--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html>>
<I snipped *massively* throughout - and took a bit of a Cheshire Cat viewpoint ;} > > By Orson Scott Card February 15, 2004 > Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization > > A little dialogue from Lewis Carroll: > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make > words mean so many different things." > The Massachusetts Supreme Court...By declaring that >homosexual couples are denied their constitutional > rights by being forbidden to "marry," it is treading > on the same ground. On definitions: once 'human' = 'white male' -- Negroes and women were called sub-human; I recall seeing one old claim that they were in fact a sub-species. Once "fart" was the socially polite word to use for flatulence. Point: definitions change, as does word usage. Language and society are not static - unless they're dead or dying. > Regardless of their opinion of homosexual > "marriage," every American > who believes in democracy should be outraged that > any court should > take it upon itself to dictate such a social > innovation without recourse to democratic process. I daresay that many someones said the same thing WRT making blacks equal under the law, or giving women the right to vote. Part of the point of our system of goverment, IIRC, is to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority.' > Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone. > In the first place, no law in any state in the > United States now or > ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has > never asked that > a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a > woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man. What utter hypocrisy -- just turn the tables, as somebody else already posted, and ask yourself if same-sex marriages were the law, would you want to have to lie and say you were 'gay' if you were in fact 'straight?' What misery to be told you can't have a relationship with another consenting adult, but must lie about who you are. *I* certainly wouldn't want to be married to a gay man, for multiple reasons, but living a lie would be one of them. > In order to claim that they are deprived, you have > to change the > meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that > it has never > included before this generation, anywhere on earth. Wrong again. Others have posted on this, re: berdache & early Christian centuries. Then of course there are the once-Biblically-sanctioned multiple wives, child-brides and so forth -- which would certaily be included in any "traditional" long-term view of marriage. From what I've read on primitive cultures in which the connection between sex and procreation was not made, families were based upon maternal kinship lines. There is IIRC an Amazon Basin tribe in which the mother's brothers are considered closer kin to her children than the father, who is more involved with _his_ sisters' children than his own. Still other existing groups have both paternal and maternal clan lines/kinships. > And yet, throughout the history of human society -- > even in societies > that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some > stages of life -- > it was always expected that children would be born > into and raised by > families consisting of a father and mother. Nope - see the above. Now if he'd said "raised by families consisting of women and men" he'd be correct, in that many (most?) pre-modern Western families were extended, with uncles and aunts and cousins and grandparents all living in close proximity, if not the same house/compound. The "nuclear family" hasn't been the norm until quite recently, culturally speaking. > So not only are two sexes required in order to > conceive children, > children also learn their sex-role expectations from > the parents in their own family. In extended families, there were always adults of both sexes to model on - which I personally do think is important, but see the reseach/studies I posted on children of same-sex parents: the bulk of it denies negative effects on children of same-sex families. > Of course, in our current society we are two > generations into the > systematic destruction of the institution of > marriage. In my > childhood, it was rare to know someone whose parents > were divorced; > now, it seems almost as rare to find someone whose > parents have never been divorced. Well, we _could_ make it harder to get married in the first place -- frex halt the ludicrous spectacle of two tweenagers getting "married" on a drunken whim in Las Vegas, say. Require that all couples (straight and gay) go through pre-marital counseling, and have a suitable waiting period. > The damage caused to children by divorce and > illegitimate birth is > obvious and devastating. While apologists for the > current system are > quick to blame poverty resulting from "deadbeat > dads" as the cause, > the children themselves know this is ludicrous. Is he thinking of requiring licenses to have children? Perhaps not a bad idea, but implementing it fairly would be just about the thorniest, most contentious issue I could imagine. > Most broken or wounded families are in that > condition because of a > missing father. There is substantial and growing > evidence that our > society's contempt for the role of the father in the > family is > responsible for a massive number of "lost" children. Evidence? (I happen to agree that a stong male is _very_ important in a child's life, but that "most" needs to be backed up by facts, IMO.) > Only when the father became powerless or absent in > the lives of huge > numbers of children did we start to realize some of > the things people > need a father for: laying the groundwork for a sense > of moral > judgment; praise that is believed so that it can > instill genuine self-confidence. Oh, I see: a _mother_ can't possibly instill a sense of morality or self-confidence...? Again -- research? > This is an oversimplification of a very complex > system. Well he got _that_ right. > But you have to be in gross denial not to know that > children would > almost always rather have grown up with Dad and Mom > in their proper > places at home. Most kids would rather that, instead > of divorcing, > their parents would acquire the strength or maturity > to stop doing the > things that make the other parent want to leave. I think the pre-counseling and waiting period might help this (of course, there are still those who ought never to produce children, because they aren't fit to be parents -- again, a veritable can-o-worms to open up), but in a fluid, non-static society you're not going to stop people from growing and changing. > And it isn't just the damage that divorce and > out-of-wedlock births do > to the children in those broken families: Your > divorce hurts my kids, too. Umm, this relates to same-sex parented families how? > So long before the Massachusetts Supreme Court > decided to play Humpty > Dumpty, the American people had plunged into a > terrible experiment on > ourselves, guided only by the slogan of immaturity > and barbarism: "If it feels good, do it!" Oh, I see -- to be homosexual is to be "immature and barbaric"...? > But society has a vital stake in child-rearing; and > children have a vital stake in society. That's a no-brainer. > Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective > foundation for a civilization. Data? What about past Chinese civilization, in which those who could afford it and those who were already priviledged upper-class had more than one wife? [<wry> In the future they may have to have a couple of husbands per wife, or import women, to balance out the current male preponderance.] What about the classical Greeks, for whom 'women are for breeding, boys for loving?' (according to a Western Civ prof back in college; "why do you think they depicted Eros as a very young man?") Just how monogamous *is* Western civilization? [I leave the logic/illogic of the idea aside - meaning that some say 'til death do us part' was reasonable when the average life expectancy was 40+ years, but isn't when it's 70+; or the claim that what we have now is 'serial monogamy' etc.] Mistresses are quite common in various European (and Asian & African) cultures, and apparently accepted by many wives. Does he mean "civilization = technological culture"? Or one that lasts for some long time? What of ancient Egyptian civilization, in which incest was practiced among the aristocracy (with of course bad medical effects eventually, but several thousand years is a pretty good run for a culture to last)? [Hey, *I'm* far too jealous to want to share 'my' man, but that doesn't mean a society in which group marriages were common couldn't be technologically advanced/stable.] > It provides most males an opportunity to mate > (polygamous systems always result in surplus males > that have no > reproductive stake in society); it provides most > females an > opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively > devoted to her. Except for all those pesky mistresses...and what if the 'surplus males' have hope to join the ranks of the breeding sires by being successful/earning the right to have wives themselves? Then they too would have a stake in the society's survival. > Those who are successful in mating are the ones who > will have the strongest > loyalty to the social order; so the system that > provides reproductive > success to the largest number is the system that > will be most likely to keep a civilization alive. Interesting theory; but does "mating" actually mean 'have children' or just 'have sex?' This is of course a modern question, as before effective birth control the woman had no choice whether to bear children or not. [Aside: somebody posted an article about the Genghis Khan gene in Asia, something shocking like tens of thousands of male descendents, IIRC...the Mongolian Empire didn't last too long, but the genes survive quite well...] > Civilization Is Rooted in Reproductive Security. See my above comments. > There is a very complex balance in maintaining a > monogamous society, Any society, I think, not just a monogamous one. As is implied by: > Civilization requires the suppression of natural > impulses that would > break down the social order. Civilization thrives > only when most > members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and > when those who > don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful > way. > > Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of > the chance to > satisfy their natural desire to mate with every > attractive female? <grim> Primitively, the threat of being killed/tortured by the female's male family members? <amused> Currently, the impossibility of 'keeping' every attractive female they want in clothes, fed and sheltered? Not to mention, um, 'satisfied?' ;) > Why would women submit to rules that keep them from > trying to mate > with the strongest (richest, most physically > imposing, etc.) male, > just because he already has a wife? <wry> See above re: mistresses. "The Other Woman" is quite alive and active here in America. I don't think I'm the only woman with a wide jealous streak (i.e. no sharing!), nor do women all look for the same markers of "success" such as huge bank accounts, huge appendages, or whatever. ;) <serious> As I've said before, when I talk to young women about sex, I _do_ ask them to think about whether or not the male-of-interest would be a good father to their child should they get pregnant...unfortunately, the teen brain truly is not fully functional WRT executive decisions, hence my prior remarks about 'guilt and fear keeping you safe until you're really an adult.' > Because civilization provides the best odds for > their children to live to adulthood... > > Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that > give most males and > most females a chance to have children that live to > reproduce in their > turn are the civilizations that last the longest. > It's such an obvious > principle that few civilizations have even attempted > to flout it. See the above comments. > At the same time, parents recognize that non-parents > are not as > trustworthy caretakers. The school provides some > aspects of > civilization, but not others. Schools expect the > parents to civilize > their children in certain ways in order to take part > safely with other > children; parents expect to be left alone with some > aspects of child-rearing, such as religion. Rightfully so. > America's Anti-Family Experiment > > In this delicate balance, it is safe to say that > beginning with a > trickle in the 1950s, but becoming an overwhelming > flood in the 1960s > and 1970s, we took a pretty good system, and in > order to solve > problems that needed tweaking, we made massive, > fundamental changes > that have had devastating consequences. > > Now huge numbers of Americans know that the schools > are places where > their children are indoctrinated in anti-family > values. ??? > Huge numbers of children are deprived of two-parent > homes, because > society has decided to give legal status and social > acceptance to > out-of-wedlock parenting and couples who break up > their marriages with > little regard for what is good for the children. So, should marriage licenses be harder to get? Should one require a license to have a child? I don't think 'longing for the good ole days' is going to accomplish much. > Parents in a stable marriage are much better than > schools at civilizing children. A stable family life is without question the best foundation for children; the issue here is "what makes a family?" > The ideologues > have demanded that we stop defining "families" as > Dad, Mom, and the kids. Again, the "nuclear family" is a very recent development in our society; one advantage of extended families is that at least _some_ competent adults are usually present to care for & teach children. > If you declare that there is no longer any legal > difference between > low tide and high tide, it might stop people from > publishing tide > charts, but it won't change the fact that sometimes > the water is lower and sometimes it's higher. Bad analogy - it's still all salt water. > Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not > make it > reproductively relevant and will not make it > contribute in any > meaningful way to the propagation of civilization. <rolls eyes> Oh, pu-leez! *Medical technology* has made many straight and homosexual couples "reproductively relevant," and one certainly does not have to bear children to contribute to civilization. Sheesh! > Supporters of homosexual "marriage" dismiss warnings > like mine as the > predictable ranting of people who hate progress. No, just terribly fearful of change (this from *me,* who was dragged kicking and screaming onto the Internet! who didn't have a TV until 1997, or a VCR until 2000!) > Let me put it another way. The sex life of the > people around me is > none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my > friends and > associates has made no barrier between us, and as > far as I know, my > heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what > tolerance looks like. > > But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. > It is an attempt > to eliminate any special preference for marriage in > society -- to > erase the protected status of marriage in the > constant balancing act > between civilization and individual reproduction. <sigh> No, it's like 'extending' the definition of "human" to blacks and women. > They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain > for themselves > nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just > be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes. <sad> This is just pathetic - is he losing his wife? children? tax breaks? social standing as a successful sire? No, on all counts. > Television programs will start to show homosexual > "marriages" as > wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show > heterosexual > marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden). And as they used to say, "Women won't be equal until there are mediocre ones (or worse) in positions of power." I predict a show with Roseanne and Rosie as the parents - now there's some conflict for you! > In other words, society will bend all its efforts to > seize upon any > hint of homosexuality in our young people and > encourage it. <eye roll> Like certain groups that 'sieze on any hint of heterosexuality and encourage marriage to a person of opposite gender?' > Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that > way," and we are > pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many > people think that > somebody, somewhere, must have proved it. > > In fact what evidence there is suggests that if > there is a genetic > component to homosexuality, an entire range of > environmental > influences are also involved. While there is no > scientific research > whatsoever that indicates that there is no such > thing as a borderline > child who could go either way. There is in macaques: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11910792&dopt=Abstract "...Taken together, this evidence suggests that female Japanese macaques are best characterized as bisexual in orientation, not preferentially homosexual or preferentially heterosexual." > The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one > that dares not speak > its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered > into that world > through a disturbing seduction or rape or > molestation or abuse, and > how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual > community and live normally. Yesirree bob, my gay and lesbian friends didn't "feel" or "know" that they were different from the other boys or girls at age 7 or 8, nor were they dragged kicking and fighting into formally recognizing their sexual orientation, nor did they ever say that if they _could_ have chosen, they'd be straight because it'd be so much easier. And if child molestation or abuse led to homosexuality, then at least 1 of every 5-7 girls would be lesbian, and 1 of 10 boys (those are the last figures I recall seeing re: child molestation, but that was at least 7 years ago) > Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of > the hormones is clear for them. There's a big "du-uh!" > But for those parents who have kids who hover in > confusion, their lives complicated by painful > experiences, conflicting > desires, and many fears, the P.C. elite will now > demand that the full > machinery of the state be employed to draw them away > from the cycle of life. Balderdash. Same-sex relationships are no obstacle to modern medical science WRT reproduction (although gay men of course must find a woman willing to bear 'their' child, unless they can adopt). > Children from broken and wounded families, with > missing parents, may > be the ones most confused and most susceptible. Didn't seem to affect Clinton... ;} > Don't you see the absurd contradiction? A postulated > but unproven > genetic disposition toward homosexuality is supposed > to be embraced > and accepted by everyone as "perfectly natural" -- > but the far > stronger and almost universal genetic disposition > toward having > children and grandchildren is to be suppressed, kept > to yourself, > treated as a mental illness. <rolls eyes and throws hands into the air> Where did *that* come from?! Didn't he just say that hormones essentially rule? (yes, he did) > But the most common way is for the people who have > the most at stake > -- parents and would-be parents -- to simply make > the untrusted > society disappear by ceasing to lift a finger to > sustain it. Where have I heard this before...ah, yes: _Atlas Shrugged_. > We will teach our children to have no loyalty to the > culture of the > American elite, and will instead teach them to be > loyal to a competing > culture that upholds the family. Whether we home > school our kids or > not, we will withdraw them at an early age from any > sense of belonging > to contemporary American culture. Hate to point this out, but people from all over the world are embracing American culture, and even dying to try to get here or reproduce it there. > And we're tired of being subject to barbarian rules > and laws that > fight against our civilized values. We're not > interested in risking > our children's lives to defend a nation that does > not defend us. Anyone is free to leave... > Let's take a poll of our volunteer military -- > especially those who > specialize in combat areas -- and see what > civilization it is that > they actually volunteered to defend. Oh! And let's find out how many of *them* are gay/lesbian, while we're anonymously polling. > Remember how long Iraq's powerful military lasted > against a determined > enemy, when the Iraqi soldiers no longer had any > loyalty to the Iraqi > leadership. That wasn't an aberration. It's how > great nations and empires fall. Iraq?!? "Great empire?" Riiight.... Debbi Feeling Quarrelsome Today Maru :-/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
