Much ado about …

Reading news websites, both lefty and righty, one would think the nation’s most pressing issue is gay marriage.

RainbowNews flash! Very few people are gay.*   Nobody knows with certainty, but it appears to be about 2 percent, a minuscule proportion. However, many people think the number is considerably higher.

One reason people overestimate the percentage is that gays are numerous in the arts, and that includes Hollywood and television. One can hardly pass an evening before the tube these days without seeing men in liplocks.

It’s almost always men. Lesbians are less drawn to the arts, preferring police work, anger, establishing “Women’s Studies” propaganda cells in universities and, of course, applying to the Marine Corps OTS.

That this has become such a flaming issue, pun intended, reflects the success of gay activists who, decades ago, came storming out of the closet on the political-correctness battleship, all cannons blasting.

But, aside from gays and Bible-thumpers, few people care about this.

Here’s my take: Civil unions all around. Make it legit everywhere. Let them share medical decisions, inheritances, all that legal stuff. Why not?

Marriage no, even though I am hazy on the difference between civil unions and marriage. But don’t call it marriage because it stirs up the Bible-thumpers, and they play a vital social role, inculcating moral principles.

Yes, I am aware you disagree with those principles.

Adopting children no. Here’s another reason not to use the marriage word. Children want normal families. Any research worth spit shows children do best with a female mother and a male father, the old standbys.

It’s Mother Nature’s preferred lifestyle. Yes, I know you’re familiar with gay couples with adopted children, and they are all just as happy as apple pie.

I’ll mail you those kids’ therapy bills after they turn 21.

Incidentally, if gays can marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not a man and two women? Why not a woman and her uncle? It’s a slippery slope.

And who are we to decide, to make judgments?

There are few people in the above categories, but there really aren’t all that many gays either. They are simply vocal, obfuscating their true total.

Gay marriage should be a side show under the national circus tent of problems due to their minute numbers. It’s not Page One news.

Let’s focus instead on really important issues. Iran with a nuclear weapon. Getting the capitalist economy back on track. Legalizing drugs and emptying prisons of harmless people. Cutting the horrendous government debt.

Lowering taxes. Axing most free rides. Legalizing assisted suicide. Keeping Mohammedans home on the sands of Arabia, not here. Letting 8-year-old boys look up girls’ skirts again without being arrested for sex crimes.

Firing that ding-a-ling in the Oval Office.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We are way off course.

* * * *

* For simplicity, I use “gay” to include homosexuals of both sexes.

(Note: Here’s a Wiki article that also demonstrates how few people are actually gay. Head toward the bottom where it gets detailed.)

26 thoughts on “Much ado about …

    1. Peter: I subscribe to live and let live in many things. And, yes, the issue has become beyond tiring. The reason it soldiers on is because, as I mentioned, the significant percentage of gays in media. It’s a loudspeaker for them, and it makes them appear far more numerous than they are.

      It’s a loudspeaker they use effectively.


  1. It is still politically correct to be anti-gay in Mexico, unless you live in Mexico City. I prefer not to watch TV. I get my news and entertainment online. American culture is turning into Limburger cheese.


    1. Andres: I would not phrase it that way. It’s not that it’s politically correct to be anti-gay in Mexico, it’s that Political Correctness does not exist, for the most part, here. Even in Mexico City. The exception would be the upper classes there who have been infected by the English language and American left-wing mindset. We Mexicans do not put “minorities” on a pedestal for daily worship. We are not self-loathing and anti-Mexico. We realize that a nation consists of people who share a culture, a language, a religion and, for the most part, a race. We ignore the diversity thing, and that is very good. It is why, even though I have their passport, they will never, ever consider me one of them. I understand it.


  2. In Mexico, like almost everywhere, one of the obligations of marriage is the biological aspect of procreation. Unions that cannot attempt this obligation cannot be called marriage. It must be called something else. I am all for civil unions with many of the legal benefits of marriage, but not all. Generally, the law should just leave people and their relationships alone unless there is a compelling state interest otherwise. You are right, for something that has almost no effect on 98% of the people it should not be so flaming,


    1. Carlos: This is not what I expected to hear from you, but I agree. Governments do indeed sanction and encourage matrimony for the purpose of increasing the citizenry. Government does not get involved in the institution because two people love each other and want to get naked. Government does not care about that.

      Government should leave relationships in peace unless there is a state interest involved. We are of one mind.


      1. From today’s press, I have to conclude the gay marriage issue is the latest radical-chic if not porno-chic. Its stylish, not politically correct. Give it time, it’ll pass like a bad taco.


        1. Carlos: I think it’s both modish and politically correct. The two often go hand in hand.

          Earlier, I said your first comment was not what I expected from you. I now believe you’re not the Carlos I was thinking of. No matter, all Carloses are welcome here, especially when they agree with me!


  3. I’m with you on the Legal Union/Civil Union! Everyone needs it to have the legal protection. Let churches fight over whatever word they choose for their Holy Union, and who can have it. But a Legal Union should have no interest in gender, religion, philosophy, only in legal protection.


  4. That topic has worn out my interest factor a long time ago. I automatically tune it out, just like listening to the teleprompter stuttering President.

    At this stage of my life I don’t care if all these special-interest groups marry their neighborhood chicken or goat. If it makes them shut up and go away, then I am all for it.

    Now if we could only get rid of the candy bar Catholic priests, the world may come to some semblance of normality.

    So many other issues in the world, like governments stealing money out of your bank accounts like in Europe. Wait until the notion comes to this side of the pond.


      1. Tancho: if your neighbor who marries his goat or chicken wants social security survivors’ benefits for them, I think those of us who will pay for it might have a problem. Otherwise, I hope they are in love and I wish them my best.


  5. Marriage equality is important and deserves the attention it is getting. The perspectives are all out there … I will not go into it.

    However, your comments about children of gay/lesbian families is mean spirited. There are many studies that contradict your flippant comment about therapy. The ones for foster and adopted kids that are typically not adoptable are particularly compelling.

    463,000 children live in foster care (of these over 100,000 eligible for adoption.) Over a third of these were abused and/or neglected. 65% will age out. I think there are lots of children from heterosexual beginnings that will end up “in therapy.” Perhaps you can mail their bills too.


    1. Ms. Mommy: The problem with unwanted children is huge. I grant you that. There is no easy solution. It is a grave cultural problem that grows daily with the increasing acceptance of illegitimacy. It’s one of the results of our make-no-judgments PC world. However, I still maintain that children do not want two daddies or two mommies, and when they have that, it creates problems. My studies can whip your studies!

      Fact of the matter is that one can usually find research to support just about anything. Kinda like the Bible.

      As for “marriage equality,” I still say: Lay off the marriage word. Majority rules. Give this tiny proportion of citizens their “civil unions” and let’s move on to far more important things.


    2. And since the gay population is so relatively tiny, letting them adopt children will have virtually no effect on the huge and growing problem of illegitimacy, a true and grave American problem.

      Gay marriage, gay adoptions, all of this rigamarole that actually affects so few people has grown so large on the national stage in large part due to the massive influence gays wield due to their presence in showbiz and the media. It’s their bully pulpit and they are using it very effectively.


      1. Agree with the increase in illegitimate children and the cultural problems we endure with not taking care of unwanted kids.

        Agree that you can find a study to support anything. There are lots of situations that make child rearing “ideal” but that is not realistic. For example, divorce is not “good” for children – lots of studies on that one! Not many of us qualify for the perfect parenting profile.

        One source says gay/lesbian families are caring for over 14,000 foster children so I completely disagree with the “virtually no effect” – 14,000 children saved is worth marriage equality. Yes I really believe that …


        1. Ms. Mommy: This brings to mind another thing. From things I have read over the years, social service agencies, which often are staffed with high percentages of blacks, especially in big cities, balk at placing black children with white families. They say the black kids won’t learn “their roots,” or some such silliness. Yet, if your figures here are correct, they are quite content to place them with gay couples. I imagine that 14,000 figure includes quite a few black kids because it’s the black community where illegitimacy is through the roof, something around 70 incredible percent of births these days.

          So, I conclude social services finds gay couples acceptable while white couples are not. Just part of our goofy American world today.


    3. Ms. Mommy: Your use of the phrase “marriage equality” brings this to my mind. It is the phrase favored, of course, by people who push gay marriage.

      “Equality,” an enchanting word, can also be wielded as a spiked bludgeon. It can, and often is, stuck on various issues to immediately frame those in opposition as bigots and not worthy of the time of day. It is intended as a conversation stopper, much like “racist,” that old fav of PC people.

      By the way, I do not believe you intentionally are using it that way. I think you have been seduced by the enchantment.

      Edwin Feulner will retire next week as the long-time president of the Heritage Foundation. He is a very smart man, plus ebullient and optimistic. He has cited a book titled Liberty or Equality by an Austrian writer, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, as having had a huge effect on him, on developing his conservative political views.

      It is a book I have purchased but not yet read. Liberty and Equality can be opposing matters. Totalitarianisms of both left and right have come to power on the back of the Equality idea. If you have to choose one or the other, and the Austrian argues that you do, that they are opposing notions, I vote for Liberty, as does Feulner.

      However, today’s climate insists on bowing to Equality in all things. It is a mistake.


      1. Yes, I am using the term “out there” … I think LGBT people ought to be able to have a legal, civil union that protects them and their families. I think they should raise children in all the glorious joy that parenthood brings. It is a bonus for religious institutions to accept them as well – BTW Reform Judaism does …


  6. Just for contemplation…

    As I’ve mentioned before, I am a volunteer mediator and mediate a lot of domestic disputes. In light of the current dialogue, one of those mediations seems relevant.

    Two lesbian women wanted to have a child. Not by adoption but naturally. One of them was unable to bear children. So they elected the other be the “birth mother,” using sperm from the other’s brother… thus making it “almost” genetically as it would be with a heterosexual couple. The child adapted well and referred to them as “mommy xxxx” and “mommy xxxx.”

    As with many relationships, the whole thing went South when birth mother had an affair with another lady and wanted to split up. At this point, the non-birth mother had absolutely no rights to the child. Whereupon the brother went to court for a paternity check and became the legal “father” of his sister’s child.

    That, of course, brought many legal problems. The brother now had rights to visitation, managed to get joint legal custody, and was obligated to pay child support. Birth mother wanted to leave the state but legal father said no.

    We did work it out in mediation but that’s not the point of the story. Had there been a law allowing same sex marriage (for lack of a better word), the non-birth mother would have had the same legal rights as her brother had to assert.

    That’s just an example of how convoluted this whole thing can become. I have others.

    Just FYI, the child is doing well. Just going through the same kind of separation anxiety most children of divorce experience.


  7. [Thanks Felipe. Saw this on the net, for what it may be worth.]

    (The following paper was inspired by Bill O’Reilly whose TV show favors God Dumpers and not “Bible Thumpers.” Quotes are from “Vital Quotations” by Emerson West.)


    ROBERT E. LEE: “In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.” (p. 21)
    DANIEL WEBSTER: “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper.” (p. 21)
    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: “I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.” (p. 22)
    ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.” (p. 22)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” (p. 22)
    HORACE GREELEY: “It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people.” (p. 23)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him.” (p. 45)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian.” (p. 47)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.” (p.49)
    WOODROW WILSON: “The sum of the whole matter is this—-that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.” (p. 143)
    PATRICK HENRY: “There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations.” (p. 145)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” (p. 225)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” (p. 237)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.” (p. 283)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped.” (p. 301)
    CALVIN COOLIDGE: “The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions.” (p. 305)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young.” (p. 306)

    Prior to our increasingly “Hell-Bound and Happy” era, America’s greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we’ve forgotten God’s threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22—-“Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.” Memo to God Dumpers: In light of Rev. 16:19, can you be sure you won’t be in a city that God has already reserved for destruction?


Comments are closed.