It seems that it is an article of faith among advocates of “gay marriage” and radical feminism that children do not need fathers. The rights of homosexual couples to construct artificial families appears to trump the rights or needs of children to have a father and a mother. Indeed, merely raising the question of whether or not this is best for the children is sufficient to trigger the social and intellectual lynching of any scholar who would dare suggest such a thing. Just watch the explosion of outrage in this example (beginning at about 6:55).
Note how any rational discussion of the evidence is cutoff by the vicious and vitriolic nature of the response. It’s as if the display of outrage vindicates the claim to perpetual victim status. What is missing is any sense that parents exist to promote the well-being of children and to meet their needs. The gay lobby seems to think that kids exist to meet the needs of adults.
I have long been suspicious of conspiracy theories. I have usually been skeptical of alarmist statements, meant to stir up emotional reactions. That is one of the reasons that I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt as to the good intentions of those whom I would view as political opponents. Hence I have for some time held out hope that defenders of same sex marriage would show that they are truly tolerant and publicly state their support for the civil rights of those who cannot, because of deeply and sincerely held religious and moral beliefs, agree with or participate in activities that support their lifestyle. That hope has now been dashed, after viewing a program called Gay USA on the Freespeech Network today.
I watched as James Esseks, head of the ACLU effort to legalize same sex marriage, indicated in an interview that he did not approve of any legal exemption for religious believers in the law as regarding issues of sexual orientation. Continue reading
Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act which restricted federal benefits to opposite gender couples. It also refused to allow the democratically voted Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California to stand. Here are my initial thoughts.
The tragedy here is multi-fold. There are many reasons for concern here, not the least of which is the inevitable trampling on the religious freedom and civil rights of those of us who cannot, in good conscience, participate in acts that show approval of homosexuality as morally acceptable. Continue reading