Friday, April 15, 2005

DIVORCE AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

One of the most frequently offered arguments by proponents of same-sex marriage is that it is not gays wanting to marry a member of the same sex that threatens the institution of marriage, it is the high divorce rate among heterosexuals. One reason this argument is so often made is that it appeals to the religious as well as the secular, to conservatives as well as liberals. This is too bad, because the argument is a meaningless non sequitur.

First, while divorce ends a given marriage, it does not threaten marriage as an institution. Of course, many marriages fail and end in divorce -- while some other marriages fail and do not end in divorce -- but why does this threaten marriage as an institution? To understand the foolishness of the argument "divorce threatens marriage," let's apply this principle to other areas of life. Let's begin with parenthood. It is undeniable that vast numbers of people fail -- and have always failed -- as parents. Yet, no one argues that the many parents who fail to raise good children threaten the institution of parenthood. Why, then, do marriages that fail threaten the institution of marriage?

Likewise, few people are calling for the redefinition of parenthood because parents so often fail to raise good children. Why, then, redefine marriage because many marriages fail? When we think of parents failing, we think of ways to improve parenting, and we discourage people from becoming parents before they are ready. Why, then, don't we do the same regarding divorce -- think of ways to improve marriages and discourage people from marrying before they are ready? Why must we radically redefine it? That redefinition is what threatens marriage.

There is a second reason the divorce-rate-threatens-marriage argument is disingenuous: If gays marry, they will divorce at least as often as heterosexuals do. That is why the divorce issue is entirely unrelated to the question of whether we should redefine marriage. The only reason the argument is even offered is because gullible people will buy it. The gullible include well-intentioned centrist Americans who think, "Hey, that's a good point. Straights sure haven't done such a great job with marriage; why not let gays have a crack at it?" And the gullible include well-intentioned religious Americans whose loathing of divorce overwhelms their critical thinking.

A third flaw in the argument is that it presupposes that every divorce constitutes a failure of a couple's marriage. Sometimes this is true; sometimes it is not. I know a couple married for 30 years who made a beautiful home for their three now-married children. The couple divorced last year because they had both concluded that they had drifted too far apart to continue living together in any meaningful way (one aspect of the drift was one partner's increasing devotion to religion and the other's decreasing interest in it). Who has the hubris to call their marriage a failure? Their children surely don't think their parents' marriage was a failure. It produced three wonderful married adults, and it provided them a beautiful and loving home in which to grow up. One can only wish all marriages so "failed."

It is simplistic to maintain that the one criterion of success or failure in marriage is permanence. There are marriages that provided years of comfort to a couple and a fine home to their children that eventually end; and there are permanent marriages that have provided neither comfort to the couple nor a loving environment for their children. If the end of something renders it a failure, every one of our lives is a failure, since they all come to an end.

Excerpt from Dennis Prager



EVANGELIZING HOMOSEXUALITY IS RIFE IN THE SCHOOLS

Is public education to be so "inclusive" that it excludes the majority? According to a new book by James Madison University education professor Dr. Ian K. Macgillivray, yeah, sure, if that's what it takes for the homosexual movement to prevail in America. Macgillivray is more than just a professor. He's an out-and-out advocate of homosexual militancy who has written many books and articles on the subject; a list is available at queertheory.com.

Revolutionaries always publish their plans in advance, and the rest of us always laugh them off. Europeans never took Hitler’s Mein Kampf seriously. America ignores the many documents in which the homosexualists outline their plans for this country and even reveal their tactics – as Macgillivray does in Sexual Orientation and School Policy. For him, the public schools are to be used "to outwit or educate the opposition" (us), and to overthrow a conservative Christian value system that he considers "outdated" and "morally invalid."

As to the tactics, it's all very simple. First you set up a program or an organization and give it a name and a mission that nobody--least of all a Christian who's already shy about being pilloried as a hatemonger--will object to. Macgillivray likes a "Safe Schools Coalition." Everybody wants safe schools. No one wants to see kids bullied or assaulted because they happen to be "gay." “By portraying homosexuality as a victim class, the activists put anyone with traditional values on the defensive,” said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture & Family Institute. “The approach is brilliant; it appeals to the best in us, the part that wants to defend the underdog. But increasingly, the ‘underdogs’ are becoming the bullies, using school programs and compliant bureaucracy.”

“We can and should teach civility without also promoting homosexuality, but parents and teachers are given a stark choice: go along with the pro-homosexual programs or be blamed for any incident involving a ‘gay’ kid.” The school will also need a "non-discrimination policy," and no one will object to non-discrimination.

Now, how do we create safe schools where there's little evidence of discrimination? Work on the hearts and minds of those who are guilty of making schools unsafe, who practice discrimination — or, rather, work on the hearts and minds of their children. Turn them against the idea of "a heterosexual cultural norm." After all, as Macgillivray says, "Modernity is against moral conservatives."

Employ "restorative justice" in the classroom. It's not just about wiping out supposed violence against homosexuals; it's about "superseding a conservative heterosexual hegemony." (Don't hold your breath waiting for actual evidence of "violence" massively directed against "gays." That's one of those things you're supposed to take on faith.) "Education" is to liberate children from the hetero cultural norm. Macgillivray admits that this is to be at the expense of the conservatives. There will be "winners and losers" in this battle, he says, and he aims to make sure his side wins. What life will be like under a homosexual cultural norm is not something I want to find out. Meanwhile, wherever they encounter opposition, the homosexualists are to play the "bigotry" card. If you oppose them, you want violent schools, you probably think "gay" teenagers are to be stoned, blah-blah.

Millions of Christian parents have removed their children from the baneful influence of the public schools. Many millions more have not. Whatever their reasons for leaving the children in these schools, there is no reason not to elect school board members who will put a stop to the Day of Silence and all the rest of it. Maybe if the schools were not so busy sexualizing children, they might find time to teach them how to read.

More here

No comments: