Posted by Tony Listi on November 21, 2011
I’m getting really tired of seeing debates over same-sex “marriage” (SSM) that ignore, dismiss, or downplay children and their rights and that talk about marriage as if it were primarily an adult-centered civil institution. It is so sad that leftists, most libertarians, and many so-called “conservatives” treat children this way. The real debate over marriage as a public, civil institution should not be about adults but about children and children’s rights.
The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other for the sake of their children and their children’s rights. Marriage as a civil institution is about children; the law should recognize it as children-centered institution. Children and their rights are the reason why marriage is a public, civil institution (not merely a religious institution) and why it should have special legal status.
While not every marriage can or does bear fruit in the procreation of children, every child has a mother and father, and the well being of that child depends significantly upon the relationship between his or her mother and father, which marriage, as a civil and social institution, is designed to strengthen and stabilize.
The law should recognize these basic facts of biology, social science, and human nature and should protect the child’s rights by protecting marriage. Legal protection of marriage is necessary because children are unable to defend and protect their own rights, and the violation of those rights and consequent harm and damage done is extremely difficult to remedy satisfactorily after the fact.
SSM tries to change marriage from a children-centered civil institution to an adult-centered civil institution, necessarily perverting and destroying the essential public purpose of marriage and harming children, who depend upon marriage for their well being.
Many people often say that same-sex “marriage” (SSM) does “no harm to anyone.” While it might have little to no direct and immediate effect on adults and current marriages, SSM would certainly, directly, and immediately harm future children by:
- Undermining, if not removing entirely, the children-centered nature of civil marriage, which children depend upon for their well being,
- Turn children into commodities to be manufactured and possessed that unrelated adults have a “right” to have, separating children from at least one parent as a matter of routine procedure,
- Empowering the state to routinely and arbitrarily assign parentage and custody of children without any regard for biology or genetics.
Marriage should not be about self-centered adults who want recognition and approval from the State for their private relationships which serve no public purpose. As a civil institution, marriage is not about the “happiness” or “rights” of adults but the happiness and rights of children.
SSM strips away the essential public purpose of marriage (children and their rights) and leaves only the inessential private purposes of marriage. Under the new definition(s) of “marriage,” a whole host of private relationships having nothing to do with the procreation and proper raising of children could be considered a “marriage.” By the time the logic of these new definitions reaches its full implications, there will be nothing left of marriage except an absurd and dangerous government registry of roomates and friendships.
A relationship based on homosexual affection or behavior is no more deserving of legal recognition and approval than a relationship based on the activities of living together, golf, chess, dancing, or studying. Homosexual behavior, living together, golfing, playing chess, dancing, and studying are all private behaviors that serve no essential public purpose. If these individuals want to formalize their private relationship and create reciprocal rights and responsibilities amongst themselves, they are free to do that under the law using contracts. But of course, no private individual or corporation outside of that contractual relationship should be forced by government to recognize that contractual relationship and to perform some specific action because of the existence of that contractual relationship.
But marriage, a relationship based on procreating children and securing their positive rights, deserves special legal status that transcends contract law because it serves the very essential public purpose of procreating children and securing their positive rights. Marriage is more than a contract because it intends to create and care for an entirely new human being, an entirely new third party to the “contract” who has special positive rights that depend upon the marriage relationship itself to be secured.
Perhaps some people will argue that SSM and the creation and proper raising of children can go together…. But SSM inherently promotes and encourages the outrageous, immoral, and harmful notion that children are commodities or things which adults have a “right” to have, regardless of whether they are the biological parents of the children or not. On the contrary, children should be loved into existence and are persons with a positive right to a relationship with both biological parents, to know and be known by both biological parents.
Creating a child with the intention of preventing the child from having a relationship with one or both of his or her biological parents is cruel and unjust to the child. Artificial reproduction technology merely makes this injustice and cruelty more possible and likely than before. SSM thus tries to change marriage into an institution that separates children from at least one of their parents as a matter of routine procedure.
Most dangerously, SSM would lead to changes in parentage laws entailing the empowering of the State to assign the parentage of children to adults based on inherently arbitrary criteria rather than on biology. Currently, unless scientific testing shows otherwise, family law assumes that the father of a child is the husband of the mother of the child (i.e. presumption of paternity
), if the mother is married. But by changing the legal definition of marriage from one man and one woman, the State is empowered to ignore human nature and biology and arbitarily assign children to the custody certain adults.
Such changes create legal precedent for the State having complete and arbitrary control over children and to whom they belong. If you think this sounds far-fetched, it has already happened in Washington State
This blog post draws heavily from the Ruth Institute’s pamphlet “77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage.” Click here to get your copy!
Posted in American Culture, Government and Politics, Marriage, Moral Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Science and Politics, Written by Me | Tagged: bigot, Child, children, civil, definition, equal, equality, father, gay, government, harm, homophobe, homophobic, homosexual, injustice, institution, justice, law, legal, lesbian, marriage, moral, morality, mother, public, relationship, religion, Right, rights, same-sex, state, unjust | 4 Comments »
Posted by Tony Listi on April 27, 2008
Hypothetically, let’s suppose that homosexuality is completely and ineradicably genetic. Let’s suppose that people actually are born gay. The breakdown of the traditional family and our hyper-sexualized society have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Then I have a question: how can homosexuals possibly take pride in their homosexuality?
Typically, we take pride in the things that we personally choose and accomplish. Can one conceive of pride in any other way? We can have pride when we set goals, choose to pursue them, put our best efforts into them, and then, hopefully, succeed. We can have pride in a culture that we choose to identify ourselves with because of the values and beliefs that it upholds. But homosexuality supposedly has nothing to do with this. We are constantly told that homosexuality is not a choice. But no choice means no pride. How can one take pride in one’s genetic makeup? How can one take pride in something that one has/had no control over whatsoever?
Regardless of whether homosexuality is good or bad, if it is genetic, then not only can one not take pride in it, but one should not take pride in it. This is because there is something extremely perverse and dishonest in taking pride in something that one played no role in. Blacks have no reason to take pride in the genes that make them black. Hispanics have no reason to take pride in the genes that make them hispanic. Women have no reason to take pride in the XX chromosomes that make them women. The Nazis had no reason to take pride in the genes that supposedly made them Aryan.
But somehow this conflict between pride and genetics within the so-called “gay rights” movement has been ignored or overlooked.
If homosexuals want to reasonably take pride in their homosexuality, then, at the very least, they should back down from their claims that they were born gay. They need to revert to their previous position that homosexuality really is a choice to have sexual relations with people of the same sex. Like other minorities have done, they need to claim (however absurdly) that homosexuality is a culture, a lifestyle. Otherwise, those gay pride parades can be nothing other than silly, ridiculous nonsense.
Posted in American Culture, Feminism, Government and Politics, Homosexuality, Race, Racism, and Affirmative Action, Science and Politics, Written by Me | Tagged: born gay, choice, culture, freedom, gay, gay culture, gay pride, gay pride parade, gay rights, genes, genetic, genetics, homosexual, homosexuality, hyper-sexualized, lesbian, marriage, over-sexualized, pride, pride in your gay genes, Sex, sexuality, traditional family | 4 Comments »
Posted by Tony Listi on January 6, 2008
By Ryan Sorba
Is Change Possible?
“It’s been a few years since I first heard the word hasbian used to describe a lesbian who had gone back to men.”
(Pro-Sodomy activist, Lyndsy Gelder, Off Our Backs, Dec. 1996 pg. 13)
Pop star Sinead O’Connor shocked the world in June of 2000 when she said, “I’m a lesbian… although I have not been very open about that, and through out most of my life I‘ve gone out with blokes (men) because I haven’t been terribly comfortable about being a lesbian. But I actually am a lesbian.”
Then, O’Conner counter-shocked the pro-sodomy world that had applauded her “coming out” when she withdrew from participating in a “lesbian” music festival because of her marriage to British Press Association reporter, Nick Sommerlad…a man! Sinead O’Connor seems to have genuinely changed her so-called “sexual-orientation” twice, in less than two years.
Similarly, an article appearing in The Advocate, about the now separated couple Ellen Degeneres and Anne Heche states, “Although the couple has never publicly discussed the reason for their break up, it has been heavily rumored that Heche decided to go back to heterosexuality.”
The rumors turned out to be true. Heche married a man on September 1st 2001. The Advocate tells of Heche shocking Oprah Winfrey by proclaiming, “I was not gay before I met her…” (Ellen). This phenomenon causes the writer of the article to ask, “With straights falling for gays, lesbians dating men, and gay men falling in love with women, isn’t anybody anything anymore?” The writer refers to Heche’s feelings as, “fluid sexuality…changing sexuality…the sexuality that causes all sorts of problems in a gay movement in which some spokespeople for years have been insisting that, ‘We’re born this way, we can’t change.'”
These women are not the only ones to change the supposedly “unchangeable.” Bruce Bawer, most famous for his book A Place at the Table admitted to changing his “sexual-orientation” when he told a New York Native reporter that he was “left cold by Bob and Rod, but hot for Catherine Deneuve.”
In his book Breaking the Surface, former Olympic diving champion Greg Louganis, states: “what made things more confusing was that I found girls attractive, I thought that if you were gay girls were supposed to repulse you, but that wasn’t the case, I was sexually involved with one girl from a very early age.”
But falling for a member of the opposite sex can be seen as treason within the pro-sodomy movement, as it was for pro-sodomy author Jan Clausen. When she fell for a man she paid for it. “After 12 years in a lesbian marriage, Jan Clausen fell in love with a man. Since her identities as writer and lesbian were intertwined, all hell broke loose. Clausen’s books are yanked off college reading lists. She loses friends, community, and status. One feels sympathy for a good writer ostracized from the culture she helped create. Leaving a lesbian for a man she muses ‘is still the equivalent of a mortal sin.'”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in American Culture, Homosexuality | Tagged: change sexual identity, change sexual orientation, gay, gay men sleeping with lesbian women, lesbian | 22 Comments »