In A Word: Aversion - State legislatures are rushing to redefine marriage. Why?
Gerald Eisman
May 21, 2006
Aversion: 1. A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: 2. One that is intensely disliked and avoided. 3. A feeling of extreme repugnance accompanied by avoidance or rejection.
Much has been written and said on the topic of homosexuality throughout the ages, but it has been engraved on the minds of a majority of Americans in the last several years. Many states have undertaken steps to change their constitution to exclude the privilege of marriage to any except a male and female. How sad that a few vocal zealots and bigots can influence the common sense of millions.
America, the land of the free and home of the brave, is changing. Those who would impose their wills on the majority are eroding our freedom and they continually question our courage. When one voices opposition to the government, he is branded a traitor or a coward. The adage "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" has never been truer than today.
This has never been more obvious then in the current discussions of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The tales and myths of homosexual behavior and homosexuals have always frightened individuals. The uninformed still believe it is like a disease that is communicable and anyone can catch it. The zealots point to the bible and show where it is considered an abomination, a choice that is to be shunned or punished.
Same sex marriage is being called a scourge and threat to the very foundation of the institution of marriage. Speakers rail against it and state legislatures are preparing referendums to alter the constitution in order to prevent them. How sad it is that fear and ignorance can shape attitudes. The aversion of 2000 years has yet to abate, kept alive by zealots and the uninformed.
One man in particular, a public speaker of some renown who holds several advanced degrees, uses several points to point out his aversion to homosexual marriage. (The man's name is available to all those interested in truth and facts by contacting this writer.)
He says traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare. His argument declares heterosexual marriage results in lower rates for poverty, suicide and crime while bringing about better health conditions, while encouraging an adequate replacement birth rate. Simply stated, since the beginning of time I know of no homosexual union that ever produced an offspring. The suicide rate has no bearing on the subject and health wise, exclusive of AIDS, heterosexuals are no more healthy than any other conscientious individuals.
Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. So why the furor?
Another point made by the speaker is, homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare by increasing health problems among themselves, which, in turn, shortens the median life span of others by 20 to 30 years. He also maintains their lifestyle spreads disease to innocent people and raises the cost of health insurance.
Since homosexuals stay among themselves, it is hard to conceive of how they bring disease to millions of innocent people and, it is even more inane to blame the greed of the medical profession on a portion of the population that doesn't amount to more than two to three percent of the population. (The figure of 10% is a myth disseminated by activists whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the aversion to homosexuals.)
A third point made by the speaker stated that legalization of homosexual marriage also leads to more destructive attitudes toward heterosexual unions. He went on to point to Norway as an example stating 70% of births were from out of wedlock situations.
Statistics, however tell a different tale. Prior to the country's allowing "civil marriages," in 1996, of 60,927 live births, 29,435 were from out of wedlock situations. In 2002, after homosexual unions were allowed, of 56,458 births, 28,218 were out of wedlock children. This was an increase of 1% in out of wedlock births. The rate was 49.9%, not 70% and the increase was negligible.
Making statements such as those illustrated tends to be little more than false numbers designed to frighten people in order to emphasize a false premise. The statistics used by the speaker came from The Family Research Council whose core principles are:
God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family.
Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.
Nuff Said!
When the squeaky wheels use their voices and call on faulty statistics to play on the aversions of others in order to make a point or create an atmosphere of fear, they are perpetrating fraud. Whether it is considered right or wrong morally, when even one individual's civil rights are abridged, we all suffer the loss. If there is an aversion to a person or his lifestyle, we all have the right to avoid that person. We do not have the right, morally, to reduce, abridge or remove the right to life of another person because we disagree with that lifestyle. Not in America, anyhow, unless we desire to become "just another country."
Much has been written and said on the topic of homosexuality throughout the ages, but it has been engraved on the minds of a majority of Americans in the last several years. Many states have undertaken steps to change their constitution to exclude the privilege of marriage to any except a male and female. How sad that a few vocal zealots and bigots can influence the common sense of millions.
America, the land of the free and home of the brave, is changing. Those who would impose their wills on the majority are eroding our freedom and they continually question our courage. When one voices opposition to the government, he is branded a traitor or a coward. The adage "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" has never been truer than today.
This has never been more obvious then in the current discussions of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The tales and myths of homosexual behavior and homosexuals have always frightened individuals. The uninformed still believe it is like a disease that is communicable and anyone can catch it. The zealots point to the bible and show where it is considered an abomination, a choice that is to be shunned or punished.
Same sex marriage is being called a scourge and threat to the very foundation of the institution of marriage. Speakers rail against it and state legislatures are preparing referendums to alter the constitution in order to prevent them. How sad it is that fear and ignorance can shape attitudes. The aversion of 2000 years has yet to abate, kept alive by zealots and the uninformed.
One man in particular, a public speaker of some renown who holds several advanced degrees, uses several points to point out his aversion to homosexual marriage. (The man's name is available to all those interested in truth and facts by contacting this writer.)
He says traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare. His argument declares heterosexual marriage results in lower rates for poverty, suicide and crime while bringing about better health conditions, while encouraging an adequate replacement birth rate. Simply stated, since the beginning of time I know of no homosexual union that ever produced an offspring. The suicide rate has no bearing on the subject and health wise, exclusive of AIDS, heterosexuals are no more healthy than any other conscientious individuals.
Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. So why the furor?
Another point made by the speaker is, homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare by increasing health problems among themselves, which, in turn, shortens the median life span of others by 20 to 30 years. He also maintains their lifestyle spreads disease to innocent people and raises the cost of health insurance.
Since homosexuals stay among themselves, it is hard to conceive of how they bring disease to millions of innocent people and, it is even more inane to blame the greed of the medical profession on a portion of the population that doesn't amount to more than two to three percent of the population. (The figure of 10% is a myth disseminated by activists whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the aversion to homosexuals.)
A third point made by the speaker stated that legalization of homosexual marriage also leads to more destructive attitudes toward heterosexual unions. He went on to point to Norway as an example stating 70% of births were from out of wedlock situations.
Statistics, however tell a different tale. Prior to the country's allowing "civil marriages," in 1996, of 60,927 live births, 29,435 were from out of wedlock situations. In 2002, after homosexual unions were allowed, of 56,458 births, 28,218 were out of wedlock children. This was an increase of 1% in out of wedlock births. The rate was 49.9%, not 70% and the increase was negligible.
Making statements such as those illustrated tends to be little more than false numbers designed to frighten people in order to emphasize a false premise. The statistics used by the speaker came from The Family Research Council whose core principles are:
God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family.
Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.
Nuff Said!
When the squeaky wheels use their voices and call on faulty statistics to play on the aversions of others in order to make a point or create an atmosphere of fear, they are perpetrating fraud. Whether it is considered right or wrong morally, when even one individual's civil rights are abridged, we all suffer the loss. If there is an aversion to a person or his lifestyle, we all have the right to avoid that person. We do not have the right, morally, to reduce, abridge or remove the right to life of another person because we disagree with that lifestyle. Not in America, anyhow, unless we desire to become "just another country."
Print
Email
