creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
25 Nov 2014
We Have a Moral Divide, Not a Racial One

As we await protests and riots scheduled for Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere if a grand jury in Missouri … Read More.

18 Nov 2014
Poverty Causes Crime?

One of the first clues that this Columbia-educated, liberal, Democrat, New York Jew had that there was … Read More.

11 Nov 2014
When Republicans Win, Politics Are 'Dysfunctional'

Since the Bolsheviks inaugurated the first edition of their party newspaper Pravda (the Russian word for truth),… Read More.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Insignificance of Men and Women

Comment

The left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history — the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate — even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and "feel" is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.

But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. And it is more than that. It is the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column — the "T" has been added to "GLB:" "Transgendered" has been added to "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual." "T" does not represent transsexuals — people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people. "Transgendered" refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women's clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left's primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn't matter.

That is why Judge Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women.

They reject that.

Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that "proved" that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.

These newer "studies" of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies — studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers' own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is — only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept "studies" in place of common sense.

Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

One has to assume that most people — including supporters of same-sex marriage — would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The left's trinity — compassion, fairness and equality — is one reason. And "studies" and "facts" are another.

That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets, and girls would be happy with trucks — compassion, fairness, equality and "studies." That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state's constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.

And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
I do absolutely believe that a mother and a father have something unique to give to their children Dennis - unconditional love and good values. Unconditional love needs no clarification, most of us have read about it in the Bible, this type of love also applies to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, right? Oh and also Islamic and Mexican people, right? Well, at least the part of the Bible I read says - love your brother and sister unconditionally. That part is relatively easy, but what are good values? This article speaks about marriage being the 'building block of society'. If that is indeed the case, and our society's morals and economic system and our environment are all either being ruined or not functioning well, as is certainly the case, then what can we deduce from thousands of years of marriage and human progress? Things are not going well, really not going well. Perhaps it is time to re-examine these 'building blocks of society', maybe it is good to build our society and our fundamental values in a different way, a way that includes all people and viewpoints, a way that is actually based on unconditional love, instead of some empty worn out hypocrisies that are no longer working.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bill
Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:02 PM
I do absolutely believe that a mother and a father have something unique to give to their children Dennis - unconditional love and good values. Unconditional love needs no clarification, most of us have read about it in the Bible, this type of love also applies to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, right? Oh and also Islamic and Mexican people, right? Well, at least the part of the Bible I read says - love your brother and sister unconditionally. That part is relatively easy, but what are good values? This article speaks about marriage being the 'building block of society'. If that is indeed the case, and our society's morals and economic system and our environment are all either being ruined or not functioning well, as is certainly the case, then what can we deduce from thousands of years of marriage and human progress? Things are not going well, really not going well. Perhaps it is time to re-examine these 'building blocks of society', maybe it is good to build our society and our fundamental values in a different way, a way that includes all people and viewpoints, a way that is actually based on unconditional love, instead of some empty worn out hypocrisies that are no longer working.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Bill
Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:02 PM
Each parent, regardless of gender, has something significant to offer their child - family history, values, love, advice, etc. Those qualities are dependent on individual personalities and beliefs, thought - not the genitals of the parent. Same sex marriage does not make gender cease to be important - it merely recognizes that gender is but a single facet in our identities as human beings.
And yes, marriage will change. Perhaps when I get married someday, I won't find myself doing more things around the house than my husband simply because I'm a woman. If I make more money than my future husband, maybe he won't find it insulting, but just nice to know that we're financially stable. And if our kids want to play with tea sets or trucks, we'll provide them with both. (Growing up I played trucks with my little brother, and he in turn played with my tea set with me. And yet neither of us is transgendered or gay. *Gasp*) Maybe we'll be able to nurture our children as individuals, rather than force them to conform to the roles too many in today's world would still force upon them based solely on their gender - not who they are.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Lisette
Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:43 AM
How can you call traditional marriages between a man and woman "building blocks" when 50% of them will crumble and fail. Human qualities that nurture, protect, support and love have no gender. I am a 76-year-old grandmother and have seen more than you have. Even when I was a child in the 30's and 40's, a lot of "marriages' were shams and a woman's gender was not glorified. Who said a woman has to have a 'Man" to a be a "Woman." Also, I have been married to the same man for 56 years, have three children and five grandchildren. My granddaughter is Gay.....and the most feminine. She is a wonderful daughter, granddaughter, sister, friend and will be a wonderful partner and mother. What makes you think you know anything about women.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Betty
Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:28 AM
Holy cow what century is this guy from? The notion that girls might want to play with trucks is surely wrong? College is brainwashing our kids to believe studies over baseless rambling? Sorry, he said "common sense", whatever the official definition is (most often, its what YOU think everyone else should just know, whether based on fact or nothing at all). His basic argument against these studies is that he doesn't like what they're saying, so they must be invalid. I don't think he knows what "scientific" even means.

Also, why would the abolishment of gender be such a bad thing? Sounds like his argument is that men and women need to be separate, yet he doesn't even mention equal? This guy would be behind the times in the 1950's, much less today. In a day and age where we're supposed to be judging people based on their capabilities, this guy can't even determine which toy you should play with until he knows if you have a penis or a vagina. Of course, his argument on gender confusion doesn't even make sense. He starts talking about how gays are confusing gender, and uses the example of how the T in GLBT stands for transgender. Well, guess what, G and L stand for gay and lesbian, so maybe what Mr. Prager REALLY opposes isn't gay and lesbian marriage, but transgender marriage.

I agree that mothers and fathers (collectively "parents") are important to a child's upbringing, but with so many single-parent households, due to todays 50%+ divorce rate, I would think two mothers or two fathers would be better than a single parent of either gender. Of course, in this instance, opponents of gay marriage might show studies involving the divorce rate of married gays, and I suspect Mr. Prager would have no problem accepting the results of those studies, should they be to his liking.

Marriage as the building block of our society? That might have been the case, only because women couldn't even own property till the mid-1800's and couldn't vote until 1920. Until those times, women weren't technically part of society, they were servants to their husband, cooking and cleaning and giving birth. Marriage was the only way women could "participate" in society. Now days, women don't need their husbands, they have legal identities of their own.

In this day and age, marriage only provides legal protection of assets and control of estates. Marriage means when you die, your spouse gets all your stuff. Marriage means that if you're sick, your spouse can make medical decisions in your stead if you are incapacitated. Marriage means that your spouse can obtain medical coverage through your medical insurance provider. I don't see any other point to marriage on a legal level, and I also don't see how gender plays a role in any of the above scenarios. Even single men can sue for parental rights, no need for marriage there.

For anyone who sees a spiritual or emotional purpose to marriage, thats fine (I'm married myself), but that's a modern phenomenon only. Not too long ago, marriages were mostly arranged by the parents (of either both or just the bride). In modern times in foreign cultures, many women are still sold into marriage by their parents. There's nothing sacred or even meaningful about these marriages. Not too long ago, even the U.S. was like this. I remember having to read Sarah Plain and Tall in school. The premise was that a farmer lost his wife during child birth (I think she was 16 giving birth to her second child). He places an ad in a paper for another wife. He's not seeking a romantic relationship, he just needs someone to do the woman's work (yes its fiction, but not science fiction or fantasy). This is how our society used to function. This is the marriage that served as "building blocks" to our society.

At least Mr. Prager acknowledges (through omission) that there is no legal definition of marriage. There's nothing in the constitution or bill of rights that even mentions marriage, much less that defines marriage between a man and a woman (remember, that's what anti gay-marriage supporters wanted after Vermont legalized gay marriage, an amendment that defines marriage).

In the end, I guess Mr. Prager just wants people to use their common sense, as long as that sense tells them gay marriage is wrong. If their common sense tells them (as it tells me) that gay marriage is just as valid as heterosexual marriage, I suppose their common sense is just broken?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Nathan H.
Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:57 PM
Yes, children do need good role models of both genders. And yes, Mothers and Fathers have unique things to teach children. However, not having one parent of both genders does not mean a life of failure or misery for a child. If you truly think it does then you would have to advocate for all children to be removed from any family that does not conform to your ideal.
If a couple get a divorce or one of them dies then I guess it's best for the child to remove them from the remaining parent and placed in a home with a parent of each gender. If you fallow your logic then this is the only acceptable thing to do.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Michelle Keane
Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:26 PM
I used to think the right opposed gay marriage because they didn't like gays. I'm coming to realize it's because they don't like women.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Laura
Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:34 AM
So according to this logic:
1. GLBT couples cannot raise well-adjusted children.
2. Multiple genders are required to raise well-adjusted children.
3. The government should be responsible for determining if a well-adjusted child can be raised in a household.

Therefore:
Divorce must be outlawed immediately
If one parent dies the surviving parent must remarry within 6 months.

If, for some reason a child is without a two-gendered parent structure for a certain period of time, that shild should be forcibly relocated to a two-gendered household.

What an idiotic argument. I will admit, it is hard to find a reason to deny people their rights, so good try!
Comment: #8
Posted by: Bob
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:35 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Dennis Prager
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 28 Nov 2014
Michael Barone
Michael BaroneUpdated 28 Nov 2014
Laura Hollis
Laura HollisUpdated 27 Nov 2014

19 Jan 2010 Is America Still Making Men?

16 Jan 2007 Thoughts On My Vacation

10 May 2011 How Leftism Poisoned a Psychiatrist's Mind