtures children and propagates and stabilizes society.”

    So marriage is strictly about procreation, regardless of whether or not a heterosexual couple intend to have children or not. This sounds like special pleading.

    “(and the law is a great teacher)”

    I don’t think you really believe this. at least not completely. Roe v. Wade. States that allow gay marriage. Taxes.

    Gender is rarely mentioned in our constitution and marriage not at all. You’re appealing to tradition.

    Reply
  49. Toby R says:

    How many other people here think our population has gotten out of hand? Nearly 7 billion people on this planet. I think we need to reverse the tax system so that individuals or couples that choose to have no children get the larger tax break, those with only one child get a smaller tax break, and those with two or more children pay more for each child. It kind of makes sense in a conservative sort of way that those that would have children would pay more for education, healthcare, etc. We have an economic system based on growth and right now we have not enough jobs for too many people. Economy based on population growth is looking to be a poor idea. There are so many of us that we poison everything with our industry and even our own biological wastes. If you want to see what extinction looks like then innoculate a broth with bacteria and watch them reproduce until they kill themselves with their own by products. Lovely. Let homosexuals marry. It’s a natural form of population control.

    Reply
  50. Toby R. says:

    Wow. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is gone. The skies haven’t fallen. We haven’t lost any stupid war/conflict we’re currently in. The military is as whole as it ever was. Many long time serving members of the armed forces have came out as gay today and that does nothing to change the impact of their careers. Maybe homosexuality doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn.

    Reply
  51. Frank Turek says:

    Toby,

    The effects on the fighting effectiveness of military due to this cultural change will take years to manifest themselves. It is completely naive to suggest that since nothing significant happened the next day, everything will be fine. The liberalization of divorce laws in this country began 42 years ago. Only today are we really feeling the full devastation on our society of fatherlessness.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  52. Toby R says:

    “The effects on the fighting effectiveness of military due to this cultural change will take years to manifest themselves. It is completely naive to suggest that since nothing significant happened the next day, everything will be fine.”

    I think it’s safe to assume that gays have been in the military since the beginning of time. The only difference is that now you might know that someone is gay. Younger people really don’t care as much as older people. Gays don’t recruit people to become gay. Gays don’t turn straight people gay or try to date straight people . . . because straight people won’t date them. there is no reason to think this will effect anything.

    “The liberalization of divorce laws in this country began 42 years ago. Only today are we really feeling the full devastation on our society of fatherlessness.”

    What devastation is that exactly?

    I can only glean from this post and one or two others that you think it’s the governments role to say that once you’re married you can’t be unmarried. Also that you think nothing of the emotional aspects of marriage (love, for instance), that you simply look at it as a vehicle for reproduction. It’s a rather bleak notion.

    Reply
  53. Dawn H. says:

    Frank,
    I am a Christian who definently believes homosexuality is a sin, and actively engaging in this lifestyle is worthy of death, according to the bible. I also agree with all the reasoning you have provided: all except one that is. That is the “born that way” argument. This is the EXACT reason why mainstream christianity has failed the homosexual population as a whole, many of whom have seeked for help. They arn’t being “delivered” the way God want them to be. I’m very sadened by this. My stepfather, who is a christian, was once very opinionated and believed this way you are describing. Nothing I said could change his mind but I know he just didn’t understand. After I mailed him an article from of a book, his heart just melted and it brought tears to his eyes. He told God “If this is true, reveal it in my heart.” After reading it over once, he was convinced. I’m sure someone out there would be interested to read what I am talking about. The book is called, “Untying God’s Hands” by Ernest Angley. you can purchase it very cheap off Amazon.com. Read pages 229-238. Thankyou and Godbless.

    Reply
  54. Charles says:

    Here’s a thought:

    An act in and of itself cannot be sinful. If an “act” were sinful then that wouldn’t that make G-D a sinner due to certain “acts” described in Scripture? G-D cannot sin so the “act” (I almost can’t believe I’m saying this) isn’t sinful. So concerning homosexuality; the concept is no different than fornication and adultery. Its the intent and not the “act” that is sinful.

    The Scriptures tell us that its not G-D that tempts us, but our own lust. (James 1:13-15) and when we act on the lust it brings forth sin (missing the mark / separation from G-D) resulting in death. Which historically is true. Promiscuity whether homosexual or heterosexual eventually leads to death if unchecked; through disease, jealous partners, etc.

    So those that believe they are homosexual are not condemned for a “condition” more so than any promiscuous heterosexual. Its all fornication or adultery.

    Matthew 19:12 tells us that some eunuchs were so born from their mother’s wombs, some eunuchs made eunuchs of men, and still others that made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom. This tells me that Christ can find His way into the heart of anyone; but the individual is then charged with the decision to follow Christ or ignore the call.

    I am thinking this may be why the Church is missing so many. Instead of preaching the Gospel and letting G-D work, we have been condemning people and trying to “cure” the “condition” of homosexuality.

    This doesn’t change my views on the significance of a “natural” family. I still believe a homosexual lifestyle is counter productive. I just see the individual in need of Christ no different than myself or anyone else.

    Reply
  55. Dawn H. says:

    Charles,
    You said, concerning the homosexual lifestyle, “I just see the individual in need of Christ no different than myself or anyone else”. This is true but exept the “no different” part. Believe me, the circumstances are very different. Please read the book I posted about above, pages 229-238. then draw your conclusion. Thanks.

    Reply
  56. Charles says:

    Ms. Dawn H.,

    You could save us 10 or 12 bucks and simply explain what was written; it may just compel folks to make the full purchase. Otherwise, it sounds like a plug…

    Reply
  57. Dawn H. says:

    I thought to do that but I knew a simple summary would not do it justice. Unless I typed out the whole thing maybe, yikes!

    Reply
  58. Dawn H. says:

    The fact is everybody is searching for truth on this, not just the christian world, but even the homosexuals themselves. Some think they have it, others are still searching, while yet others have given up completely on finding what really causes this. It has to be more than just choice.( Thousands claim they would have never chosen this). Some claim it’s caused by a demon spirit, but isn’t it just convient to lable unclean things as being demon oriented-” that is if those unclean things are not their particular hang-up”, as stated in the book. I’ll admit that I wasn’t sure about the whole thing either until I discovered through Ernest Angley Ministries what the WHOLE TRUTH was. He explains it so powerfully in his book, Untying God’s Hands, but simple enough even a child could understand. If you are honest hearted and really want the truth you will surely find it here.

    Reply
  59. Javion says:

    -What of those homosexuals who don’t engage in homosexual sex/behavior?

    -Also what would be considered homosexual behavior? Anything a homosexual couple can do a heterosexual couple can also do.

    I also noticed that the primary concentration in regards to homosexuality was the gay male population and nothing about lesbians? if I missed anything about that on let me know, please.

    Reply
  60. Chris says:

    @Javion

    Regardless of the sex act,or gender, if that act occurs between two members of the same sex that’s homosexual. You’re confusing desire and behavior, thereby sidestepping the behavioral aspect of homosexuality.

    We don’t label an alcoholic such simply because of a desire for the consumption of alcohol. He or she is identified as such because of the consumption of alcohol. We don’t label a thief because of the desire to steal, he or she is labeled as such because they take what doesn’t belong to them.

    We don’t label a homosexual a homosexual because of a desire for homosexual acts, we do some because he or she commits a same sex act. They’re identified as such because of their actions. There’s no middle ground here; No fairy tale world where homosexuality exists apart from behavior. Human beings have libido, and that sex drive must be expressed through behavior.

    Actions rarely happen apart from desires. If you acted based in a desire, you did it via voluntary choice because you wanted to. If you’re allowing the desire for homosexual activity to go unchecked, I think that’s a bad sign.

    Reply
  61. Chris says:

    @Steve

    The much heated issue concerning homosexuality has been the product of consistent manipulation from Liberals. It often pays to have a ready made defense. The causation is oftentimes the desire to fire back at one’s opponent. Egos are fragile on discussion boards. The main issue will always be the defense, on the part of the homosexual, of their lifestyle. I don’t feel anyone trapped in a homosexual lifestyle believes it’s normal, yet, because they can’t rid themselves of the desire, they must convince themselves to live with it.

    @Spencer,

    Procreation isn’t the issue with same-sex marriage. The definition of marriage is the issue. Since federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, gay activist which to change the wording to suit their purposes. Which is generally what they want to do with anything anyway. As long as the aforementioned infertile is a man and woman, then they can marry. Whether a couple has any desire for children or not has no bearing on the issue. Emotions are not a reason the government recognizes anything – if it did, how many would pay taxes? Normally, adoption happens in heterosexual adults when they desire children, yet one is infertile or they are unable to bear them. Why does this support gays if they’re fertile adults who ,rather than lack the capacity, refuse to use that capacity as it was intended? Marriage is a symbol of cultural values. All societies, most likely have dealt with homosexuality, I can’t think of any other society that has had gay marriage. It is mainly in this materialistic, hedonistic, society which views marriage as some kind of toy, that gay marriage even comes up. Think back to the nineteenth century, what would have been the purpose of two men or women getting married?

    @Toby

    Each human being, regardless of the issue, is at some point in time, a bigot. Whether it’s at traffic, television commercials, or a celebrate anybody can be “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions” concerning any matter, which isn’t inherently evil. Everyone can said to be entitled to their own opinions, and It falls on you, the challenger, to provide the incumbent sufficient grounds for their opinions to change. Given the fact that everyone is bigoted, it’s ridiculous to state a common fact as a counter argument and also a logical fallacy. While the merits of being bigoted are questionable, that definitions certainly fits the definition of being prejudice.

    Your arguments display nothing except prejudice. You’ve mainly stated the rhetoric you must have repeatedly had to convince yourself of. Your premise on phenotypes doesn’t support your conclusion of that homosexuality isn’t a choice. As I pointed out to Jovian, behavior is an aspect of homosexuality. I’m not sure where the frutopian idea, of homosexuality apart from behavior originated, but nothing can be further from the truth. Society classifies individuals based on their actions.

    If a thief, murderer, or adulterer are labeled as such for their actions, then apart from a homosexuals cowardly desire to shield him or herself from moral responsibility, I see no reason why homosexuality is not also partially defined as a behavior. Because people don’t function as robots do, I would also argue that behaviors are governed by choices which are governed by desire. In the absence of force, desire + choice + action = behavior. You’re arguing that homosexuality is benign in the absence of a disease factor, but let’s ask ourselves; what is the purpose of sex? Aside from pleasure, homosexuality has no functional purpose. The purpose of sex is procreation.

    Arguing that because animals have homosexual encounters, and therefore humans should too, is the equivalent of arguing that any animal behavior is suitable for humans. Just because dogs urinate on fire hydrants, or defecate in grass, should humans as well? We’re not animals! More to the point, correlation doesn’t equal causation. They’re judging a pattern of behavior. Unless you can hold an intellectual conversation with an animal it’s nearly impossible to accurately judge it’s motives.

    Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Of course, sexual orientation has been in the military because it’s part of a human make up and humans make up the military. Has it been openly disclosed in the military since the beginning of time? No! Incidentally, only a certain constituency of youth can be said to be indifferent to gays, that doesn’t mean they’re indifferent or accepting of homosexual behavior. Your assertion concerning gays is false in any circumstance where a gay person, under the belief of love, developed attraction to a heterosexual person and slowly begin to gain their confidence in the hopes of a sexual encounter. That happens all the time. Frank’s point, that certain actions have long reaching effects, which are fully realized over time, is completely valid. The effect of freeing the slaves was not fully realized until almost a century after the end of the civil war.

    Being in the military myself, I think it was shady that the full title of the policy: “Don’t ask,don’t tell, don’t harass, don’t pursue” was never even mentioned to the general public.. Homosexuality isn’t required to perform any military duty. It’s possible to go through an entire day without every talking about or having sex. In the military, we have what is known as an EEO policy. Also, my family has never attended any of my military functions: Yellow ribbon, basic training graduation, Advanced individual Training, and this has never once precluded me from preforming my duties in U.S Military. If homosexuals were so offended at heterosexual conversations concerns were never raised. The issue was never the policy, but rather homosexuals desire to openly declare their sexuality

    Reply
  62. Stephen B says:

    Chris: “He or she is identified as such because of the consumption of alcohol”

    Not really – recovered alcoholics still label themselves as alcoholics – just ones who no longer drink. Similarly, I didn’t BECOME a heterosexual when I lost my virginity, did you? I was one a heterosexual before I had sex, and I would remain one even if I got raped by other men. Similarly a gay who abstains from sex could still be considered gay.

    “Think back to the nineteenth century, what would have been the purpose of two men or women getting married?”

    The same reason 19th Century people saw for hetero marriage probably – business. It was a good way to combine families. Hence in the 19th C men could marry girls who were only 12. You think it was about love back then?
    Chris: “Arguing that because animals have homosexual encounters, and therefore humans should too, is the equivalent of arguing that any animal behavior is suitable for humans.”

    Good job no-one actually made that argument then, eh? People argued that people should be gay because it was UNNATURAL. The obvious counter-argument to that is to point out that is not unnatural.

    Reply
  63. AyameTan says:

    Here are my thoughts on Turek’s book against marriage equality.

    “Turek begins by regaling his audience with a tale about a young friend who came out as gay to his parents. Initially hostile and indignant, their attitude gradually moved to one of acceptance. The individual in question dies of AIDS in his 30s. Somewhat perplexingly, Turek blames this tragic and premature death on the acceptance he received. One can only infer that Frank would prefer his friend to remain miserable and in denial instead. I suppose the high rate of gay teenage suicides either eludes him or is not worthy of consideration. In any case, such acceptance would have made life easier and more fulfilling for the LGBT individual.

    So, after a brief introduction designed to palliate his raw hatred for the LGBT community, Turek launches into a surfeit of wild accusations and baseless slander. Here’s just a sample:

    - Placing the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage. I can only posit that the embrace of Christianity’s imperialist doctrines and warmongering was too close to home (not to mention intellectually honest) for Turek to give passing mention to.

    Clearly, his veneer of compassion and calls for civilized debates based on truth ring utterly hollow.

    The lion’s share of Turek’s sources come from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. With the basis for his “facts” coming from such a biased political action group, one cannot help but shake their head at the irony with which the author accuses some of his opposition of being firmly entrenched against the facts and reality of the issue.

    On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual. Moreover, it is generally easier for men to have access to young boys, as parents tend to be more protective of the fairer sex.

    The mudslinging doesn’t stop there. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to “natural marriage.” Yet he cannot produce a single example of these militant liberal campaigners fighting to make opposite-sex marriage illegal.

    The only liberal he mentions is David Blankenhorn, who, during California’s recent Prop 8 trial, recanted his former position (namely, that children require both a father and a mother to be well-adjusted). Research into the vastly heightened scrutiny that adoptive parents (whether gay or straight) has been shown to lead to better outcomes for the children (at least on some measures). Psychologist Michael Lamb has published several studies on this issue, and has testified that no child would be aided through outlawing same-sex marriage.

    Turek also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required. So why doesn’t he start clarion calls for all available heterosexual couples to annex the care of children currently raised by single parents? In actuality, the most thorough studies have shown that having same sex parents does not harm children, and in some cases, can outstrip the outcomes that would occur in opposite-sex households (US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics). The conglomeration of these findings also disprove the accusations he levels on page 20 and 21, in which the lack of a father is claimed to be the ONLY reason why such children suffer from increased suicide rates, juvenile delinquency and lives of crime.

    Consistency is clearly not one of Turek’s strong suits. In his introduction, he freely concedes that homosexual feelings are not a choice. One would logically conclude (and hope that Frank would do the same) that homosexuality, therefore, is not a choice. This should be a tautology, but the connection (or perhaps simply the intricacies) is lost on the author. Yet on pages 74 and 75, Turek cites NARTH (a repeatedly discredited and proven harmful “treatment” organization) as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible. What actually occurs is brutal repression and/or celibacy. In the case of bisexual individuals, the “change” is made easier to bear via their versatile natural attractions.

    Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book. They are also groundless. The marriage rate in the Netherlands began falling in 1970, whereas same-sex marriages were recognized by the government in 2001. To draw a causal link between the two is specious at best. Spain’s falling marriage rates during the 2005 to 2011 timespan can be more accurately traced to the inordinate and abrupt rise in unemployment (9% to 22%). Among the under-25 crowd, it more than doubled, from 19% to 47%. This is the other side of the story that Frank hopes his readers will either gloss over or ignore entirely. For a more thorough statistical analysis, the Box Turtle Bulletin blog has a wealth of data.

    Turek’s case for how same-sex marriage will hurt everyone generally (a blatant appeal to selfishness) begins on page 52. I will tackle them one-by-one.

    1. Gay marriage will increases tax rates to compensate for marriage tax breaks given to gay couples.

    - So what? If, as Frank claims, 4% of the LGBT population (4% of 5% or so) marry, the tax benefits will hardly be noticeable. The author also fails to consider the productivity and mental health benefits that will clearly follow if gays and lesbians are no longer required to live sham lives and marriages. Moreover, the more married couples there are, the more unmarried individuals will be required to subsidise their taxes. Why isn’t Frank calling for everyone to marry less, or for these tax breaks to be revoked?

    2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) to fund payments to widows and widowers of gay couples.

    - The author’s anti-equality stance could not be made clearer with this statement. Also, the productivity gains and medical savings mentioned above would more than compensate for this.

    3. Medical premiums will increase as gay marriage will lead to more homosexual behaviour leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis etc.

    - Evidence? Frank’s (decidedly dishonest, deceitful and deceptive) word. If he’s so concerned about unsafe sex and polygamous sex among the LGBT community, he should be encouraging them to get married. With current policies in place, there are no incentives to remain faithful to a single partner.

    4. Employee benefits will fall as corporations are required to cover homosexual partners.

    - An extension of Frank’s initial three points, and refuted by the gains in productivity and reductions in medical expenditures.

    5. Gay couples will be given preference when seeking to adopt children as they cannot procreate.

    - Given the studies mentioned above, this could well be seen as a positive. By encouraging paternal instincts, familial attachments and responsibilities, gay couples would become less likely to engage in risky activities.

    Turek asserts, with no evidence, that children will also be treated as trophies. This is clearly refuted by the studies shown above (trophies would not be showered with love and affection. They would be confined so the parents could gaze upon them and bask in their arrogance and pride), although such a bizarre claim does not even warrant a cursory refutation. He also provides no reason as to why this insult would not equally apply to any couple who adopt children.

    6. Children will be indoctrinated in schools to accept gay and lesbian behaviour as morally equivalent to heterosexual behaviour.

    - Good. Perhaps we can finally move out of the Dark Ages on this issue and do something about the breathtakingly stratospheric LGBT suicide rates.

    7. Workplace indoctrination akin to point 6.

    - So reducing harassment and fostering respect for all employees is somehow undesirable? Frank, you deserved to lose your consulting gig for Cisco and Bank of America.

    8. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals.

    - Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation. Would you be perfectly happy if divorced individuals were verboten in your congregation?

    9. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.

    - Wrong. The only things that will be made illegal will be the incitement of violence and unconstitutional discrimination. Catholic charities are meant to serve all of society. If they refuse to do so, and hold their anachronistic doctrines over the well-being of orphans, then they reveal their onerously pernicious prejudices and inverted priorities.

    10. More big government.

    - Utter nonsense. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its most obvious. More freedoms and rights are synonymous with governmental intrusion, at least according to Turek’s tawdry imagination. A further leap of logic is revealed when he claims that governments will be required to step in to mend the societal harms induced by same-sex marriage (a claim that requires a strong foundation, which is conspicuously absent).

    Facts were left behind on the copyright information page. The rest of the book consists of little more than unctuous, baseless diatribes and strenuous mental gymnastics and leaps of logic.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

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


8 + nine =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>