Ronald Reagan with a Duct Taped Mouth Wouldn’t Change My Mind

Ronald Reagan with a Duct Taped Mouth Wouldn’t Change My Mind

Cindy McCain has been photographed with a duct-taped mouth and NOH8 written on her cheek; she’s officially supporting homosexual marriage. I know what you’re thinking, “If Cindy supports it, I’ve got to support it.”

But cool your jets.

Even though Cindy McCain’s support may “help the tide to turn against proposition 8,” as was said in a recent LA Times article, there are still reasons to hold your ground.

I hope you’ve chosen your side by looking at the facts, not just the faces. If you saw that Ronald Reagan taped his mouth shut and wrote NOH8 on his cheek, you shouldn’t be swayed (except you should probably be scared, since he’s dead). This isn’t a political party issue, it’s a logical one.

The facts are out there.

A stable marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that has the biological potential to both produce children and provide the best and most successful environment in which to rear the next generation. This is not an issue of love, rights, or sexual preference; it is an issue of which activities and unions provide societies with a net benefit and which do not. Our nation has an obligation to protect the definition of marriage.

If you’d like scientific findings on the matter, click here. Or if you want to learn how to debunk the most common arguments, like: “Allowing homosexuals to marry does not harm or negatively impact anyone,” click here.

Look to the facts, not the faces.

I’ll do the same.

United Families International is committed to bringing you the facts about every issue surrounding the family.

14 Comments
  • jonolan
    Posted at 13:19h, 25 January Reply

    OK, I’m not going to sat that I’m in favor of repealing Prop 8 via the Courts, but you’re argument isn’t cogent to matter at hand.

    So queers – at least male ones – don’t live as long as heterosexuals? Does that imply that people with congenital or hereditary predilections towards serious illness should not be allowed to marry?

    How about manic-depressants, alcholics, drug addicts (recovering or not)? Should they be disallowed from marrying based upon life expectancy.

    All I’m doing is pointing out the flaw in your stated argument, not your goal.

  • Shari
    Posted at 15:50h, 25 January Reply

    Cindy McCain is not someone who would sway my voting, although I’m a little sad to see that she doesn’t “get it” either. I have trouble voting for her husband, as he has seemed to have some confusion in the past in knowing which political party he belongs. Our younger generation does seem to be pretty desensitized to homosexuality and the drawbacks of gay marriage. I wish I was better spoken so that I could let them know that my concern is not aimed against gays, that what I want to do is support traditional family. Which is something that needs a lot of support in today’s world. I’m sure you will have some angry responses, even on this response page.

  • United Families International
    Posted at 16:14h, 25 January Reply

    jonolan, you’re so right, I’ll admit it. Here’s a statistic that should contribute. “Twenty-nine percent of the adult children of homosexual parents had been subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolesence 31 (1996): 772)

    Thanks for pointing that out. I could use more help like that.

  • jonolan
    Posted at 04:46h, 26 January Reply

    That would be a much better argument if it could be substantiated by any group with less bias and more objectivity than the Family Research Institute, which was founded by a discredited psychologist and is categorized as a Hate Group by the Poverty Law Center.

    In other words, even if P. Cameron’s hypothesis is correct, citing him about homosexuality is politically and socially the equivalent of citing the KKK or the Black Panthers about race relations…

  • Shari
    Posted at 11:27h, 26 January Reply

    Why do gays and supporters of gay marriage follow these stories so closely? It’s almost as if they sit at the computer just waiting for a story to come up, so that they can attack it. Another question: Who in the world uses the word “queers” anymore? Isn’t that one of those really politically incorrect words that should never be uttered? It took me by surprise when I read it, anyway. I didn’t get that the point about gay lifestyle being unhealthy was a part of the “not marrying” argument, rather that the lifestyle has serious drawbacks, health wise.
    A woman and a man both have character traits, inherent in their sex, to offer to a child as parents, and no amount of argument can change that fact.

  • United Families International
    Posted at 14:41h, 26 January Reply

    jonolan, I appreciate your contributions. I definitely want truth to trump on this website.

    Here’s an argument I find compelling: A stable marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that has the biological potential to both produce children and provide the best and most successful environment in which to rear the next generation. This is not an issue of love, rights, or sexual preference; it is an issue of which activities and unions provide societies with a net benefit and which do not.

  • jonolan
    Posted at 17:59h, 26 January Reply

    Leave out the first part of your argument and I think you might have an argument against – in deference to Shari’s sensitivities – gays adopting children. I’m not sure it’s a good argument against marriage though, nor is Shari’s similar argument.

    If the basis of the argument against gays being allowed to marry under the law is that they make less fit parents, that implies that the overriding basis of marriage is procreation.

    That rather automatically opens the door to the question of, under those circumstances, should infertile people be allowed to marry, and how long should a couple have to procreate before the state annuls their marriage due to its failure to bear fruit?

    Look, I’m neither particularly for or against the secular government recognizing gays’ “marriages.” I’m just trying to work out a cogent argument against it and to help opponents of it to not fall into logic traps that will be used to marginalize them.

    For myself, the fact that in 32 referendum votes gay marriage was denied 31 times shows me that it is not the will of the people. That’s enough for me.

  • United Families International
    Posted at 16:35h, 28 January Reply

    jonolan, sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to your last post. You have great arguments, I wish we could argue more often. You were right, that what I said does imply the overriding basis of marriage is procreation.

    But that’s not so easily dismissed.

    True, infertile couples would not be able to reproduce–but they’re an exception. Looking at them could still imply to an onlooker that marriage is about children, even if they can’t have them, people naturally assume they can.

    Homosexual couples could NEVER reproduce (well, not naturally–even then it would take a man or a woman outside of the relationship) a homosexual married couple defines “marriage” without the word children anywhere to be seen.

    The government has an invested interest in maintaining traditional marriage. Children raised well, by their biological parents, have the best chance at becoming contributors to society. Statistics show that children raised by single-parents or step-parents are much less likely to be contributors. Those children that don’t become contributors, become a burden on the government (i.e. jail, unemployment, court payments, etc,.).

    By redefining marriage, there is a risk (we can’t clearly say how great) that the very image and purpose of marriage would change.

    Even if the risk is minuscule (and it might be), anything that threatens the future of a nation’s rising generation should be a high-priority for a government.

  • jonolan
    Posted at 17:26h, 28 January Reply

    “The government has an invested interest in maintaining traditional marriage. Children raised well, by their biological parents, have the best chance at becoming contributors to society.”

    I can certainly agree with that. Which, however is worse- a little Devil’s Advocating here, but worth considering nonetheless – children raise by non-biological parents, even if homosexual, or children raised in orphanages or a string of foster homes?

    Also,by way of full disclosure so as to acknowledge my biases – I’m polygamous (in a full-time, closed (no other partners), live-in relationship with two women for over 6 years now) and we have no children and cannot do so.

    • United Families International
      Posted at 14:11h, 29 January Reply

      I’m sure some homosexual couples would do a better job than orphanages and foster homes, but orphanages aren’t an issue in America. Foster homes wouldn’t be either if hapless parents would relinquish their parental rights sooner and allow adoption. Allowing homosexual parenthood wouldn’t solve either of those problems.

      The government shouldn’t legislate things just because they’re better than worst case scenarios. The government should seek legislation that makes the best case scenario (both biological parents) more likely for all children.

      I’ve never met any one in a polygamous relationship, you must bring a completely different perspective to the marriage debate.

      Thanks for the full-disclosure.

      P.S. I really appreciate your help with my arguments. Can we help promote your blog in anyway? I’d like to work with you more often.

  • Shari
    Posted at 18:27h, 28 January Reply

    I’m not as well-spoken as either of you, but my thought on which would be worse would be the living situations in both cases. For about 6 months, I had custody of a 12/13 year old who was with his bio dad and a step-mother. This “sweet” woman pulled the wool over a lot of eyes, and she did some serious psychological damage to this boy and his younger brother and sister. I think they could have been in almost any kind of living situation and had a better chance at life than what they do now that they are back with their bio dad (without the step-monster.) If (and I tend to believe those facts) the children are more likely to be subjected to sexual abuse in a home with homosexual “parents” I’d say that a safe shelter was better.

  • Shari
    Posted at 14:26h, 29 January Reply

    UFI – how can you say that “you are sure” that homosexual couples would do a better job than orphanages and foster homes? There are some foster parents who are really in that job to help the kids, and some of them do a great job. I’m especially curious about that since you are the one who put out the argument that children are more likely to be sexually abused in a family with a homosexual parent. Also, we may not have any “orphanages” in America, but we do have children’s shelters and homes for kids who have been kicked out of their parent’s homes. I’d say the same thing there. It depends on how well a “home” is run on which place would be better for a child. I don’t know many homosexual “couples” but I’ve heard that their relationships are usually even more unstable than heterosexual relationships. Is that a factor?

    • United Families International
      Posted at 15:08h, 29 January Reply

      Shari, you make a great point–I’m not “sure”. I assume that there are some homosexual couples that would make great parents (there’s gotta be some right?) at least better than a foster home situation where both of the parental figures have no biological ties. I could be wrong, it’s based on my assumptions, I have no statistics on the matter. You made a great point.

  • Shari
    Posted at 17:04h, 29 January Reply

    I wasn’t thinking of a home situation with one of the homosexual parents being the bio parent, because that didn’t really fit into the scenario I had pictured for a homosexual couple. In that situation, providing the parent loved the child, I would probably say the child was better off with the parent.

Post A Comment