Everyone knows the tale about the emperor who was sold a bill of goods by a clever huckster because the king and his subjects wouldn’t admit that they didn’t see things the way “enlightened” folks do. At last a lad who trusted his lying eyes blurted out the truth about the king’s attire—an epiphany that gave other subjects permission to believe the obvious.
Today, political correctness forces politicians and businesses to pretend that kids raised by same-sex couples are just as well off as kids raised by married male-female couples. This proposition requires honest observers to admit that either mothers or fathers are optional and that step-parents generally do as well at child-rearing as bio-moms and dads.
In keeping with this point of secular faith, San Diego’s TV-journalists happily presented, without contradiction, a pair of females at the recent Gay Pride Parade who declared that their “marriage” would be no different from any other. This same message is encountered dozens of times every week in the mainstream media—so frequently, in fact, that it qualifies as the prime modern example of a proposition’s “truth” being established by sheer repetition.
Anyone who asks if the evidence for dismissing five thousand years of recorded history is compelling, will instantly be vilified by “human rights” advocates. No wonder the Padres go along meekly with the political left and blend Gay Pride promotions with family-centered events. After all, isn’t it clear that moms and dads don’t matter—that all kids need are two adults?
For anyone who can handle the truth, kids with step-moms and step-dads don’t do as well as kids with bio-moms and dads—a fact shown even by those manipulable “studies” that often turn common sense on its head.
Another clear fact is that kids don’t do nearly as well in single-parent homes—homes that usually have only a mom. The idea that two moms or two dads will overcome these deficiencies isn’t an argument supported by the data at hand. At least that’s the conclusion of the American College of Pediatricians.
Such studies as have been done on the topic of same-sex parents are few—and their reportage pitifully politicized, a point gingerly implied by USC sociologists Stacey and Biblarz in 2001. First the public is told that the sexuality of parents doesn’t affect kids. And when that deception is digested, we are told that it doesn’t matter if parental sexuality does affect kids.
Recently a local columnist put forward the popular dogma that sexuality is purely genetic—adjacent an observation about homosexuality’s prominence in ancient Greece. The fact that most folks don’t even notice this obvious contradiction shows how brainwashed they are—willing also to swallow the ruse that AIDS is an equal opportunity disease and not a malady transmitted overwhelmingly in the U.S. by sodomy and drug needles.
Nor will media lemmings see the Vancouver study that showed an 8- to 20-year reduction in lifespan among male homosexuals. Media indoctrination and political intimidation keep mouths closed and eyes shut.
3 comments:
i'm surprised you didn't mention the fact that while issues such as these affect about ten percent of the population, they are used to stratify and polarize almost the entire population. in contrast, issues which touch the populace at large (tax, education and health care reform) rarely receive such lively debate.
this isn't to say that we shouldn't discuss these issues or that they lack moral importance. Instead, our desire to rationalize these inflammatory viewpoints serves to distract us from addressing issues that often affect the populace at large on a daily basis. By participating in these discussions, perhaps we make headway in human rights, but more often than not we succeed in turning political discourse into irrational 'us vs them' flame wars. consequently, topics which often have universal support are obfuscated by party-line allegiances prescribed by these emotionally heated debates.
does participation in such discourse serve a positive end when a it is used to defer addressing other issues that also impact the public good? i don't know; i want to participate, but i feel my good nature is being exploited to advance an unrelated agenda.
--marcos ('01)
The issue of gay marriage was put on the table not by me but by judges who have contempt for both Western Civilization and the democratic process. That "I" am presented in your highly abstract post as the one who is stirring up hate is a rhetorical ploy regularly used by groups who want folks who disagree with them to shut up.
When one side puts forth their views, they are said by leftists and the media to be "promoting human rights." When the other side responds to those views, they are said to be "turning political discourse into irrational 'us vs them' flame wars."
By the way, your post repeats the long discredited idea, promulgated by the fraud Kinsey, that 10% of the population is homosexual. Lies seems to have a long shelf life among folks who take their political talking points from the MSM/left. About Kinsey, you should look at the work of Dr. Judith Reisman, KINSEY: CRIMES AND CONSEQUENCES. But she's obviously another person turning discourse into "us vs them" wars--as if your own post doesn't!
I am afraid you misunderstood my conjecture that issues affecting micro-minority populations are being used to adversely polarize the voting populace.
That 10% (pulled from wikipedia) appears to be a high value makes the polarization more fascinating: how do we justify the almost miniscule utility gained by such a vast campaign when issues that directly affect a larger population receive paltry discourse.
As a matter of fact, my post never contends that you are 'stirring up hate,' only that you had omitted a detail that makes the 'media spin' so interesting. Also, keep in mind that my post isn't actually arguing the topic, it's asking a question about the ethics of prioritizing colloquy that yields minimal net utility.
Bear in mind that I structure a question (to you) twice in my post: in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs. Although the gay marriage discussion is highly charged, there's no need to be so defensive unless I actually attack you.
There is value in analyzing an issue's public discourse. Take for example a 2005 comparison of media coverage devoted to celebrity news and the crisis in sudan: 130 minutes for martha stewart, 18 for darfur (Kristof, N., "All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt," 26 July 2006, NYT).
That we discuss something (even fervently) does not prove its relevance. My earlier post seeks to understand this bizarre dichotomy, not to polarize.
Post a Comment