Friday, June 28, 2013

Debunking Popular Notions about Homosexuality (PART 2)


Continuing on with myths concerning homosexuality:

Myth #9: The march for gay rights is no different than the black civil rights movement or the women's suffrage movement.
Reality: That logic is dishonest at worst and sketchy at best.

In his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama compared Stonewall to Selma and Seneca Falls (a town in New York state considered the starting point for the 20's women's movement) as examples of our striving for all to be equal before the law. 
There are several things wrong with that comparison.
First off, unlike being gay, you can't help it if you were born black or born a woman (Michael Jackson and transsexuals notwithstanding). Second, although the majority of blacks voted for Obama, the vast majority are against gay marriage and don't buy the "equality with civil rights" argument. Third, there was a whole legal code that prevented blacks from having full rights (better known as Jim Crow); there is no such thing concerning homosexuals.  Fourth, those other two didn't demonize their opposition; the gay movement is NOTORIOUS for demonizing their opposition.
Even the Civil Rights Act doesn't agree with this notion. In order to be a protected class under the law, the group must meet these three criteria:
(1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics. It further states that any business that engages in interstate commerce cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin. Sexual orientation does not meet any of these requirements.

Myth #10: Legalizing gay marriage will settle the issue once and for all.
Reality: Even the most optimistic estimates predict several future legal headaches.

With DOMA in essence struck down,  we now have opened Pandora's Box when it comes to legal issues concerning this. Sure, gay marriage is legal on the federal level, but the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits that could make their way back to the Supreme Court. The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them.
The problem lies in a constitutional notion called full faith and credit, meaning in some instances states must recognize the laws of other states. The problem concerning this is some states legalized gay marriage but most have not. Are we supposed to believe the gay couple would stay in the state where it is legal? What's to stop them from filing lawsuits against these bans?
Now, let's forget about the legal consequences for a moment; what about employment?
Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide. She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.
Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of work is, so there's no simple answer.

Myth #11: Gay marriage won't destroy heterosexual marriage.
Reality: Several gay figureheads now admit destroying straight marriage is the main point.  

In a speech given to the Sydney Writer’s Festival, gay activist Masha Gessen voiced her support for gay marriage but also included the following remark:
 "I also think equally it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist...Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there."

The most disturbing part? These remarks were greeted with thunderous applause from the people there.

Doug Mainwaring, another activist, spoke in front of the National Mall, and said this:
“Same sex marriage will not redefine marriage — it will un-define it, and unravel it, and in so doing will un-define children.”

Still don't believe me? The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.”

Myth #12:  Even if the gay couples later divorce, the divorce rate is no different than straight couples. 
Reality: Notice the slight of hand in the statement.

 They first claim the supposedly high divorce rate in straight couples means we should allow gays to marry then they say the gay marriage divorce rate is no different than the straight rate. 
If it isn't any different, why make a bad situation worse? Besides, if they say that about the gay divorce rate with a straight face, they're wrong. According to a joint study by Norway and Denmark, divorce rates were between 50-167% higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more subject to serious change, than unions of gay men.

Myth #13: There is no proven evidence for the effect of homosexuality on a person.
Reality: There exists death records and studies that tell a different story.

 Dr Paul Cameron, the first doctor to document the dangers of second-hand smoke, cited a study published in Oxford's International Journal of Epidemiology that found a gay man or woman married in the legal sense to their partner died at about age 60; for straight people married to their partner, they lived to about age 80. 

In his own study of 2,428 obituaries from The San Francisco Chronicle and The Boston Globe, Cameron said the median age of death for conventionally married men was 82, women 85, similar to Denmark. Of 1,400 obituaries in San Francisco’s gay press, the median age of death was 54 for gays who died without a listed partner, 51 with. For lesbians, the median age of death was 56 for those without a listed partner, but 54 with.  For transsexuals, the corresponding figures were 46 and 42.5. “Whether informal, as in San Francisco, or formal, as in Denmark, homosexual partnerships were associated with lessened lifespan,” said Cameron, “just the opposite of man-woman marriage.”


No comments:

Post a Comment