Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Homosexualizing History and Vilifying Religious Dissenters: Continued Exploration – through David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil” – of the Homosexual Agenda as Outlined in “After the Ball” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

Homosexualizing HistoryVilification of Religious Dissenters 

Alright folks, today’s topic of conversation revolves around the homosexualizing of history.  And, walking hand-in-hand with this tactic is the practice of vilifying detractors, namely, religious dissenters.  We’ve already talked about desensitization and we’ve already discussed jamming and conversion.  Now, David Kupelian, in his book entitled The Marketing of Evil, explores and explains the nature of this homosexualization of history technique as employed by Kirk and Madsen and promoted in their homosexual agenda After the Ball.

Says Kupelian, homosexualizing history is to “claim that famous historical figures - ‘from Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman” – were homosexual or bisexual.  Although the authors know these claims are unproven at best and often baseless (they refer to them as “suspected ‘inverts’”), that doesn’t stop them from advocating the tactic.”

The most recent historical figures to fall prey to this speculative tactic are, sadly, the venerated Abraham Lincoln and, in a shocking suggestion by homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, Jesus Christ.  Robinson quickly rescinded his comment, but at a Sacramento protest following the Proposition 8 vote, Margaret Cho unapologetically sang that “Jesus was probably gay.”

Kirk and Madsen explain the beneficial nature of this technique:

“Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us for two reasons: first, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel.  Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement.”

As a brief side note, I found it interesting when I discovered the other day that someone had happened upon my blog by searching the terms “Martin Luther children gay.”  There is definitely a push to justify and normalize homosexuality by appropriating famous historical figures in an effort to elevate the behavior to the same status as the individual alleged to have practiced it.

Now, as I said earlier, on even keel with the homosexualization of history is the vilification of dissenters or, as Kupelian explains, “The flip side of this ‘celebrity endorsement’ tactic consists of associating all detractors of the radical homosexual agenda with negative images of universally despised tyrants and lowlifes.”  This is clearly evident in the homosexual activists’ uproarious outrage over singer Giuseppe Povia’s song about Lucas Tolve’s conversion from homosexuality.  According to the European Parliament Deputy, the lyrics “constitute a violation of the rights of homosexuals.”  And remember “jamming” folks?  Here’s a clear cut case for you from the LifeSiteNews report, “Homosexual activists, enraged by Tolve's account and Povia's song, have accused Tolve of lying, and have begun a Facebook account to bring together those who wish to prevent Povia from singing at the Sanremo Festival.  The organization "Arcigay" has reportedly threatened to disrupt the event.”

After the Ball,” says Kupelian, “lists some of the negative images with which opponents should be associated – including “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated,” “hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate,” “menacing punks, thugs and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have bashed,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

Remember Paul Rondeau, our resident marketing expert at Regent University?  He goes on to explain the specific targeting of religion, “perhaps the most menacing focus of the campaign is the special treatment reserved for the religious dissenters.  The strategy is to ‘jam homohatred by linking it to Nazi horror.’”

Again we turn to Kirk and Madsen themselves who explain how this tasteless technique promotes the homosexual agenda and aids in normalizing the behavior by subtly converting dissidents:

“Most contemporary hate groups on the Religious Right will bitterly resent the implied connection between homohatred and Nazi fascism.  But since they can’t defend the latter, they’ll end up having to distance themselves by insisting that they would never go to such extremes.  Such declarations of civility toward gays, of course, set our worst detractors on the slippery slope toward recognition of fundamental gay rights.”

Interestingly, Kupelian points out that “according to William L. Shirer’s twelve-hundred-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, widely regarded as the definitive book on Nazi Germany, “many of the early Nazis” were homosexuals.”

Once again we are reminded of Kirk and Madsen’s bold declaration that “It makes no difference that the ads are lies.  Not to us….”  Kupelian echoes this confession:

“But this is not about truth.  It’s about manipulation.  In a sense, modern psychology-based marketers understand people better than people understand themselves.  They use emotional threads to tie their “product” (in this case, homosexuality) to preexisting positive attributes in the consumers’ mind.  And in a cultural-political campaign like this, they also successfully tie all who oppose their agenda to preexisting negatives, such as Nazis.”

Imagine that; comparing religious organizations to Nazis.  No, that would never happen, would it?

Catholic Church in Castro District Vandalized
So where is the press in all this?  Truly, why doesn’t the media report fairly on all these shady strategies?  Well, that’s coming up next.  Once again I encourage you to pick up your own copy of The Marketing of Evil.  David Kupelian is a giant among men; a valiant defender of truth willing to call black, black and evil, evil in a time when doing so is extremely unpopular.

Yours in Active Agenda Busting,

Related Links:
”Prop 8 - The Musical” – Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly
Italian Singer, Giuseppe Povia sings about Tolve’s conversion from homosexuality: gay activists are enraged.
Italian Singer Accused of Hate Crimes for Writing Song About a Gay Man Who Became Straight


PersonalFailure said...

It's a little unfortunate to say this:

"many of the early Nazis” were homosexuals.”

without pointing out this:

These genocides cost the lives of probably 16,315,000 people. Most likely the Nazis wiped out 5,291,000 Jews, 258,000 Gypsies, 10,547,000 Slavs, and 220,000 homosexuals. They also "euthanized" 173,500 handicapped Germans. Then in repression, terrorism, reprisals, and other cold-blooded killings done to impose and maintain their rule throughout Europe, the Nazis murdered more millions including French, Dutch, Serbs, Slovenes, Czechs, and others. In total, they likely annihilated 20,946,000 human beings. (from

it's sort of like saying that jews are bad because hitler had jewish ancestors, or that the outright slaughter of jews wasn't all that bad, because it was just one jew doing it to a whole lot of jews.

you probably ought to read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Admittedly, I was 12 when I did, but it certainly changed my worldview and I believe will give you a fascinating inside look at the rise and end results of fascim and hatred.

Pearl said...

Well hello again, PersonalFailure!

To say that many of the early Nazis were homosexuals does not discount the fact that many homosexuals were persecuted and killed. It just illuminates the interesting and ironic nature of the homosexual obsession with Nazi-associative vilification of religion.

Interestingly enough, though, there are other authors who have also laid bare the knowledge that something was askance in the sexual orientation of Nazi Germany's officials.

From Renew America comes this informative segment:

"In his book, "The Pink Swastika," [Scott] Lively exposes a secret homosexual activists don't want you to know about Nazi Germany: that although the Nazis did persecute homosexuals, the homosexuals the Nazis persecuted were almost exclusively the effeminate members of the gay community in Germany, and that much of the mistreatment was administered by masculine homosexuals who despised effeminacy in all its forms.

Ludwig Lenz worked at the Sex Research Institute in Berlin, which was destroyed by Hitler's Brown Shirts in 1933 likely because its records, including 40,000 confessions from members of the Nazi Party, would have exposed the sexual perversions of Nazi leadership. Lenz said that "not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal."

In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, (he was) a homosexual."

Hitler eventually had Roehm shot, not because he was a homosexual but because his influence over the Brown Shirts made him a political threat to Hitler's control. The Roehm Purge, or "Night of the Long Knives," was largely implemented by homosexuals."

I applaud your early-reading prowess.

PersonalFailure said...

that book was seriously discredited years ago.

The myth that Nazis condoned or promoted homosexuality sprang up as a slander against Nazi leaders by their socialist opponents in the 1930s. Only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernest Rohm, is believed by credible historians to have been gay.

by the way, does this sentiment sound familiar? In 1942, the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. "That wasn't a punishment," Himmler explained, "but simply the extinguishing of abnormal life. It had to be got rid of, just as we pull out weeds, throw them on a heap, and burn them."

please, pearl, you need to learn to investigate your sources. the easiest thing to do is put the name of the book, study, organization, etc. into google and see what pops up. not everything will be useful or even true, which is where further discernment is necessary.

essentially, as soon as you find anything that shores up your viewpoint, you just accept it as true. this is called information bias. Everyone does it every day, but that doesn't make it better.

And, realistically, even if every nazi was gay, what exactly do gay nazis from over half a century ago have to do with gays in the US in the 21st century? Christians get really annoyed when someone brings up the Crusades. "Hey, that wasn't me! That was centuries ago!" Don't apply arguments to others that you don't want to see applied to yourself.

Pearl said...

Of course. Of course it has been discredited. Why am I not surprised that you would make this assertion? Maybe because the first thing that homosexual activists do when one brings up a research study, or evidence of any kind that reflects negatively on the lifestyle, is to call it discredited and cite some pro-homosexual source as "proof." You do realize, don't you PersonalFailure, that the stuff you dig up on the Internet is just as prone to bias as the stuff I research? And yet, the fact remains that someone must be true and personally, I'll take the account with the eye witness testimony of Ludwig Lenz over the so-called "myth busting" retort with nothing but a vague reference to "historians agreeing" and no sources cited to corroborate this claim.

You know, PersonalFailure, I find it amusing that you insist on pursuing these barely veiled and, frankly, weak attempts to malign and defame me. But no matter; I have thick skin and am flattered that my apparent influence over you extends past our pleasant comments section and onto your own, personal blog as well. (And, yes, I am well aware that this paragraph will become the springboard for a whole new PersonalFailure post dedicated to the continued attempts to malign "Nugget." Have at it.). :0) Oh, and PS, I want a cooler nickname. You know, like Euripidesraper. Mine is so...unimaginative. :P

Now, as for the homosexual Nazis. I was not pointing out that Nazi leaders and homosexual death squads were sexually deviant in order to make a comparison between them and modern-day homosexuals. If you believe that, you have completely missed the point. As I already stated in a previous comment, the knowledge simply illuminates the interesting and ironic nature of the homosexual obsession with Nazi-associative vilification of religion.

Please do try to stay on topic.

PersonalFailure said...

you are so unimaginative. look, it's called "peer reviews" and it doesn't surprise me that you are unfamiliar with it. not all science or all books or all studies are as relevant as all others. i could run a study proving that staplers cause cancer, that wouldn't make it relevant, even if you really want to believe that staplers cause cancer.

and, i am fairly certain you are of the alanis morisette school of irony. you happily print tales of people who prayed away the gay, but when someone like haggard makes a splash the other way, that's just completely unacceptable. i don't think taking meth or hiring hookers is a good thing, neither does anyone else. i do feel tremendous sympathy for a man who tried to live a lie and failed- in the national spotlight.

you are aware that the main argument against "the bible tells me so" is that the bible also forbids the eating of all shellfish, commands stoning to death adulterers and mouthy children and orders that if a menstruating woman sits in a chair, no other person is to sit upon the chair until it is made clean, right?

homosexuality has only been Teh Greatest of Evulz for the fundamentalists for about 15-20 years. Before that, it was divorce. Before that, hippies, before that it was interracial marriage and on and on.

As any evul becomes socially acceptable, and preaching against it leads to less people in the seats (and hence less profits from tithing), the church moves on to something else.

it's just unfortunate that
someone (interracial couples, divorced persons, gays) has to suffer for it.

Pearl said...

Huh, that's funny. I don't recall saying anything about Ted Haggard in this post. Please keep the commentary relevant to the post. I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Liberty Belle said...

I've seen this tactic employed quite often, It's surprising how many "in the closet" historical figures there are now that they're dead and gone and can't defend themselves. I think it's a re-write of history to claim such things, and there is no proof.

People who suffer from SSA can be great people regardless of their trials in life, same as anyone else, but to manufacture and reinvent heroes to commandeer public approval for a political movement is obvious and shallow.

beetlebabee said...

Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen were brilliant strategists, but they depend on people not believing that there is a coordinated strategy for it to work. Thanks Pearl for helping bring their tactics to light.

Heather said...

What I find interesting is that people living now are looking back on history and saying based on today's standards, these people behaved in such a way that they must be homosexual/bisexual. You can't do that. Lifestyles were different in the past.

It's all part of the activist agenda to try to "normalize" homosexuality. Quite honestly, I think it's pathetic to pick on people who are dead and can't speak up for themselves.

Jayingleside said...

Pearl -- I just stumbled across your blog, but I believe you are raising a very valid point. History is being rewritten. In New York, our State Senate recently used Dr. Martin Luther King Day resolutions to argue that Dr. King's work isn't finished and that he would have advocated for same-sex marriage as a civil right, but this line of thinking and rewriting of history completely maligns the work that he is responsible for. Dr. King recognized both the intrinsic value of every human being because they are created in the image of God (black and white, as well as gay or straight), but that does not mean that Dr. King condoned the activity that every individual engaged in; he rightly spoke out against the injustice committed by individuals created in the image of God. History must be reclaimed, not rewritten to fit certain political and personal ideologies. I, as a Christian, recognize the worth of every person, but do not condone the activity of every individual.

PersonalFailure said...

Actually Jayingleside, Coretta Scott King, his wife, said that Martin Luther King, Jr. would certainly have spoken out in favor of gay rights. I find it hard to believe that you know MLK better than his wife did.

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

you can read the entire article, with footnotes at:

Pearl said...

@Liberty Belle

It's is sad, isn't it, that homosexual activists borrow famous people in an attempt to elevate their lifestyle?


You're welcome. It is my hope that more and more people will discard their blinders and open their eyes to the world as it has been shaped for us through media, marketing, and public relations. In truth, we are as much to blame for being unwilling to look evil in the face and call it evil.


Pathetic is a very good word for it.


I am grateful that in stumbling upon my blog you saw fit to share your opinion with us. I am equally grateful for your apt discernment in being able to separate an individual from his behavior and recognize the divine nature of the individual even while condemning the behavior.


How nice for homosexual activists that they have succeeded in convincing Mrs. King to abandon tradition and instead advocate for neutering marriage. It's not surprising since their brilliant marketing and public relations scheme has managed to dupe a large portion of today's society. Again, this is just an example of activists recruiting famous advocates in a pathetic attempt to elevate their behavior to something other than deviant.

At any rate, Mrs. King's quote from her husband does not advocate for, or even recognize the existence of, so-called homosexual "rights." It simply speaks out against homophobic attitudes (which many religions today - even those voting in favor of marriage - also condemn). And, our society has continuously adopted protections for homosexuals as we've perfected our "free society" since the days of Martin Luther. It would seem that Coretta is the sole King implying that her husband's quote extends to defining marriage defense as a "homophobic attitude and policy." Please note the perfect vocabulary employed by the brilliant Mr. King, "I can never be what I OUGHT to be until you are allowed to be what you OUGHT to be." Now, let's read it again through the eyes of a homosexual activist, "I can never be what I WANT to be until you are allowed to be what you WANT to be." There is a significant difference between encouraging someone to be what they OUGHT to be (which is what religion does) and encouraging someone to be what they WANT to be (which is what homosexual activists do).

Just because she was married to Martin Luther does not mean that she is immune from being pressed upon and persuaded by the juggernaut that is the homosexual agenda. And, has been more than clearly revealed, it is quite easy today for one to become confused between civil rights and homosexual demands...especially with the media's clear bias.

And thank you for once again proving that you will always search on "your side of the fence" for articles and research to defend your opinion, just as you have accused me of doing. Still, as I've said before, someone is right and I am inclined to side with history and experience rather than popular opinion and intimidation.

PersonalFailure said...

poor coretta scott king, apparently she just didn't understand her husband, or his beliefs, as much as you do. that's sad, you know, since she was married to him and you never met him.

Jayingleside said...

Personal, and I quote:

"Even within King's own family, there is division on the issue. King's late widow, Coretta Scott King had spoken publicly on more than one occasion about the need for justice for homosexuals, claiming that her husband would have been in favor for the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Meanwhile, in opposition to her own mother, King's youngest daughter Bernice said the following at a conference in Auckland,
New Zealand:

'I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions.'"

The point is that at that at the very least, the issue cannot be definitively established one way or the other (although the fact that he was a Christian minister who preached the Bible ought to tell us something), so we should not allow those advocating for same-sex unions to declare that Rev. King favored marriage for same-sex couples.

The question of whether or not same-sex marriage should be accepted is whether or not it is sound public policy. We don't grant marital benefits to people because we "like" heterosexuals, but because society recognizes that marriage between a man and a woman is benefit to the couple, the children AND to society as a whole.

Thanks, Personal. I hope that I've kept our dialogue respectful of our differences.

Jayingleside said...


And I quote:

"Martin Luther King Jr.'s youngest child lit a torch at her father's tomb last month to kick off a march advocating a ban on gay marriage, creating a strong image linking the slain civil rights icon to today's heated social debate."

"Even within King's own family, there is division on the issue. King's late widow, Coretta Scott King had spoken publicly on more than one occasion about the need for justice for homosexuals, claiming that her husband would have been in favor for the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Meanwhile, in opposition to her own mother, King's youngest daughter Bernice said the following at a conference in Auckland,
New Zealand:

'I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions.'

The point is that even Rev. King's family is divided about what he would have said about this issue. His daughter believes he would have recognized that marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

Personal, I believe the fact that Rev. King was a minister of the Gospel is pretty clear evidence as to where he would have stood on this issue, however, I admit there is discord even within his family as to where he would have stood on same-sex unions. But that only strengthens my point -- those advocating for same-sex unions should not wrap themselves in the mantle of Rev. King, assuming where he would have stood to advance their own ideological agendas, when even his own children, do not concur.

Personal, I hope that I have been respectful in our dialogue. Thank you for listening.

Pearl said...

Thank you Jayingleside. I appreciate that information and your respectful delivery. The latter is something I am having difficulty mastering today (must get more sleep). :0) I hope you will revisit my blog often. Regards.

Loved this:

"The question of whether or not same-sex marriage should be accepted is whether or not it is sound public policy. We don't grant marital benefits to people because we "like" heterosexuals, but because society recognizes that marriage between a man and a woman is benefit to the couple, the children AND to society as a whole."

op-ed said...

Talk about rewriting history! Rev. King never said anything about "homophobia." Here is the actual quote:

"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingaham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial 'outside agitator' idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 16 April 1963

Jayingelside: I admit there is discord even within his family as to where he would have stood on same-sex unions.

The fact is, discord within his family is totally irrelevant. Rev. King never supported neutering marriage during his lifetime. Ever. To invoke his spirit now to put words in his mouth that he never said is pure dishonesty. Pearl claimed neutered marriage supporters would stoop to such depths and then along comes PersonalFailure to prove her right.

denelian said...

i just feel the need to pipe up and ask an actual christian this question:
do you actually read your own holy book? if one looks, one will find COUNTLESS marriages that were NOT of the "one man, one woman" format. i hear, over and over again, that gay people should be allowed equal marriage rights because somehow marriage has "always" been this one man/one woman thing. that gays cannot have equal marriage rights because it is against the Bible. and yet; YOU do not follow the Bible perfectly - nowhere close. i am QUITE positive that you are currently wearing clothing made out of blended fabrics. which is a crime of the EXACT SAME severity as homosexual relations.
if one follows any single part, one must also follow the whole. picking and choosing which rules to follow means that one is deliberately breaking some rules. and, by your own rules written in your own holy book, you are just as bad as homosexuals, and should have YOUR rights removed in the exact same way that they have had their rights removed. every time you eat a shrimp, wear spandex, or turn on a light on Sunday, you should be punished in the exact same way that you believe homosexuals should be punished.

it is not so much that your beliefs offend me, it is that your hypocrisy offends me. if i thought you were willing to follow all 600+ laws laid down in Leviticus, it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much. but you don't. you pick the laws you want to follow, and the try to force EVERYONE else to follow them. textbook hypocrisy.

Pearl said...

Hi denelian,

Thanks for chiming in. As a Christian familiar with the Bible (I assume this is the "holy book" to which you are referring), I am happy to address your concerns.

Let's start with your accusation that I do not follow the 600+ laws that were laid down in Leviticus. You are right. I don't. But that is not because I am a hypocrite, that is simply because those laws do not exist today. You see, when Christ came to the earth, His coming fulfilled those laws, also known as the Lesser Law or Mosaic Law. And by fulfilling the law, He also brought to a close many of the practices and rituals associated with those laws, i.e. "eat[ing] a shrimp, wear[ing] spandex, or turn[ing] on a light on Sunday."

Now, in saying that practices and rituals mentioned in the Bible have changed over the years according to God's commands, I assume you will then ask "Well, why not homosexuality, too?"

The answer, denelian, is that while practices and rituals have changed throughout history based on the faith of the people, the needs of the members of the Church, and the culture of the time, basic principles have not and never will change. God has not changed the Law of Chastity which upholds marriage between man and woman, nor did Christ do away with moral cleanliness which denounces homosexual relations.

Here is an example of a ritual/practice which was fulfilled and altered at Christ's coming:

Sacrifices used to be literal slaughterings of the most pure livestock symbolizing the sacrifice for humanity that would be made by the Lamb of God. Now, instead of slaughtering animals (which development I'm sure PETA is grateful for), we regularly take symbolic sacraments to remind us of Christ's sacrifice for us, and make daily sacrifices of our time, talent, and service in His name.

You also made this frankly absurd statement that "one will find COUNTLESS marriages that were NOT of the 'one man, one woman' format." I assume you are speaking of polygamous marriages since there is no other marriage "format" in the Bible that is not 'one man, one woman.' But even in polygamy, denelian, the marriages consisted of man and women - opposite sexes - and did not defy the Law of Chastity. God has commanded polygamous marriage at different times in Biblical and modern history, for various reasons. This is another change in ritual/practice, but not in principle. Currently, polygamy is not a ritual practiced by the children of the Lord because it is against the law of the land which we are taught to uphold always.

I would also like to address your accusation that I have any desire to "punish" homosexuals. "You should be punished in the exact same way that you believe homosexuals should be punished." I do not "believe they should be punished." That is false and misleading. Since homosexuals have the very same right as any other citizen of this blessed nation - to marry someone of the opposite sex - I do not believe that preserving the definition of marriage between one man and one woman can be construed as "punishment" of homosexuals. If you believe so, then know this, they have only themselves to blame for this so-called "punishment" as they have made a conscious decision to pursue a deviant relationship that does not fall within the definition of marriage, does not promote a healthy society, and does not even consider the health and well-being of children. Those who voted Yes on 8 did not "force" their beliefs on anyone. They voted in favor of our collectively healthy future. I defy anyone out there to make a valid case that a democratic vote is akin to "forcing beliefs." If it is, then I demand that we "repeal" Obama because I do not agree with him. I don't care that we voted democratically, you Obama fans forced your belief in Obama on me, a simple Republican, and I don't like it and my feelings are hurt so I'll scream and shout, deface campaign headquarters, send white powder to Obama constituents, and protest both violently and peacefully until Obama is repealed. Heck, I'll even take my case to the Supreme Court of the United States where I'm sure they'll overturn Obama because...well...I do not agree with him and I object to people who do, forcing their beliefs on me. Yeah.

You see, denelian, no one forced anyone to believe anything; they simply voted their conscience and allowed you to do the same without putting up a fuss.

Thank you for a respectful dialogue. I hope you will come again and allow me to share more of my knowledge with you as you have shared your beliefs here today with me and my readers.


Chairm said...

denelian said: "if one follows any single part, one must also follow the whole. picking and choosing which rules to follow means that one is deliberately breaking some rules. and, by your own rules..."

What is the pro-SSM argument against the centrality of procreation in the social institution of marriage -- and the law's regard?

Not really an argument, per se, but two special rules.

1. If it is not mandatory, if there is no legal requirement making it compulsory in each and every marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.

2. If it can occur outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.

Now, these rules are not a sound basis upon which to argue in favor of 'same-sex marriage'. These rules destroy whatever core meaning that an SSMer might offer in discussion of marriage itself.

There is either a core meaning around which boundaries can be drawn, or there is no core meaning and boundaries are unsustainable.

denelian, what is the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind when you use the word, marriage?

What are its legal requirements that define that core meaning for all of society?

Or perhaps there is no core meaning, in your mind, of this relationship type?

If there is a core meaning, but no legal requirements to show that, then, the special rules of the pro-SSM side would destroy it, anyway.

If there is no core meaning, then, no boundaries would be just. For if society cannot distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, then, what's the point of marital status? Why would anyone -- much less GLBT people -- want a status that is meaningless?

Now, don't pick and choose the rules. If the rules are good enough to attack the centrality procreation, then, we can't stop there, right?

No love requirement. No sexual attraction requirement. No sexual orientation requirement. Nothing requires the relationship to be construed as sexualized. None of that is in the marriage law anyplace that has enacted or imposed SSM.

So what about the lines drawn against some related people (but not all related people)? Some previously married people (but not all previously married people)? Some underaged people (but not all underaged people)?

* * *

As for Leveticus, remember the scriptural context. The Temple was destroyed. That makes a big difference to Christians and to Jews.

But I think you are confusing same-sex sexual behavior with marriage. These are two different things both in scripture and in reality.

Yes, denelian, that includes even places like Massachusetts where there is a localized merger of nonmarriage (i.e. 'same-sex marriage') and authentic marriage. In that state there is no law making same-sex sexual relations compulsory for two men or two women who come for a government license to become Party A and Party B.

denelian said...


first off, i appologize for taking so long to respond. Real Life wins.

so. marriage. what is marriage to me, is what i really think you are asking.

to me, the central tenent of marriage is the extension of marriage. you marry a person to inlude him (or her) in your existing family, to join his (or her family) and to become a family in your own right - please note, becoming a family does NOT require procreation, otherwise *I* could not marry, because pregnancy will kill me, and yet the state will allow my marriage to my boyfriend next year, and his Church will also allow, even though we will never have a "child of our union". but it CAN include adoption.

so, in that sense, the sense that *I* believe in, marriage is NOT a matter of children, but families, and so IT DOES NOT MATTER what the genders of the spouses are.

sexual behavior of any sort is not necessarily the same as marriage. period. doesn't matter if it is same sex or opposite sex. and being condesending about it doesn't help me understand your case - maybe you aren't meaning to be patronizing, but you are being so. i am 32 years old, i know the difference between sex and marriage, i have participated in both, and will soon be married again (and this time i know what i'm doing).

anyway, you are suggesting, insuating, that i do not know the difference between having sex with a person and being married to a person, and because i do not understand this difference i am saying that same-sex marriage is the same as "real" marriage.

and what *I* am saying is that NO, of COURSE sex and marriage are two different things. you can have sex with a complete stranger, with someone you dislike or even HATE, but never marry that person, never invite them into your family and join their family and make your own family. *I* am straight, but i have many homosexual friends. the longest lasting and most stable, loving relationship i have EVER seen is between two men that i know, both in their 60's, who got together when 1 was 21 and the 24. how many people do YOU know who actually make it 40 years in their marriage - and WITHOUT the support of the state (for all legal marriages today DO have state support. look at the reason gay people WANT to have marriage legal for them; all the little rights and privileges that come with that Magic Paper, like joint taxes and shared health insurance and actually being able to see your spouse if s/he is in ICU... THAT is the point). they have had over 40 years, they have 3 kids who are my age (well, the oldest is my age) and ALL of those kids have great lives, great futures. their families have always supported them. they are essentially very rich, each of them, and together are VERY rich. they contribute to society ON EVERY LEVEL - except they have to jump through hoops and obstacles that you, as a straight-priveleged individual, aren't even aware of just to have a SEMBLENCE of equality.

they have broadened their families, created a new one, contributed more to society in more ways than anyone else i know, they spend hundreds every year on many charities, they have great kids (and one grandson). but they are not equal, and in some parts of the country than might be *killed* because they don't act as you act.

but they have a Real Marriage. they have the BEST marriage i have ever seen. when my guy and i get married, we are going to follow their example as best we can as a straight couple, we actually are already following their example as much as we can. to deny them their REALITY is the evil here. you, the far-right-fundy-set, are so busy running around and making those who are different from you the Enemy you cannot even see how much they are LIKE you. except, to me, they are BETTER, because they do not judge and they don't expect everyone to be exactly like them. they don't have the bigotry. they are freer, they have more Love. and i believe that God has blessed them WITH that love, and with their life and beautiful marriage.

try. go for a whole week without disparaging gay people, without mocking them, without being disrespectful to or about them, spend a week TRYING REALLY HARD to believe that they are people who have every right to do exactly what they are doing, because that is how God made them. Try it. believe it for one week. and then try to go and put back on the hate. it won't fit, not after love.

Pearl said...


I am not surprised that here you waltz right back into the conversation and prove exactly what this post asserts: that homosexual concessions activists will malign and vilify marriage defenders in their attempts to promote same-sex unions and deflect any scrutiny of their weak arguments.

You began admirably, attempting to explain your views on marriage, but your commentary quickly degenerated, adopting emotionality in a misguided attempt to assert a right where none exists. Then, you leave off with your opinion altogether and take to name-calling: "far-right-fundy-set," "bigot," "loveless," "disrespectful," and "hater."

In your attempt to offer a rational reason to adopt same-sex concessions (which there is none), you have illuminated the greatest weakness of the homosexual concessions camp: your arguments do not withstand the test of reason, so you leave off arguing them (or sloppily wrap them up) and immediately take up attacking your opponent's rational arguments with pure, emotionally-driven propaganda. And not only do you attack your opponent's rational argument with pretty (irrelevant) stories designed to appeal solely to the audience's sense of "fairness," but you then attack your opponent as well, falsely accusing him/her of hatred and bigotry. Nothing new here, Denelian, you are very clearly another supporter of neutering marriage who does so by hiding behind a full-frontal emotional and name-calling attack in order to avoid the responsibility of rationally explaining to someone why they should readily accept the union of two deviant sexual behaviors as "marriage" when the time-tested, research-corroborated, experience-imbued institution of marriage between one man and one woman is proven to be the gold-standard for the maintenance and success of a healthy and happy society, and the nurturing of healthy and happy children. (Whew! Long sentence. Taking a breath...and...done.) :0)

Thank you, Denelian, for proving the premise of this post, and the existence of a homosexual agenda.

denelian said...

you know, your post really reminds of Bush's strategy.

declare victory and leave.

because i *DID* prove, before i described a loving married married couple, that there is NO reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. at least, by *MY* definition of marriage. by that definition - which, by the way, really does seem to be THE standard of marriage - every single person who wants to marry the person they love should be able to.

on the other hand - calling someone on their knee-jerk reactions, which is what i was doing, and point out specific behavior and thought patterns somehow "proves" that people who support marriage rights for everyone are not logical and good people?

you HAVE NO WAY TO PROVE YOUR STATEMENT. ok? just understand that - there is no other institution of marriage that can be examined that is LEGAL and NOT DISCRIMINATED against, so you have NO FREAKING WAY to meansure your claimed fact of "marriage between one man and one woman is better than all others". NO WAY.

i did not claim my anecdote was the same as data. but you claim your biased opinion IS the same as data.

i am done. i'm pretty sure you won't post this.

because there is NOT a "homosexual agenda" in any conspiracy sort of sense, they just want to be left alone and be allowed to have their families the same way you have your families. they want to not be attacked and vilified and told that they are pedophiles. look, my religion? has been persecuted waaaaaay more than yours has in this country, so i know whereof i speak here, having been kicked out of (secular! public!) school for not praying - what you are doing is giving all people who think everyone is ABSOLUTELY EQUAL no matter anything including sexual orientation a common enemy. so maybe i should stop trying to reason with you, because you do the work of "homosexual organizers" *MUCH* better than *I* ever could.

Pearl said...

"i'm pretty sure you won't post this."

Tsk, tsk. More assumptions....

Boy, if I'm getting on a homosexual activist's nerves, I must be doing something right. ;0) Apparently someone views me as a threat to be "organized" against.

Simmer down, Denelian. I made some observations about your "debate" MO and you went apoplectic on me.

Take a breath.

But...then the end, you really are proving my point for me: "they want to not be attacked and vilified and told that they are pedophiles." You see, Denelian, calling someone out on their poor behavior and flawed arguments is not "attacking" or "vilifying," and I've certainly never called a homosexual a pedophile. But in that sentence right there, you have just attacked, vilified, AND misrepresented your opponents and their arguments. something like that.

So, once again, I thank you for proving this post correct.

P.S. My gold-standard statement has been proved again and again throughout history by comparison to various cultures' acceptance of assorted deviations. Today, for example, SSM has been legalized in a few European countries. And, of course, comparison research has abounded as a result. Still, even homosexual-sympathetic researchers cannot agree that same-sex "marriage" is equal to marriage between a man and a woman for the optimal benefit of the child - which is really all that matters.

Thanks for stopping by again.

Chairm said...

Denelian you endorsed the pro-SSM rule No 1: "becoming a family does NOT require procreation [...] marriage is NOT a matter of children, but families"

That appears to be an endorsement of the pro-SSM Rule No. 2 as well.

I think this is reinforced when you said that "every single person who wants to marry the person they love should be able to."

As you know, there is no love requirement in the law, regardless of sexual orientaton.

And love can and does occur outside of marriage. Love takes many forms, usually not sexualized.

Within the both-sexed category, there are limitations on which people may marry. Such as some related people (but all related people), some previously-married people (but not all previousyly-married people), and some underaged people (but all underaged people). This is true, regardless of sexual orientation.

This is about marriage, or at least the relationship type that you have in mind when you use the word, marriage.

It is not about gay versus straight. Except that you appear to making it about that.

Denelian said: "all the little rights and privileges [...] like joint taxes and shared health insurance and actually being able to see your spouse if s/he is in ICU... THAT is the point"

So you propose that society support a type of relationship.

And it is definied by a nonexisting love requriement, regardless of sexual orientation.

And it is defined by something that can and does occur outside of that type of relationship, regardless of sexual orientation.

Look, I don't think you have distinguished marriage from nonmarriage. And I think your own reasoning would eraise the distinctions and the boundaries around marriage.

If society is disabled from identifying marriage, as marriage, then, what's the point of talking about the legal incidents that flow from marriage?

Those things do not define marriage, even if attaining them is the point of your complaint.

Your friends, according to you, have had a long relationship, done well, and have done this without a license and without Government regulation of their romantic relationship (if that's a fair way to describe it, in your view).

The provison for designated beneficiaries has long-existed. It is not confused with marriage. This does the work that you said is the point of treating people with equality.

Within the nonmarriage category, of which the homosexual relationship type is but a subset, such protections are already available. If they can be made more affordable or accessible, then, that can be provided without touching marriage law.

Until you can distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, there's no need to merger the two.

Until you can distinguish the relationship type you have in mind from the rest of the nonmarital category, then, there's no need to privilege the tiny subset on the basis of sexual orientation.

denelian said...

ok. first, pearl... you are right. but there has ALREADY been a comment of mine that you did not poat. so it wasn't that big of an assumption

second, YOU may not call homosecuals pedophiles, personally. but go and look at the Pro-Prop8 commercials. THEY, those commercials, very blatantly infered (although, it was SO blatant that saying "infered" is almost a lie) that homoaexuals are pedophiles. dozens of ministers who are against SSM have said that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. and beastiality. since i am arguing against your position, which is the same as the position of these ministers, saying that gay people want to not be called pedophiles, which your side of the debate DOES do, is not attacking any sort of strawman. and when your side of the debate OPENLY says that homosexuality is THE same as pedophilia and beastialty, you ARE attacking and vilifying homosexuals. i don't have to make anything up - these statements were ON THE WEBSITES of CHURCHES.

and, Chairm, you know what? i would PREFER that marriage NOT be a civil right for anyone. that it SOLELY be religious. that the government never said anything about it, nay or aye. i would prefer that there NOT be a legalized category for marriage. i think that if people decide to have children that a specific contract deliniating the responsibilities and rights of each parent be drawn up (for each child no less!) and that, other than enforcing a specific contract for the welfare of a specific child, the government not be involved at ALL. and i think that this position is constitiutionally defendable under the first amendment, but i also realize that this society is not ready to do that. so, until society IS ready, i think that any consenting adults should be able to enter into any, ANY, marriage contract with ANY other consenting adult. or adults. so straight marriage or homosexual marriage or line marriage or polyamorous marriage or polygamous marriage - ALL of these things have some religions that support them, and so long as you are saying that your religion gives YOU the right to have marriage as YOU define it that everyone else should have THEIR marriage rights too.

i support the right of anyone who is able to consent to marry anyone ELSE who is able to consent. period. because, and this is A Big Thing - my future marriage? it was illegal until the 60's. because my guy is a black man. and when you jump on that and tell me that being gay is not the same as being black, i will laugh because you DON'T KNOW THAT. just as you DON'T KNOW if SSM marriage better or worse than straight marriage. there are no studies that prove, one way or the other.

but, in a country with a divorce rate hovering at 50%, where too many children grow up with NO parents or horrible abusive parents (like i did) i think it is criminal to make a huge issue about something that, ultimately, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. hell, it's none of *MY* business, and the only reason i talk about it is because so many people have decided that they have the right to control the lives of other adult citizens. that is what you are doing - you are restricting the rights of adults who are citizens of this country who contribute to the country and the society, who pay taxes, who are part of the GDP. and you are restricting them because of your bigotry. i have YET to hear a reason to restrict SSM that is NOT bigotry. bigotry, hatred of something that is different from you, or at least discrimination against something that is different from you.

tell me one good actual honest reason why the relationship between two people, neither of whom is you or is known to you, makes any difference in your life. SHOW ME HOW SSM MARRIAGE MAKES YOUR LIFE SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE. and by "substantially" i mean something that is substainable, provable. real. because i have NEVER seen a reason to deny marriage rights that was substainable.

Chairm said...

Denelian, thank you for your comment. In it you confirmed that your thinking would lead to the aboliton of the distinctions and the boundaries around marriage.

However, you clearly have misunderstood my remarks.

You said: "as you are saying that your religion gives YOU the right to have marriage as YOU define"

I did not refer to a religious definition of marriage. There is a secular case for the both-sexed basis of marriage that you do not seem to understand.

There is a social institution, marriage, which is a coherent whole. The thing at its core holds the rest together. The secondary and teritiary aspects -- both in traditions, customs, and the laws -- hang together on that central meaning.

Remove that core and you remove the distinction between the social institution and the entire range of nonmarital arrangements and nonmarital relationship types.

You also said that you "support the right of anyone who is able to consent to marry anyone ELSE who is able to consent."

But consent to what?

See, if you cannot identify the core of the thing, then, you cannot distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. And that means people are disabled from giving their informed consent.

Here is what the social institution has at its core:

1. Sex integration -- the unity of man and woman -- on the deeply personal level but also on the communal and societal levels.

We are sexually embodied beings. We are highy social beings. In fact, we are always sexually switched-on in some way. So integrating man and woman is a very significant feature of civilization. The two-sexed nature of humankind is inescapable. Marriage arises from the both-sexed nature of human community.

2. Contingency for responsible procreation. The first principle is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is directly responsibly for, and to, the children we create together (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). Motherhood and fatherhood are united and integrated through the universal social institution of marriage.

Our offspring are among the most dependant and vulnerable creatures on earth. Human beings are highly social; our children depend on this to an extent that few, if any, other creatures do. Socialization is integral to the nature of human generativity. Responsible procreation is a coherent set of principles and practices which are expressed as cultural adaptations to human physiology and biology.

3. The social institution is foundational to civil society. Government does not own civil society. The marriage law is how society delegates to the authorities the regulatory role. The parameters of marriage are regulated with protocols and the like. But the core has remained the same throughout record human history. The social institution is not something that civilization can discard without major reprecussions.

So, marriage is far more than consent alone. It is what people consent to when they enter a foundational social institution.

As such, gutting it of its core meaning is a direct attack on marriage and is not an expansion of freedom but a reduction of freedom.

Making marriage mean less is not the way to share marriage with future generations.

Now, as you rightly understand, marriage is not a purely religious concept. But neither is the government a purely irreligious authority. Our society is pluralistic. That is, we acknowledge plural authorities. The SSM argumentation is a peculiar form of sectarianism. Your own comments suggest a leap of faith to which you expect me to stand against on the basis solely of religious arguments.

But that's a false equivalence.

As I said, providing protection equality for nonmarital arrangements, for nonmarital relationship types, for nonmarital families -- especially those with children -- has become a pressing matter.


Because of the beating that marriage has taken in the last few decades. You cited the divorce rate as if we might as well continue to do yet more damage. I hope you meant something else, but that's what your words strongly implied.

The sharp decline the social institution -- particularly in the participation of young people -- is a major social problem. It is the source of many other pathological social problems in our society.

So we have an obligation to help protect families that are burdened with certain vulnerabilities. Not because these nonmarital scenarios are indistinguishable from marriage. Not because marriage is so lousy we might as well blind government and the culture it of its core meaning.

We still need the influence of a social institution to unite the sexes and to provide for responsible procreation. This is about encouraging participation in marriage; it is not about tearing down its walls to accomodate a tiny subset of the nonmarital range of relationship types.

So we do need to reinforce, strenghen, and reaffirm the core maning of marriage -- and thus all that the social institution does to benefit society. Government has a role in that. But mostly the hard work is left to the nongovernmental parts of society -- which is the bulk of society. That includes the religions.

So this is not religion vs the Government. Rather the inverse of that.

Civil society is knitted together and is not something that can be put through a strainer to filter out religion and freedom of conscience. For that would destroy freedom as surely as it would devestate religion in our society.

As for the racial analogy, that's not sound.

There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. It was wrong and unjust when racist identity politics was pressed into marriage law to limit marriage based on racism. It would be wrong and unjust to press gay identity politics into marriage law to limit Government recognition, and preference for, marriage based on whatever does not fit one-sexed arrangement -- or the "homosexual relaitonship type" -- or the identity politics that is gaycentric.

Society is not defined by gayness. Nor is marriage. Gayness is irrelevant to the both-sexed social institution that unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. In fact, the one-sexed arrangment -- regardless of sexual orientation -- is extrinsic to marriage.

So while I can emphathize, and do see the need for protection equality -- but not based on sexual orientation or identity politics -- I cannot agree with your anti-religious take on Government involvement in acknowledging marriage as a social institution.

op-ed said...

denelian: ,,,since i am arguing against your position, which is the same as the position of these ministers...

Sides in a debate are not monolithic. Pearl is not a proxy for anyone else. In any discussion, deal with the points actually raised in that discussion.

i would PREFER that marriage NOT be a civil right for anyone. that it SOLELY be religious. that the government never said anything about it, nay or aye.

Because the lower the marriage rates go, the better the outcomes for children. Makes sense government shouldn't care.

i think that if people decide to have children that a specific contract...

Because only people who decide to have children get pregnant. That's why illegitimacy rates are zero, or at least so much lower today than before Roe v. Wade.

Interesting that you think the government should get involved in relationships that potentially will create children, though. Note that same sex couples would be ineligible for this contract, just like marriage.

...when you jump on that and tell me that being gay is not the same as being black, i will laugh because you DON'T KNOW THAT.

Sure I do. Everyone who has an identical twin of a given skin color has that same skin color. Nobody who wants to change their skin color succeeds.

i have YET to hear a reason to restrict SSM that is NOT bigotry. bigotry, hatred of something that is different from you, or at least discrimination against something that is different from you.

Never? You proposed "procreation contracts," above that excluded same-sex couples. Was that because of bigotry?


Show me how someone getting mugged somewhere makes your life substantially worse.

If you want to know how society is made substantially worse by separating procreation from marriage, wander through any inner city late one night.

Marriage serves a purpose in society and that is why society recognizes it. Marriage has the purpose you want from your procreation contracts, but eliminates several significant problems your proposal includes.

Society already has private contracts to accommodate "any two adults" relationships. There is no reason to eliminate marriage to make yet another private contract type relationship.

Pearl said...

Hi Denelian,

I am glad you came back to continue the conversation. I apologize if anything I say here serves to repeat what Chairm or Op-Ed may have already expounded upon. I have not had a chance to read their comments yet.

First, I apologize for any comment oversight that may have occurred. I honestly do not remember failing to post any comment of yours. If I have, I assure you that it was either irrelevant to the conversation, or just oversight.

Now, as for this wild accusation that I somehow espouse all television evangelists who proclaim homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia...well, that's just wild. Besides the fact that I, personally, have yet to hear a minister/reverend/priest/bishop/prophet/president call homosexuality the "same thing" as pedophilia, I, Pearl, do not believe that homosexuality is the "same thing" as pedophilia (they are two completely different sexually deviant behaviors). And if you actually read my blog without your prejudiced blinders on, denelian, I think you would realize I have never once called homosexuals pedophiles. I have often made the reasonable suggestion, however, that if same-sex "marriage" were legalized, that would naturally open the doors for any other variant sexual behavior to demand exceptions to the law as concerns marriage. It is not a stretch to realize that if marriage is instituted merely on the basis of love, then men or women who "love" children will demand that their "right" to legal recognition of their sexual behavior be implemented as well. I will not use the other usual suspects such as polyamory and incest since you apparently have no compunctions against devaluing marriage in their favor. Your "free-thinking" is the type that has average Americans up in arms to defend marriage, denelian. Thankfully, you live in a country that provides protections for your opinions, but equally deserving of gratitude is the Constitution that provides me with the protection of voting my conscience and supporting marriage democratically as I see fit. That you believe differently does not make me wrong.

As for divorce, it is a terrible thing and ought to be more difficult to achieve in order to encourage more couples to work through their differences rather than give up so readily. However, just because society's attitudes toward marriage have degenerated does not reflect upon the institution itself. The practice of marriage between one man and one woman is still the ideal for a healthy society and healthy children; it is the imperfect practitioners of marriage that have need of healing. To suggest that we should accept SSM simply because "they love each other so much" and because marriage as it stands now is ailing, well, that's just irresponsible. That's like suggesting we should accept whatever experimental drugs are thrown our way, simply because we're sick. I say, Nay! Absolutely not. First, we find out what ails marriage, then we try to heal that rather than attempt to apply a superficial, experimental cocktail of redefinition which will, in all its untested glory, most assuredly cause more problems than it will cure.

"i have YET to hear a reason to restrict SSM that is NOT bigotry. bigotry, hatred of something that is different from you, or at least discrimination against something that is different from you."

I disagree. You have most definitely heard many reasons. You are just not listening. Nor do you really want to, I think. But, in case you feel up to listening, I extend an invitation to browse not only my blog, but many other marriage defense blogs who have proposed countless non-bigoted reasons, both secular and religious, to protect marriage as it currently stands - between one man and one woman.

Now, since it seems to be research that you want, I'll provide you with research that shows that same-sex parenting cannot be proven to be as beneficial for children as heterosexual marriage. This research was compiled by my marriage blogging buddy, Ruby Eliot, and I've just absconded it from a previous post's comment section and relocated it here:

Scientific and Social Evidence


While study after study shows that children do awesome in traditional marriages--there is no evidence that shows children do the same in same-gender households. I don't think it's a good idea for government to sanction a social experiment.

1.William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005)

"We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right."

According to this source from a magazine devoted to same-gender parenting…no one knows what the outcomes are for same-gender parenting.

2. American college of Pediatricians:
Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.

3. Bonus Problems with the studies

"Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted. At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.

Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.

Nock concluded:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that

1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal
flaw of design or execution;

2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

a. No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that "there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families."

b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers
are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).

c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother's report of her
parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.

d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood."

denelian said...


i think we will continue to talk past each other. and you are absolutely correct; i am prejudiced against people who work to "Other" people just because those people are different.

you miss the point that marriage involves CONSENT. a child is not able to consent. hence, any pedophile would NOT be able to marry a child. because there would be no consent.

when you take a stance that aligns with the stance of many people, people who argue against the stance are going to arguing about the ENTIRE stance. i am glad that you know better than to think that homosexual people are pedophiles. but those who are the visible leaders do NOT know this, or don't care, and have gone on Fox News declaring that homosexuality is morally the same as pedopilia and beastiality.

and, i think you proved my point with those studies (many of which i studied in classes last year. the joys of being a Political Communication major, we have all their weird things). all of these studies say WE DON'T KNOW YET. they do NOT say "we know homosexual parents are bettor", they do NOT say "we know homosexual parents are worse". they say "Not enough data".

really, we are both very fervent in our beliefs. the difference is, i think, really a difference of responsibilty. you feel that you have the right to dictate what other consenting adults may or may not do. you may not care if they have sex (although i really get the impression that you DO care, i don't think i have seen you state this, so i give you the benefit there) but you DO care that they not be able to married in the same LEGAL manner that you may.

you feel you have that right, that responsibility. it confounds me. Christianty is about forgivness and taking PERSONAL responsibility - it's about NOT judging others and allowing them to do whatever, without judgement (so long as they are not harming you.)

where is the harm? every harm i have seen on this website is a religion harm that, so far as i can tell, is perfectly canceled out by the admonishment to not judge and to forgive. EVERY argument, that doesn't involve some form of "think of the children", the ultimate red herring, that i have seen is Biblical. but not everyone follows the Bible. not everyone even believes in God. and there are many religions that DO allow SSM, and grant it equal status to your form of marriage.

so, i ask again, as respectfully as possible because in my browsing of this blog i have not seen the answer:
letting go of the "red herring" arguments (the "think of the children" and the slippery slope "if we allow this we will have to allow that") what are the substansive NON-BIBLICAL, NON-RELIGIOUS harms that will be done to YOU. specifically, what harm is done to YOU, Pearl, if a gay couple whom you do not know gets married?

and then... please, consider what i am saying bout religion. YOU feel that this specific Civil Right should be decided in a democratic fashion, despite the fact that NOT A SINGLE CIVIL RIGHT has been chosen in a democratic fashion. but over here, to people who don't agree with you, you need to understand what we are seeing and what we fear. i think that might help.

we see a group of people who are very fundamentalist and who seem to really believe that their holy laws are the only ones in the country and that EVERYONE should have to live by that holy book, even the people who are not of that religion. we see what we fear is the beginning of theocracy, where this decade you roll back Civil Rights for homosexuals, and next decade you get rid of those rights for non-Christians, and then the next decade everyone is forcible converted to - not just general, but a SPECIFIC brand of - Christianity.

that is why so many of us fight so hard against "traditional marriage". it is the line in the sand, the place where we have said "No More Religious Rule". But, if you are one of those who believes that i must be converted (and knowing that i will never voluntarily convert, and i believe in my faith at least as strongly as you believe in yours), then i am wasting my time here. because there cannot be a honest dialog in that situation.

i will give you time to respond, i am trying to keep an open mind about you. but i am Cherokee, and i have suffered religious discrimination, my whole family has, we have quite a history of it. and we, rightfully, developed a fear of theocracy and Christianity. 2000 years ago your people were persecuted by the majority. today, me and mine, and all the other non-Christians, are being persecuted by the majority. there aren't lions, but there are gangs. so, i am trying to keep an open mind, while at the same time trying to keep me and mine safe.

those are the two questions. what harm to YOU specifically, as i outlined, and do you want to impose a theocracy (and while YOU may not, please remember that there is a small but loud minority who DO want to impose a Christian Theocracy on us) - and by theocracy, i mean any government based on religion. (not common law, but RELIGION.)

ps. i re-read your moderating poicy. it is probable i said a word that hit your filters. but i didn't catch the non-profanity clause, or rather, i use words that i don't consider profanity but some others do.

Pearl said...


You are still not listening. I hear your arguments. I am listening. And I hear someone who has been taught, whether by experience or by society, to assume a victim attitude toward any discrimination whether perceived or actual.

In answer to your first question, I'd like to suggest that perhaps you do not have such an "open mind" as you claim. Why do you see fit to restrict my answers? Why do you get to lay guidelines for how I convey my opinions and reasoning? That seems to me a bit prejudiced against people who disagree with you. The sentiment is, "please answer my question, but don't use this reason, this reason, this reason, or this reason, because I don't agree with them." You've just eliminated all of my reasons on the basis of disagreement rather than faulty logic - or on the shaky assumption that your belief that they contain faulty logic somehow means that they do. That is very inflated thinking.

Regarding the erroneous belief that SSM is a civil right, you might find this to be an interesting read:

Abysmal Ignorance is No Excuse Part One

Regarding the research I provided, we actually agree, though you keep failing to see my point. So here, I'll put them side by side.

You said:

"all of these studies say WE DON'T KNOW YET. they do NOT say "we know homosexual parents are bettor", they do NOT say "we know homosexual parents are worse". they say "Not enough data".

I said:

"research that shows that same-sex parenting cannot be proven to be as beneficial for children as heterosexual marriage."

But my point was that there is plenty of research that absolutely sustains that marriage between a man and a woman is the current gold-standard for the raising up of children. Why the rush to introduce others before their worth can be proven? And to the detriment of children, no less?!

Which brings me to another question. Why are you so ready to discard any arguments involving the protection of children? This whole debate truly is all about protecting the children, and, subsequently, the future of our society. Even if redefining marriage didn't change anything for me personally, I have a duty to ensure that the world I leave for my children is one in which they can thrive. We see this all the time with environmentalism: make the world a better place for our children and our children's children! What a selfish idea that I should base any decisions solely on the effect the results will have on me and only me. So selfish.

No, I do not wish to impose a theocracy. Please do not kitchen sink on me. I am not representative of everyone who has democratically voted against special recognition of sexual variance. We all have our reasons and they are as varied as the sand, ranging anywhere from religious beliefs to secular reasoning based on sound social science research. I am me. I am only me.

P.S. Double standard alert!

You said:

"letting go of the "red herring" arguments (the "think of the children" and the slippery slope "if we allow this we will have to allow that")...."

And then you said:

"we see what we fear is the beginning of theocracy, where this decade you roll back Civil Rights for homosexuals, and next decade you get rid of those rights for non-Christians, and then the next decade everyone is forcible converted to - not just general, but a SPECIFIC brand of - Christianity."

Please tell me why you are allowed to use the slippery slope argument and I am prohibited?

Chairm said...

Denelian and Pearl, this exchange between you has already developed into a worthwhile endeavor. I hope you will continue and, perhaps, reach some agreement about the actual disagreement between your views on marriage.

There are other issues that seem to color the discussion of the meaning of marriage. These are important, of course, and yet can also distract us from the marriage issue itself. What is marriage?

Having said that, I think that denelian has an interesting take on the point from the original blogpost about villifying the religious views, and the people who hold them, which stand firmly in favor of the both-sexed basis of marriage.

However, as Pearl said, religion recognizes what is also discernible without religion. Marriage is a universal social institution. It is foundational to civil society. It merits special status based on what it means to humankind -- and each society shows preference for that in various ways. But the core thing does not change even if the regulations and parameters and protocols certainly can and do, from one society to the next, one generation to the next.

So directly at issue here is the core or central meaning of marriage -- what are its essentials such that without recognition of these we would fail to distinguish marriage from all other arrangements or relationship types?

The major religions agree. Societies that have been expressly irreligious or even athiestic, have agreed. Societies with panreligious ethos have agreed. The unity of the sexes combines with the unity of fatherhood and motherhood to make marriage what it is and has become.

Should it become something that contradicts that core meaning -- that dispenses with its essentials?

* * *

denelian said: "NOT A SINGLE CIVIL RIGHT has been chosen in a democratic fashion"

In the USA the Constitution was ratified by the democratic process. The first set of amendments, known popularly as the Bill of Rights, was passed expressly due to the give and take of the democratic process. Each and every amendment in the US Constitution was also passed through the democratic process.

In addition to constitution-based protections of rights, there is also the civil rights that are produced by statutory laws. These also, by their very existence, are outcomes of the democratic process. In the USA common-law (i.e. judge-made law) has been largely superseded by statutory law and constitutional jurisprudence.

So, denelian, if you meant these rights, you are mistaken.

However, if you meant the original source of human rights -- rather than civil rights -- then we must return to the great value and positive influence of the very religions and religious beliefs that feature so prominently in our pluralistic and very free and open society. Secularism as a sort of anti-religion is a form of sectarianism which would smother pluralism and liberty.

I think you probably can recognize this since you have expressed concern about sectarianism in your comments.

Secular law merely expresses the pluralism of society. It is not founded on the exclusion of the religion and of religious people. In America, secular does not mean anti-religion nor non-religion. However, some who are anti-religious or who are non-religious have taken the hostile stand that it is their brand of sectarianism that must prevail over all of society.

If you examine the source of civil rights, and the protection of those rights, you will see the immense significance of the creative tension in the mix of the religious, antireligious, and nonreligious perspectives. In our society the religious perspecive has not prevailed and there is really no big risk that it would prevail, given the many variations in religious traditions in our society. And yet there has arisen a distincive threat of an avowedly antireligious hostility prevailing as the chief restraint on Governmetn and on civil rights.

* * *

These are not central to the issue of marriage, but they sure do come to the surface.


Because marriage is foundational to civil society. It is not owned by the Government. It is not a subsidiary of Government.

It is not created and defined by antireligious sectarianism. it is for all of us. It is pluralistics.

And that all of this points to its core meaning -- integration of the sexes, responsible procreation, and government, on behalf of a free society, showing preference for the social institution.

Marriage is a coherent whole of these aspects. It is not a bunch of bits and pieces randomly clumped together due to some benevelont Other-- in the form of a Government that owns The People.

It is this coherence and this core meaning which makes marriage special.

And that is not a purely religious argument. Nor is it a purely nonreligious argument. See pluralism.

op-ed said...

denelian: letting go of the "red herring" arguments (the "think of the children"...

Actually, denelian acknowledged the needs of children earlier when she advocated "procreation contracts" to replace marriage once she had neutered it.

"i think that if people decide to have children that a specific contract deliniating [sic] the responsibilities and rights of each parent be drawn up"

It is clear children are not the "red herring[s]" in this debate.

denelian said...

i am... confused. yes, that is the word.

last week, i posted a very long reply. then it was finishing midterms, and them my birthday, and then i got hurt, and yesterday (monday) i could not get onto the site at ALL. so this is the first time i have been back here in almost a week. and my post is not here.

did it not get posted on purpose, have you decided to stop the argument, did the intratubes eat it, or something else i am missing?
i am just wondering (i am not accusing. for over 24 hours i was not able to get on the site at all, was there a maintence problem or something?)

Pearl said...

Hi denelian,

The last comment I received from you was the one from Feb.7, 8:07PM (published above). Nothing else has come through. Sorry! I hate it when that happens. I have had extensive comments eaten before and it is the pits! Please feel free to send another through if you're feeling up to it. Sounds like you've been busy. Hope all is well.