Sunday, December 16, 2007

Still More Downsides

Another downside is the impact on the language. Now that it's Christmas time, how many people, for even a split second, experience a mental double take singing, "Don we now our gay apparel."? Fairies are mythical creatures of magic, faggots are bundles of sticks and for a time actually meant a derogatory term of a woman or a child. For these and other words, homosexual connotations have come about only recently. I remember an episode of "WKRP" wherein newsman Les Nesman was out on the ledge about to jump because someone referred to him as a queer fellow and others heard it and thought he was a homosexual. Now, I refuse to use those terms except in their original meaning (unless I'm feeling surly, but even then, I'm far more likely to use a more generic term like, "rat bastard!"). I use only "homosexual" and its abbreviation, "homo", which has garnered me heat. Apparently, calling them what they are is akin to the dreaded "hate speech". So this downside is the redefinition of words for the benefit of 2% of the population, including, if they have their way, "marriage".

And this is yet another downside. Marriage. Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage are now accused of feeling that our personal marriages are at risk. This one is stupid. It's the institution, not a specific marriage that is at risk. And in the Netherlands, where such marriages are legal, out of wedlock births are around 60%, as people no longer place the same importance on the instutution now that it has been granted to homosexuals. Whether or not that's the actual reason is something I'm not prepared to say. Let us just say that it has gotten that bad since the change has taken place.

And here's a downside that is sure to raise a few hackles, whatever that is: Law enforcement agencies claim that on average, murders committed by homosexuals are more brutal. Another source says spousal abuse is far more rampant, with, strangely, lesbians being the worst for knocking each other about.

Well, that's enough. There is more, but I'm done. Needless to say, these stats aren't offered to imply that every person of the persuasion is hellspawned vermin to be shunned and cast out into the wastelands. I've known a few homosexuals in my 52 years and liked them personally. I've also known a few drug dealers in that time and got on famously with them as well. It doesn't mean I agreed with their lifestyles. But all I've put down can be checked at the sources mentioned in the first post and from there one can decide for one's self whether to believe it or to offer proof that any of it is blatantly false.

As to that, I insist that for anyone who wishes to decry my sources as biased, you'll get no argument from me. You'll still have to prove they lie. Bias doesn't mean dishonesty or underhandedness. And for many, if not most, especially among people of faith, opposition to homosexuality isn't intolerance (except for the bad behavior in which they engage), but concern for our society and the homosexuals themselves. And that IS the truth.

4 comments:

Les said...

I'll start with this post and gradually work my way down.

"Another downside is the impact on the language."

Poor you. You're approaching this from the perspective that the impact you mentioned has a sinister, disgusting, or evil theme to it. That's only because you've got a personal aversion to homosexuality and anything to do with it. There are tons of words whose meanings evolve with the passage of time. When I say "web", am I talking about a spider's creation or a worldwide computer network? When I say "cell", am I talking about a microscopic biological entity or a telephone? When I say "hip", am I referring to my waist area or am I simply saying I think something's trendy? When I say "nirvana", am I talking about a state of bliss or Kurt Cobain's crew? My point is that you're focusing on and turned off by the aforementioned impact only because of your personal hang-ups regarding gays.

"...newsman Les Nesman was out on the ledge about to jump because someone referred to him as a queer fellow and others heard it and thought he was a homosexual."

Wow. Dude was gonna jump merely because someone thought he was gay? I'm certainly happy I wasn't in the prime of my life during the 70's and 80's! Seriously - lighten up, Nesman!

"Those of us who oppose homosexual marriage are now accused of feeling that our personal marriages are at risk. This one is stupid. It's the institution, not a specific marriage that is at risk."

You know what else is stupid? Missing the connection. If, in your opinion and by your own words, the institution of marriage itself is at risk, then wouldn't that mean your personal marriage is at risk? Is your marriage somehow different, unique, or excluded from all the other marriages that said institution covers? I, of course, do NOT believe the institution of marriage is at risk, therefore I do NOT believe your personal marriage is at risk either. Duh.

"Whether or not that's the actual reason is something I'm not prepared to say."

Well, you just did.

"Let us just say that it has gotten that bad..."

Here's the irony I see in your argument. You've inferred on several occasions that our sexual downward spiral as a society finds its roots in the free love 60's era. You constantly complain about out-of-wedlock children and unwed sexual activity. Why, then, wouldn't you support the notion of gay people wanting to bind themselves together in marriage? Gay people are still going to be gay whether gay marriage exists or not, so why not encourage monogamy? Wouldn't that be closer to your ideal than the alternative?

More to come...

Marshall Art said...

"I'll start with this post and gradually work my way down."

First mistake. You started with the least meaningful arguments (though they are meaningful). The second mistake is in believing that your examples are the same fruit. (There's another one. "Fruit") It's apples and oranges. Though some of the definition changes came about in the natural way, that is, as many usages usually do, the words to which I refer have been, like the lifestyle, forced upon us.

In truth, the word "gay" is the main travesty. However it came to be known as another word for homosexual, they've co-opted it and wear it proudly and now we're forced to qualify our speech when using the word by its real definition. Keep in mind we're talking about a small percentage of the population dictating to the majority. Not what the founders had in mind. Language is just another example of it and is why I've added it to the list. As a downside, I doubt too many enjoy having to avoid usage of these words for the connotations they now bring. It's minor, but another downside.

You say "hang-ups" as if it was a bad thing. I have hang-ups about a lot of things that are harmful, wicked, negative or just a pain in the ass. More alarming is that you don't have the same "hang-up" as regards the attack on our culture by the activists. It seems you've bought into their insistance that there IS no downside to accepting their demands. That's both shortsighted and untrue.

"Seriously - lighten up, Nesman!"

Perhaps you're much younger than I believed. Les Nesman is a fictional character of a situation comedy. But by the way, do you believe that such notions about you would simply roll off your back? If a rumor started that you are a homosexual, and people didn't buy your denials, could you withstand that without any frustrations?

"If, in your opinion and by your own words, the institution of marriage itself is at risk, then wouldn't that mean your personal marriage is at risk?"

Not at all or in the least. My marriage is the relationship I have between myself and my wife. Of all that could put a strain on our relationship, this counts as nothing. How could it? It impacts our personal relationship not at all. When siblings and polygamists gain the same acceptance, and they will should we allow it for homosexuals, that won't impact my marriage at all.

But the institution of marriage will indeed change because the definition of the word will now mean any arrangement of entities that you want. At present, except for a couple of deranged states and some European assholes, marriage means the union of one man and one woman, despite what you tell yourself. Thus, when you add to it all these other arrangements, it diminishes the uniqueness and indeed, the value of the institution. Think of the argument against women in combat. If the technology is eliminated from battle, and only hand to hand is left, your army has been diminished by allowing the weaker sex to attempt to defend. To be the best army, the toughest and strongest add to the quality of the fighting force, and weaker detract. So by granting license to any arrangement of parties reduces the "specialness" of the institution of marriage in the same way. (Please. No comments about women in the military. I could have easily used everyone who has washed out of boot camp, but it seemed harder to work.)

So anyway, "DUH" back at ya.

"Why, then, wouldn't you support the notion of gay people wanting to bind themselves together in marriage?"

Because as the researcher I had in mind suggested, and by the stat to which I referred, the legalization coincided with the increase in out of wedlock births. As I said, the law change may or may not be the reason, but the point was that since it went into effect, the OOW births shot up within a very short period of time. The implication is that for the people of the Netherlands, from their perspective, getting married doesn't have the same meaning now that homosexuals can do it, so why bother? Again, whether that's the case or not I can't say for certain, but the increase in OOW births shot up from that point. I simply allowed for coincidence in the spirit of objectivity.

"Gay people are still going to be gay whether gay marriage exists or not, so why not encourage monogamy?"

I'd rather encourage they seek professional help, if the professionals didn't abandon them. But monogamy, should they lack the spine for chastity, isn't much of a step up in my mind. Yet, it's preferable to the lack of it that seems to be the rule rather than the exception, according to the sources I've provided. Hey, Goldie and Kurt seem to be able to do it, but I'd prefer and feel it would be better for them to marry. But then, they're of the opposite sex.

"Wouldn't that be closer to your ideal than the alternative?"

No.

Les said...

"Perhaps you're much younger than I believed. Les Nesman is a fictional character of a situation comedy."

First, I'm 33. Second, my name is Les. Do you really think I've never heard of Les Nesman? C'mon.

And no - I'd never contemplate SUICIDE if there was a rumor floating around that I was gay. Sheesh.

"It impacts our personal relationship not at all."

Agreed. So what's the problem? Ah, that's right - your concern is with the "institution of marriage", not your "personal relationship". Think about the contradiction in your argument then, Art. If the institution of marriage included gays, and you don't think your own marriage would be affected in the least bit by that fact, then I ask again - what's the problem? Maybe this explains it:

"So by granting license to any arrangement of parties reduces the 'specialness' of the institution of marriage in the same way."

As opposed to this statement:

"Not at all or in the least. My marriage is the relationship I have between myself and my wife. Of all that could put a strain on our relationship, this counts as nothing."

So which is it? Doesn't your personal marriage fall within the scope of the "institution of marriage"? Either the tweaking of the institution of marriage has an affect on your own personal marriage or it doesn't, no? By your words, gay marriage either "counts as nothing" or reduces its "specialness". Which story are you going with here?

Marshall Art said...

"First, I'm 33."

My, you ARE a young man! Your comments made me think you missed the part about an "episode of WKRP". Had to comfirm.

"And no - I'd never contemplate SUICIDE..."

Wasn't suggesting that. Only suggesting that you wouldn't care to be thought of as a homosexual.

"your concern is with the "institution of marriage", not your "personal relationship"."

Exactly. What aren't you getting here? My marriage and the institution of marriage are two distinctly different things. They are unrelated to each other. Currently, the institution of marriage means what traditional marriage is, the union of one man and one woman. Any legalized/state sanctioned/licensed marriage between two of the same sex is a distortion and perversion of what the institution is. Thus, it has impacted the institution, and BTW, done so without any harm whatsoever to my relationship with my wife. The harm is done to our culture by so distorting what it means to be married in this country. By redefining the institution, as they have the words mentioned in the post, the impact is indeed sinister, disgusting AND evil by virtue of its forcing inherently abnormal, perverse and deviant lifestyle into acceptance. I won't have to accept it personally, as no one can make me, but I will have to accept it publicly and legally. That's pretty significant and a tangible downside.

"Which story are you going with here?"

I haven't contradicted myself because my relationship, my vows, my promise before God to my wife, all stand no matter what. Our marriage is the legal recognition of our union, a recognition that it is an example of what is the bedrock of our society because of the union it is, the natural and intended coupling of the two sexes. We can go forth and multiplty in a manner intended by God and nature, beneficial to an ordered society and thus honored, preferred and promoted by the state through licensing. No other arrangement of men, women or animals covers all those bases.