I am so completely blown away by the events of the Miss USA pageant that it has taken me a minute to respond! Carrie Prejean; way to go! I am so proud of you! I am thrilled that there are still people willing to stand up for God publicly and lose it al…

Just a brief point I wanted to make on this latest bit of news.  I did not see the contest live, but have read of the controversy all across the internet.  Miss California, Carrie Prejean, had made it into the top-3 finalists for the Miss USA pageant…

Ryan Gandy on April 22, 2009 at 7:45 PM

As with the Democrat-Republican dynamic, the gay-straight one is confounding. Name a heterosexual whose public conduct and overt sexual decadence is manifest, and heterosexuals almost uniformly condemn that behavior. But I rarely hear condemnation of gays who engage in public decadence and freakishness from other gays. It seems that there is a circle the wagons mentality that prevents common sense from being expressed.

Hilton is just a freak and should be regarded and treated as such.

Really makes me sad to see so many within my own political party be so against gay marriage. And for some dubious reasons.

JetBoy on April 21, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Why, JB? Why do you take this position as a personal affront? A significant majority of liberals/Democrats agree, so why is this a “my own political party” issue to you?

It isn’t to me. I have friends and family who are gay, and I don’t believe “marriage” is a term that defines their relationship in any way, and I object to a change in policy toward that arrangement.

That doesn’t mean that I would in any way wish to outlaw their behavior or relationships, although I disapprove of them from a religious viewpoint. And it doesn’t mean that I care for them any less.

perez@perezhilton.com

I’m afraid gay marriage is more about gay people finding acceptance and self affirmation than about forming social institutions that are in the best possible interest of children.

frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Maybe. I’d guess the reason varies among the few million gay people in the country.

I think you raise valid points that have helped me think through the issue. I’m going to break off from this thread. I’m sure we’ll touch base on some other thread. Thanks for the insight.

Is marriage a government institution that should managed for the general welfare of the state or is it an individual right

dedalus on April 22, 2009?

I think your question summarizes the issue well. We live in a rights-obsessed society, which explains my earlier point that the modern West’s acceptance of gay marriage is an historical anomaly. The normal parental instinct is to put the welfare of the next generation, ie. their children, above their own. That idea got lost somewhere in the ME generation of the 60s and 70s. We see the fruits of this everywhere. It’s why the same society that accepts gay marriage has no problem mortaging it’s children’s and grandchildren’s future in an orgy of reckless government spending.

I’m afraid gay marriage is more about gay people finding acceptance and self affirmation than about forming social institutions that are in the best possible interest of children.

I think your question summarizes the issue well. We live in a rights-obsessed society, which explains my earlier point that the modern West’s acceptance of gay marriage is an historical anomaly. The normal parental instinct is to put the welfare of the next generation, ie. their children, above their own. That idea got lost somewhere in the ME generation of the 60s and 70s. We see the fruits of this everywhere. It’s why the same society that accepts gay marriage has no problem mortaging it’s children’s and grandchildren’s future in an orgy of reckless government spending.

I’m afraid gay marriage is more about gay people finding acceptance and self affirmation than about forming social institutions that are in the best possible interest of children.

That’s not true of gay families where a child is brought up in a family that is motherless or fatherless by design. Second, it seems to me that the primary interest of the state in marriage should be the well being of the potential children, not the sexual interests of the parents. Shouldn’t the state be encouraging the best possible arrangement for children?

frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Is marriage a government institution that should managed for the general welfare of the state or is it an individual right?

In practice, and by court decision, it is a right for straight people. I’m not entirely in favor of that, and wish that people were required to demonstrate some basic level of competency or seriousness before marrying. Having children is certainly even more consequential.

I’d content that most single parent families are the way they are not by intention but by irresponsible planning. As a result a child grows up deprived of (usually a male) role model. Undoubtedly, having two gay parents would be confusing for an adolescent, but it would be somewhat offset by the increased probability that an adult was home with a vested interest in the child’s safety and success in school.

Unfortunately, (for the kids) there is no state regulation about when someone can bring them into the world. Single moms will have kids, parents will divorce, and gay partners will avail themselves of legal technology to create children. I think the challenge of the state is how to attend to the well-being of the children within those family units.

1 Corinthians 6:9 ¶Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals],
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul is saying that Christ changes our nature when we accept Him as our Savior and Lord, and through Him we can have victory over any temptation.

Is having two moms ideal? Probably not, but having one mom is probably worse–and there is a lot, too much, of that.

dedalus on April 22, 2009

I appreciate the fact that you seem willing to concede that a mother and a father is preferable. Most gay marriage advocates have dug in their heels and will not cede an inch to any argument that does not put traditional and gay families on absolute equal footing. You seem to have a more reasonable approach to the gay marriage debate than the Perez Hiltons of the world.

In any case, I have to disagree with your logic that since a 2 parent gay family is better than a single parent family, then the state might as well approve and encourage gay families. First of all, most single parent families are not that way by design. One partner is usually lost through death or divorce. That’s not true of gay families where a child is brought up in a family that is motherless or fatherless by design. Second, it seems to me that the primary interest of the state in marriage should be the well being of the potential children, not the sexual interests of the parents. Shouldn’t the state be encouraging the best possible arrangement for children?

A mother is not the same as a father. There are differences between males and females that go beyond body parts. A mother can give something to a child that a father can not. And vice versa.

frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

I respect your overall point. I have two children who benefit from the fact that their mom and dad have very different skills and approaches. If they had two dads or two moms I think they’d be lacking an important influence.

Unfortunately, in many places two-parent families are the minority when you look at a class of grade-schoolers. Is having two moms ideal? Probably not, but having one mom is probably worse–and there is a lot, too much, of that.