You are probably tired of antigay marriage diatribes, because they all say pretty much the same thing. And yes, this one does recover a lot of the same, tired, wackiness. But the author, one Mary Mostert (whose bio says she is a “a nationally-respected political writer” who does research for Michael Reagan’s newsletter) brings her own unique vision to the subject, and I think her column is worth a brief study.
So, just what are the social consequences of same-sex marriage?
1. We will need new dictionaries:
Every dictionary and encyclopedia in my library, and there are a number of them published from 1848 to the present, defines marriage as “the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock.” What is called “same sex marriage” or “anal sex” today is called sodomy in my dictionaries and is defined as “unnatural” sex or “anal copulation with a human or an animal.” , So just where in the world did the “right” Rep. Frank claims exist come from for two men, two women, or perhaps a man and a dog at some future time in some future court, to claim the “right” for society’s approval of their unnatural sexual behavior?
Of course, we don’t normally let dictionaries make our laws, define our social policies, and determine our Constitutional rights — but if we did, what would would that form of goverment be called? A dictionaryacracy, maybe?
And I don’t believe that the dictionary defines a homosexual as “one who engages in anal sex” — if it does, aren’t there some heterosexuals whose marriages will now have to be voided? And aren’t there gays who will wake up to find they’ve been kicked out of the brotherhood, so to speak. Oh, and how do lesbians manage it?
2. We’d have to allow polygamy, and that would cause our nation to turn into a Sultanate or wacko cult.
What WOULD be the reaction of those who support same-sex marriage should a group of Muslims with several wives or polygamists such as the David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas a decade ago, demand an equal right to marry according to their religion and their love? What WOULD the “social condition of the people” be like in a nation that adopts the notion of legalizing and socially approving of sodomy with same-sex marriage?
I’m not sure I understand that last question, but in answer to the first, I would say, “Hey, you can only have the legal benefits of marriage with one other person, but if you want to be in a ‘marriage’ with more than one consenting adult, and your religion says it’s okay, then it’s not going to cause me to lose any sleep at night.”
3. People will become gay and die young, and homosexuals will reject reject heterosexual marriages:
The “social condition of the people” among those who practice sodomy includes a shortened life-span, increased incidences of violent death and suicides and an increased rejection of normal heterosexual marriage, according to statistics gathers in countries approving of same-sex marriage. The median age at death of homosexuals who die of AIDS is 39. The median age at death of homosexual men who die of causes other than AIDS is 42.
42? I call no way!
In fact, I call no way so much that I did a quick Google check and found that this figure comes from The Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do, an old favorite of gay bashers. But I love it for it’s fresh scent and blatant dishonesty! It was written by”Dr. Paul Cameron,” who is not, despite the title of his pamphlet, a medical doctor. No, he holds a Ph.D. in psychology. And there are reports that he was expelled from the American Psychological Association due shoddy scholarship, but I don’t know if they have been verified.
My favorite bit from “Medical Consequences” is Dr. Paul’s citation of Cecil Anderson as a “scientific authority” on the unhygienic stuff (to include gerbils) that gay men put where the sun don’t shine. Of course, when you look it up, you find that what Anderson actually said was that heterosexuals also put things where they don’t belong, and the gerbil story is just an urban legend. That’s the only citation I personally checked, but just that one gives you an idea of Dr. Paul’s committment to truth and fairness.
Anyway, this is the methodology for the 1993 study cited by Dr. Paul, and which Ms. Mastert apparently used to get that “death at 42” “fact”:
Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old.
Okay, 1981-1993 was the height of the AIDS epidemic; and obviously, not every obituary is going to give AIDS as the cause of death. So, the study results seem flawed from from the start. I’m sure somebody knowledgeable in scientific methodology could find numerous other flaws, like maybe how the sample group isn’t representative of all homosexuals, but I’m going to posit that this study is not the definitive one on gay life expectancies.
One interesting point, though: the study also showed that married people lived longer than the unattached. So, if it has any validity at all (which I doubt), I think it’s saying that we should allow gays to marry, so they can live longer.
4. Smokers will claim they’re being unfairly picked on.
Frankly, it puzzles me that liberals believe the social consequences of smoking, which shortens a person’s life by about 8 years is reason enough to enact laws and levy taxes to discourage it, yet APPROVE of same-sex “marriages” or “unions” which shortens a person’s life span by over 20 to 40 years.
You know, I think Ms. Mastert has hit on something here: maybe if we tax gay marriage like we do cigarettes, the gays will stop being homosexual. I think it’s worth a try.
On deck:
Op-ad from