This cannot be repeated enough. Like the economic wisdom in the previous post about regulations, the following is a truth that the social conservatives seem painfully immune to:
Here is the second unpleasant truth: homosexuals did not destroy marriage, heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of the deterioration of marriage. By far the most direct threat to the family is heterosexual divorce. “Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage,” wrgeites family scholar Bryce Christensen. “It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it.”
Thank goodness at least there are a few pundits out there with the courage to say this.
Here is a sad juxtaposition….today on World Net Daily, Joseph Farah has a screed against gay marriage, and suggests that it will lead to the ultimate collapse of our society. He lists a handful of other harbingers of our demise as well, and nowhere on the list did he see fit to mention DIVORCE.
Fish, you…ARE …wet! YOU LIVE IN WATER YOU IDIOT!
Then as I read down the opinion page I find Farah has linked to yet another outstanding article by Stephen Baskerville (which is actually a reprint of a 2010 article) on this subject; and article which illustrates the absurdity of the present Chick Fil A initiated culture war that has all the self proclaimed courageous pundits breathless. Baskerville, as usual, paints by numbers. The picture is precise.
The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage
Daily we read about the epidemic of fatherless children. Around Father’s day we get fed a steady diet of ever more histrionic calls for men to step up. That is funny, because it is just like the so called courageous pundits to pick the easy target.
Maggie Gallagher attributes this silence to “political cowardice”: “Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue,” she wrote in 1996. “The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.”
Picking on dads, just as the focus on gays, is a politically safe target. You know what’s really really sad? The support of gay marriage is more easily sold than the support of fathers. In fact, I submit that many of the politicians currently weighing in against gay marriage are watching the poll trends in case they need a mea maxima culpa in the future.
When the issue is divorce, and specifically fathers, there is simply zero risk they will find themselves on the wrong side of that issue as they persist opposition to gay marriage to buttress their family value CV while avoiding the maelstrom that would come from women in EVERY quarter if they spoke out against divorce.
The father is the weakest link in the family bond, and without the institution of marriage he is easily discarded.
This matter of fathers jettisoned from homes is ostensibly what motivates some in this corner of the manosphere. While we do pursue all sorts of interesting tangents and posit theory after theory, lets not forget right now, while the so called culture war is laser focused on gay marriage, that amongst our own peers, the church, gay marriage is going to affect less than 1% of them, where divorce has a good chance on landing in our vary own lap.
Read Baskerville’s piece here:
Go to his website and read everything there, including reading his book “Taken into Custody”
** The title is a quote lifted from the article parsed in this post, please read it in context there