Home > FrieWIs > Who is obsessed with what?

Who is obsessed with what?

August 26th, 2011

Oftentimes our FrieWIs (that’s Friends With Wrong Ideas) suggest that we are obsessed with all things gay. Why don’t we work on abolishing divorce? Why don’t we care about all the other atrocities perpetrated by straight people?

In the light of that continual carping, I find it interesting to notice which posts generate the most comments and discussion over here at the Ruth blog.  In the past week or so, we have had posts on the high costs of divorce, (you see Sean, we care about this issue) on the selective reduction of even twins in IVF clinics, (done by primarily though not exclusively by straight women) on sterilization targets in India, (an atrocious invasion of people’s liberty and privacy perpetrated by the government), and on an various instances of malfeasance by the IVF industry, here and here, (an industry we dislike, no matter who is using it.)

But none of these posts generate the same discussion as my posts on symbolic issues that the Life Style Left deems important.

We think the sexual revolution is an on-going train wreck. We are ready willing and able to talk about all those issues. Will you join us? Or are you simply obsessed with yourselves?

Just asking.

Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: FrieWIs Tags:
  1. Betsy
    August 26th, 2011 at 11:27 | #1

    AMEN, Jennifer! Thank you.

  2. August 26th, 2011 at 12:04 | #2

    I find it is the homosexualists who are obsessed “with all things gay.” They are the ones who keep trying to force state sanction of homosexuality, they are the ones who are always seeking to punish those who don’t want to give homosexuality sanction, they are the ones who are force-feeding homosexuality to children in school, etc, etc, etc.

  3. Marty
    August 26th, 2011 at 13:05 | #3

    Right on Jen!

    Remember when the left was chanting “Keep your laws out of my bedroom?”

    These days the other side is screaming “Keep your bedroom out of my kids classroom!”

  4. August 26th, 2011 at 13:07 | #4

    Well said.

    I think that part of the problem is that there is more agreement (not anywhere near total agreement, but at least less disagreement) on some of these other issues. For example, I suspect that most pro-choice people are at least slightly uncomfortable with the idea of aborting one twin at random simply because the parents don’t want twins. And I think that most people agree that society would be better off with less divorce, even if we don’t all agree on how to accomplish that goal.

  5. August 26th, 2011 at 13:12 | #5

    Regarding my last comment, I didn’t mean to imply that greater agreement is a problem. :-) But I mean that that might be part of the reason for fewer comments on those posts. Or it also might be that some people only want to talk about things that affect them personally, as you implied.

  6. Rich
    August 26th, 2011 at 13:50 | #6

    Not obsessed Jennifer “with myself”. I just don’t understand how the inclusion of gays and lesbians into the fabric of marriage will do anything other than advance the status of marriage. Whether you want it to or not, the continual harping on gay marriage comes across to most people as an obsession on, perhaps, gay sex (the sexual revolution you would call it). So, yes talk about divorce, sterilization, selective reproduction in the negative if you wish, but why couple the wonderful institution of marriage equality with the negative when it is nothing of the kind? Just asking.

  7. Sean
    August 26th, 2011 at 16:30 | #7

    “we have had posts on the high costs of divorce, (you see Sean, we care about this issue”

    I have no doubt you care about the issue, but evidently not enough to advocate that divorce be illegal, and not an option for people who might wish to use it. This is a huge distinction, compared to your advocacy for ILLEGAL same-sex marriage. If you merely advocated against people getting same-sex married, but were indifferent or even supportive of its legality (The position you take, evidently, with divorce), I would spend little time at this website. There would be no need, as people I care about don’t care about whether you approve of them or their marital status. But that’s not the case, is it?!

  8. Sean
    August 26th, 2011 at 16:33 | #8

    “They are the ones who keep trying to force state sanction of homosexuality, they are the ones who are always seeking to punish those who don’t want to give homosexuality sanction, they are the ones who are force-feeding homosexuality to children in school, etc, etc, etc.”

    No, most Americans reject state disapproval of homosexuality. There’s no need for the government to have an opinion on anyone’s sexual orientation. Therefore, legalize homosexuality (done!) and legalize, therefore, homosexual relationships (getting done!).

  9. August 26th, 2011 at 16:36 | #9

    Thank you, Rich. Every time I have discussed with a friend who is thinking about marriage the reasons why, I find it important to make the person understand what marriage means and what it requires: that is a dedication and perseverance to a lifelong, monogamous commitment based on open and honest communication and selfless support and surrender to your partner.

    I am a man who will one day marry a man I love. We will be husbands. We will most likely approach the decision to marry with greater maturity and forethought than many of our straight friends who get caught up in the moment and jump into marriage because it’s both fun to have a wedding and what is expected of them.

    When I marry, marriage won’t be redefined. A thing isn’t defined by those who participate in it. Instead, I will be uniting with my future husband and celebrating that unity as one of permanence with friends and family – something that only marriage can do, as civil unions and domestic partnerships are not understood in a culture that is mostly comprised of straight men and women who consider only married couples to be permanent ones.

  10. Leo
    August 26th, 2011 at 22:50 | #10

    What RJ, Rich, and Sean want to call their intimate partner is of no concern to me. When the legal definition of marriage (which applies to all marriages) is changed, that affects all marriages. When it is changed by judicial activism against the will of the people, that undermines democracy.

    Civil unions would not have the effect of redefining marriage, and legislative action would not undermine representative democracy. If civil unions last as long as marriages, they will come to be seen by the culture as just as permanent.

    There are legal consequences to making marriage a gender irrelevant legal institution, the most obvious is that it undermines the ability of the law to provide protections for women based on their vulnerabilities with respect to men. While I don’t favor making divorce illegal, I do favor making no-fault divorce illegal for the same reason—to protect women.

    One of my main concerns has been the subversion of democracy by lawfare and judicial activism. That concern would apply to all issues, including those having nothing to do with marriage. I suspect the spread of sharia law by lawfare and sympathetic judges would not be welcomed by the gay community.

  11. Rich
    August 27th, 2011 at 06:08 | #11

    @Marty
    Well Marty, a typical use of a scare tactic that has no basis in fact. After 38 years in public education in three different school systems, I have never witnessed nor seen in print as part of a comprehensive curriculum, any lesson that invites kids into the bedroom of straights or gays. This old red herring is now seen for what it is: a shrill attempt that, by scaring parents, will undercut the steady movement for marriage equality. It is also reprehensible because it ignores (and marginalizes) the existence of millions of gay kids in the schools across the land. Harm to them is on your hands.

  12. Rich
    August 27th, 2011 at 06:22 | #12

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    It is not possible that you are a teacher or that you have spent any time in a classroom. For if you were/had, you would know that your comment: “they are the ones who are force-feeding homosexuality to children in school, etc, etc, etc.” is patently false and an old canard spouted off by mostly not bright people. Sorry, but the scare tactic won’t fly for any parents, educators, community supporters, administrators who actually are in the schools. I invite you to check with your own local schools. Ask to look at the curricular models. And, check out your state curriculum guidelines, too. I guarantee you won’t find any lesson plans designed to “force-feed” homosexuality or heterosexuality to kids. If you disavow yourself of this ridiculous notion, you will come across as more informed.

  13. Deb
    August 27th, 2011 at 07:37 | #13

    Apparently we have just obsession with self.

  14. August 27th, 2011 at 10:39 | #14

    @Rich Same-sex faux marriage will do nothing to advance marriage, and everything to destroy it.

  15. August 27th, 2011 at 10:41 | #15

    @Sean Making divorce illegal would be taking away the rights of people who need legitimate separation from a spouse to do sexual immorality or abuse or abandonment. You want to do away with divorce all together, while I think most of us would want to do away with frivolous divorce.

  16. August 27th, 2011 at 10:43 | #16

    @Sean If the government shouldn’t have an opinion on homosexuality, then they shouldn’t be making laws giving it support – THAT is an opinion saying it is okay and everyone should approve of it. MOST Americans do NOT want state sanctioning of homosexuality.

  17. Rich
    August 27th, 2011 at 14:37 | #17

    @Glenn E. Chatfield

    “Same-sex faux marriage will do nothing to advance marriage, and everything to destroy it.”
    Again, you use baseless and banal throw-off comments. Even the Ruth Institute doesn’t believe this as stated by Ruth herself in another post.

    So, follow up your accusation with reliable research, statistical measures and even raw data. You need to show a direct correlation between gay marriage and the decline (or as you say, the destruction) of straight marriage. Your gut feelings don’t count here; but if that’s what you rely on, you are discredited.

  18. Anne
    August 28th, 2011 at 07:13 | #18

    @Deb
    “Apparently we have just obsession with self.”

    Yes Deb, it’s called ‘Gay Pride’.
    The opposite of the principal foundation for Christianity and most religions, which is humility.

  19. Anne
    August 28th, 2011 at 07:38 | #19

    @Rich
    “Sorry, but the scare tactic won’t fly for any parents, educators, community supporters, administrators who actually are in the schools. I invite you to check with your own local schools. Ask to look at the curricular models. And, check out your state curriculum guidelines, too. I guarantee you won’t find any lesson plans designed to “force-feed” homosexuality or heterosexuality to kids.”

    You will find kindergarten children being given books showing children with two women and two men openly stating that they have “two moms” or “two dads” – which is a lie. The concept opposes the truth that both genders are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the natural order of procreation as well as the proper social order that each gendered parent is natural and important in the family structure. It is the beginning of indoctrination to the lie that personal sexual desire should be ordered ahead of children’s needs and right to know the true order of the universe.

    “I guarantee you won’t find any lesson plans designed to “force-feed” homosexuality or heterosexuality to kids………Harm to them is on your hands.”

    Children SHOULD be “force fed” heterosexuality. It is the natural order necessary for survival of the species. If they aren’t being taught it, (which the newer curriculums exhibit) then they are not receiving the necessary education they are entitled to. And the harm is on YOUR hands.

  20. Rich
    August 28th, 2011 at 09:09 | #20

    @Rich
    “What RJ, Rich, and Sean want to call their intimate partner is of no concern to me.”
    But is of very real concern to millions of gay people. And, as such, the definition and law are evolving. To whit:
    “Marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people who meet the legal requirements for getting married established by the state, which vary from state to state. Generally, to be married, two people must be of opposite gender. However, some states are in the process of changing the different sex requirement.” And I would add that the federal government is about to do the same thing, too.
    Therefore, “Marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people who meet the legal requirements for getting married established by the state”…..(and soon, the federal government) will define marriage. Now, how does this harm your marriage or any straight person’s marriage? Nothing was added to the definition; the definition has simply been refined to recognize the reality of who is actually married in this country (and many others around the world). The Constitution does not mention marriage. The Constitution speaks to due process and equal protection under the law. Marriage equality, as defined in the latter definition, affords gay citizens the same marriage rights that you have. Simple enough.

  21. Sean
    August 28th, 2011 at 14:11 | #21

    Glenn, not banning something is not giving it support. Banning something is definitely opposing it though. Given the two choices, what is the proper one to take? The government can either oppose or ignore gay people. I suspect even you’ll agree that outlawing something is taking a stand against it, but not outlawing something is indifference.

    The government is NOT in the business of denying rights to citizens so that other citizens can feel good about themselves or their religious beliefs. Banning same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples and their children.

    Most Americans DO NOT want the government denying rights to gay Americans. That is in accord with the Supreme Court’s view that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.

  22. Sean
    August 28th, 2011 at 14:12 | #22

    “Making divorce illegal would be taking away the rights of people who need legitimate separation from a spouse to do sexual immorality or abuse or abandonment.”

    Sure, give straight folks an out, just in case.

    Outlawing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples takes away their right to social and legal recognition of their relationships, something we don’t do to straight couples, for reasons that no one can explain.

  23. Rich
    August 28th, 2011 at 19:00 | #23

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    I beg to differ with you. Try reading Jennifer’s post re: “Anal sex is icky”.

  24. Marty
    August 29th, 2011 at 08:45 | #24

    Hey Rich, did you see recently that some nice queers were trying to get Burt & Ernie married on Sesame Street?

    With friends like these, who needs shrill scare tactics? ;)

  25. August 29th, 2011 at 13:51 | #25

    @Rich The research and stats, etc have been demonstrated on this site over and over again, let alone the fact that common sense says that same-sex unions are not comparable with opposite-sex unions by basic biology. Denying such evidence exists doesn’t make it go away.

  26. August 29th, 2011 at 13:53 | #26

    @Rich Sorry to bust your bubble, but I have seen plenty of curricula which is indeed force-feeding to students the idea the homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, and that it is intolerant and bigoted to believe otherwise. It is in schools all over country. Just pick up a newspaper once in a while!

  27. August 29th, 2011 at 13:57 | #27

    @Sean
    Denying same-sex faux marriage by the gov’t is not about making some people feel good about themselves, etc. You come up with some of the worst lines I’ve ever seen. It has been explained to you dozens of times, demonstrated to you dozens of times, that the STATE has every need to control marriage and keep it between opposite-sex couples because marriage – real marriage – is the bedrock of society. I don’t know where you find your “facts,” but survey after survey have demonstrated that MOST Americans want marriage to remain between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court may say homosexual behavior is okay, but that is not the same thing as sanctioning it with “marriage.”

  28. August 29th, 2011 at 14:01 | #28

    @Sean ME: “Making divorce illegal would be taking away the rights of people who need legitimate separation from a spouse to do sexual immorality or abuse or abandonment.”

    SEAN: “Sure, give straight folks an out, just in case. Outlawing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples takes away their right to social and legal recognition of their relationships, something we don’t do to straight couples, for reasons that no one can explain.”

    It is not about giving an “out,” it is about protecting people. I suppose you think a woman should stay with her husband if he is out screwing around every night with someone else? I suppose you think a woman should stay with her husband if he beats the hell out of her every day?

    You’re darned right that refusing marriage for same-sex unions takes away their chance (not “right”) for legal recognition and sanction. The State should NEVER sanction sexual immorality, should never sanction sexual perversion because it undermines society.

  29. August 29th, 2011 at 14:02 | #29

    @Rich “I beg to differ with you. Try reading Jennifer’s post re: “Anal sex is icky”.”

    I have no idea what you mean by this.

  30. Sean
    August 29th, 2011 at 19:00 | #30

    “When the legal definition of marriage (which applies to all marriages) is changed, that affects all marriages.”

    That may be true, but it didn’t stop previous changes to the legal definition of marriage, so why object now? Could it be that it’s not that you object to the legal definition of marriage changing, but rather that you just don’t want gay people to be allowed to call themselves married? Any chance of that?

  31. Sean
    August 29th, 2011 at 19:05 | #31

    “the STATE has every need to control marriage and keep it between opposite-sex couples because marriage – real marriage – is the bedrock of society”

    Even if that were true, how does letting same-sex couples get married change that? Marriage in general creates families, which gives people security. Why don’t gay people deserve that, as well as their children?

  32. Rich
    August 30th, 2011 at 07:45 | #32

    @Anne
    No Anne, having two moms or two dads is not a “lie” as you state. In my 37 years of teaching, I have had numerous students with either two moms or two dads as their parents.

    To “force-feed” children instruction on heterosexuality would be totally useless on heterosexual children and child-abuse on a gay child or a child with gay parents.

    Libraries are for learning but, again, I know of no school library or in-class curriculum that teaches gay or heterosexual sex, except for Sex Education classes in which any parent can opt to remove their child. I do know that literature exists, and is in schools, that explain a reality in life: There are homes with two same-sex parents where love is present, children are happy and food is on the table. My argument is with all of you who want the unknowing to believe that we, as teachers, are out to indoctrinate young heterosexual kids to somehow change their persuasion and become gay. As we all know, sexual orientation is immutable. Understanding of those who are different from us is not immutable and must be taught to children so they have a foundation of truth with with to grow. If your Church wants to teach hatred of gays to young children so be it; in schools we teach tolerance.

  33. Rich
    August 30th, 2011 at 07:52 | #33

    @Marty
    Hey Marty if that has you frozen in fear, just think what gay people would feel if Miss Piggy and Kermit got married?

  34. Rich
    August 30th, 2011 at 07:53 | #34

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    So you’ve seen the curricula in newspapers? Try going into the schools. You’ll be better informed.

  35. Anne
    August 30th, 2011 at 11:02 | #35

    @Rich
    “To “force-feed” children instruction on heterosexuality would be totally useless on heterosexual children and child-abuse on a gay child or a child with gay parents.”

    Did you really think about this before your wrote it?

    Does the term “survival of the species” mean anything to you, who have been teaching children for 37 years?

  36. August 30th, 2011 at 12:33 | #36

    @Sean There WERE NO PREVIOUS DEFINITIONS OF MARRIAGE other than the one which has been used for thousands of years. Get it through your head that legal rights within marriage, and abuses of marriage, did not change the definition of marriage as being between male and female.

  37. August 30th, 2011 at 12:35 | #37

    @Sean Homophiles do not create families – it is impossible for them to do so – biology 101. Giving same-sex unions the sanction of “marriage” undermines society as it destroys the institution.

  38. August 30th, 2011 at 12:37 | #38

    @Rich You read into what I said. I gave the newspapers as an example of where you can see reports of what goes on in school. I had two kids in the public system before pulling out to home-school so I saw first hand the curriculum and pulled the kids out where it was possible or opt out. However, it is not everywhere possible for parents to opt out, which if you were as informed as you claim, you would know.

  39. Deb
    August 30th, 2011 at 18:34 | #39

    @Rich

    Rich, are you sure your name isn’t Mark?

    (That’s an inside joke to those of us who have been around here awhile)…

    …But seriously, are you our “Mark” from some time ago??? The tone and verbiage of your posts are eerily familiar.

  40. Anne
    August 30th, 2011 at 20:11 | #40

    @Rich
    “My argument is with all of you who want the unknowing to believe that we, as teachers, are out to indoctrinate young heterosexual kids to somehow change their persuasion and become gay.”

    Who exactly are “all of you” who you are referring to? I have been posting here for several weeks now and ‘kids changing their persuasion and becoming gay’ is not what opponents of “gay marriage” have been voicing concern over. That is something that I have consistenty seen proponents accusing opponents of in what appears to be thinly veiled efforts to dilute the genuine concerns.

    Perhaps you could read what people are actually writing and listen to what they are actually saying and then when you disagree, you will be discussing the real issues and concerns, and not just your own propoganda. You might even want to stop and consider what you read and hear and perhaps you will recognize some of the truth and rational that is being presented rather than dismissing it instinctively as “fear mongering”.

  41. Heidi
    September 6th, 2011 at 07:27 | #41

    @Anne
    “@Rich
    “To ‘force-feed’ children instruction on heterosexuality would be totally useless on heterosexual children and child-abuse on a gay child or a child with gay parents.”

    “Did you really think about this before your wrote it?

    Does the term ‘survival of the species’ mean anything to you, who have been teaching children for 37 years?”

    Did YOU really think about what you said before you wrote it? Do you actually believe that teaching children about the FACT that gay couples exist and that some of them raise children will turn a child gay? Do you believe that homosexuality is contagious? If teaching children about heterosexuality (and excluding any mention of homosexuality) is vital to the survival of the species, what in the world did the species do before the institution of education? And what about gay children? You may think that they do not exist, but I can off the top of my head think of at least 5 people, including my partner, whose parents knew from the time their children were small that they were gay. In fact, my partner remained gay in spite of her parent’s attempts to alter that outcome by sending her to therapy at the tender age of 8 (they began noticing certain signs that she was not like the other girls by the age of 3). She remained gay in spite of her church’s attempts to compare her natural sexual orientation with sins like murder and adultery. As a result of the efforts of her parents and church, my partner grew up hating herself and begging God to change her to be like everyone else. When she was a child growing up in Virginia, my partner didn’t even know of a single gay person that existed. What a world of sorrow and shame could have been avoided if only she had learned the truth that gay people exist, that they form meaningful relationships and that God loves them just as much as everyone else.

Comments are closed.