What do you think?
Rate this book
Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possible hurt? Using sound reasoning and evidence, not religion, award-winning author, Frank Turek, shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answes to obections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people. Turek's message is direct but respectful, correct, not politically correct. It is a message that we must not ignore.
229 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
63 people are currently reading
665 people want to read
About the author
Frank Turek
19 books302 followers"Frank Turek is an American Christian author, Christian Apologist and public speaker at universities, conferences, and churches. He is the author of two books, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Stealing from God, and co-author of two more with Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and Legislating Morality. He hosts a call-in talk show called CrossExamined on American Family Radio. His television show, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, airs on the NRB Network.
Turek is a former aviator in the U.S. Navy, and has a Masters degree in Public Administration from George Washington University and a doctorate in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He has also taught classes in Leadership and Management at George Washington University."
-- Wikipedia
Turek is a former aviator in the U.S. Navy, and has a Masters degree in Public Administration from George Washington University and a doctorate in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He has also taught classes in Leadership and Management at George Washington University."
-- Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
September 28, 2015
i love this author's work in general, but i found i just could not follow along with his argument on account of the GIGANTIC COCK SCOOPING OUT MY ASS ALL THE TIME.
July 10, 2014
I remember this one time I was hurt by same-sex marriage...
No. Wait. I don't.
***
My one star adheres to the current (at time of writing) GR TOS.
It is not a requirement to read a book before rating.
The one star indicates my interest level in this book.
It is around the same as my interest level in contracting cholera, walking in front of traffic, and spending six hours listening to a hypochondriac list all their various ailments.
No. Wait. I don't.
***
My one star adheres to the current (at time of writing) GR TOS.
It is not a requirement to read a book before rating.
The one star indicates my interest level in this book.
It is around the same as my interest level in contracting cholera, walking in front of traffic, and spending six hours listening to a hypochondriac list all their various ailments.
August 11, 2013
Nothing Sane About Him
Turek begins by regaling his audience with a tale about a young friend who came out as gay to his parents. Initially hostile and indignant, their attitude gradually moved to one of acceptance. The individual in question dies of AIDS in his 30s. Somewhat perplexingly, Turek blames this tragic and premature death on the acceptance he received. One can only infer that Frank would prefer his friend to remain miserable and in denial instead. I suppose the high rate of gay teenage suicides either eludes him or is not worthy of consideration. In any case, such acceptance would have made life easier and more fulfilling for the LGBT individual.
So, after a brief introduction designed to palliate his raw hatred for the LGBT community, Turek launches into a surfeit of wild accusations and baseless slander. Here's just a sample:
- Placing the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage. I can only posit that the embrace of Christianity's imperialist doctrines and warmongering was too close to home (not to mention intellectually honest) for Turek to give passing mention to.
Clearly, his veneer of compassion and calls for civilized debates based on truth ring utterly hollow.
The lion's share of Turek's sources come from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. With the basis for his "facts" coming from such a biased political action group, one cannot help but shake their head at the irony with which the author accuses some of his opposition of being firmly entrenched against the facts and reality of the issue.
On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual. Moreover, it is generally easier for men to have access to young boys, as parents tend to be more protective of the fairer sex.
The mudslinging doesn't stop there. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage." Yet he cannot produce a single example of these militant liberal campaigners fighting to make opposite-sex marriage illegal.
The only liberal he mentions is David Blankenhorn, who, during California's recent Prop 8 trial, recanted his former position (namely, that children require both a father and a mother to be well-adjusted). Research into the vastly heightened scrutiny that adoptive parents (whether gay or straight) has been shown to lead to better outcomes for the children (at least on some measures). Psychologist Michael Lamb has published several studies on this issue, and has testified that no child would be aided through outlawing same-sex marriage. Even Robert Spitzer retracted his research study which claimed efficacy for so-called "reparative therapy."
Turek also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required. So why doesn't he start clarion calls for all available heterosexual couples to annex the care of children currently raised by single parents? In actuality, the most thorough studies have shown that having same sex parents does not harm children, and in some cases, can outstrip the outcomes that would occur in opposite-sex households (US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics). The conglomeration of these findings also disprove the accusations he levels on page 20 and 21, in which the lack of a father is claimed to be the ONLY reason why such children suffer from increased suicide rates, juvenile delinquency and lives of crime.
Consistency is clearly not one of Turek's strong suits. In his introduction, he freely concedes that homosexual feelings are not a choice. One would logically conclude (and hope that Frank would do the same) that homosexuality, therefore, is not a choice. This should be a tautology, but the connection (or perhaps simply the intricacies) is lost on the author. Yet on pages 74 and 75, Turek cites NARTH (a repeatedly discredited and proven harmful "treatment" organization) as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible. What actually occurs is brutal repression and/or celibacy. In the case of bisexual individuals, the "change" is made easier to bear via their versatile natural attractions.
Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book. They are also groundless. The marriage rate in the Netherlands began falling in 1970, whereas same-sex marriages were recognized by the government in 2001. To draw a causal link between the two is specious at best. Spain's falling marriage rates during the 2005 to 2011 timespan can be more accurately traced to the inordinate and abrupt rise in unemployment (9% to 22%). Among the under-25 crowd, it more than doubled, from 19% to 47%. This is the other side of the story that Frank hopes his readers will either gloss over or ignore entirely. For a more thorough statistical analysis, the Box Turtle Bulletin blog has a wealth of data.
Turek's case for how same-sex marriage will hurt everyone generally (a blatant appeal to selfishness) begins on page 52. I will tackle them one-by-one.
1. Gay marriage will increases tax rates to compensate for marriage tax breaks given to gay couples.
- So what? If, as Frank claims, 4% of the LGBT population (4% of 5% or so) marry, the tax benefits will hardly be noticeable. The author also fails to consider the productivity and mental health benefits that will clearly follow if gays and lesbians are no longer required to live sham lives and marriages. Moreover, the more married couples there are, the more unmarried individuals will be required to subsidise their taxes. Why isn't Frank calling for everyone to marry less, or for these tax breaks to be revoked?
2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) to fund payments to widows and widowers of gay couples.
- The author's anti-equality stance could not be made clearer with this statement. Also, the productivity gains and medical savings mentioned above would more than compensate for this.
3. Medical premiums will increase as gay marriage will lead to more homosexual behaviour leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis etc.
- Evidence? Frank's (decidedly dishonest, deceitful and deceptive) word. If he's so concerned about unsafe sex and polygamous sex among the LGBT community, he should be encouraging them to get married. With current policies in place, there are no incentives to remain faithful to a single partner.
4. Employee benefits will fall as corporations are required to cover homosexual partners.
- An extension of Frank's initial three points, and refuted by the gains in productivity and reductions in medical expenditures.
5. Gay couples will be given preference when seeking to adopt children as they cannot procreate.
- Given the studies mentioned above, this could well be seen as a positive. By encouraging paternal instincts, familial attachments and responsibilities, gay couples would become less likely to engage in risky activities.
Turek asserts, with no evidence, that children will also be treated as trophies. This is clearly refuted by the studies shown above (trophies would not be showered with love and affection. They would be confined so the parents could gaze upon them and bask in their arrogance and pride), although such a bizarre claim does not even warrant a cursory refutation. He also provides no reason as to why this insult would not equally apply to any couple who adopt children.
6. Children will be indoctrinated in schools to accept gay and lesbian behaviour as morally equivalent to heterosexual behaviour.
- Good. Perhaps we can finally move out of the Dark Ages on this issue and do something about the breathtakingly stratospheric LGBT suicide rates.
7. Workplace indoctrination akin to point 6.
- So reducing harassment and fostering respect for all employees is somehow undesirable? Frank, you deserved to lose your consulting gig for Cisco and Bank of America.
8. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals.
- Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation. Would you be perfectly happy if divorced individuals were verboten in your congregation?
9. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.
- Wrong. The only things that will be made illegal will be the incitement of violence and unconstitutional discrimination. Catholic charities are meant to serve all of society. If they refuse to do so, and hold their anachronistic doctrines over the well-being of orphans, then they reveal their onerously pernicious prejudices and inverted priorities.
10. More big government.
- Utter nonsense. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its most obvious. More freedoms and rights are synonymous with governmental intrusion, at least according to Turek's tawdry imagination. A further leap of logic is revealed when he claims that governments will be required to step in to mend the societal harms induced by same-sex marriage (a claim that requires a strong foundation, which is conspicuously absent).
One of the points raised in the second half, in which he attempts to refute arguments for same-sex marriage (and hate crime legislation) is that the LGBT and straight communities are already treated equally (a nonsense - gays and lesbians cannot marry those they love) and that hate crime legislation is unjust, because all crimes should be punished equally (says Turek), regardless of the particular class of victim. He misses the point - when someone is beaten or murdered simply for being gay (or being a police officer), harsher punishments serve as powerful deterrents.
Facts were left behind on the copyright information page. The rest of the book consists of little more than unctuous, baseless diatribes and strenuous mental gymnastics and leaps of logic.
Turek begins by regaling his audience with a tale about a young friend who came out as gay to his parents. Initially hostile and indignant, their attitude gradually moved to one of acceptance. The individual in question dies of AIDS in his 30s. Somewhat perplexingly, Turek blames this tragic and premature death on the acceptance he received. One can only infer that Frank would prefer his friend to remain miserable and in denial instead. I suppose the high rate of gay teenage suicides either eludes him or is not worthy of consideration. In any case, such acceptance would have made life easier and more fulfilling for the LGBT individual.
So, after a brief introduction designed to palliate his raw hatred for the LGBT community, Turek launches into a surfeit of wild accusations and baseless slander. Here's just a sample:
- Placing the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage. I can only posit that the embrace of Christianity's imperialist doctrines and warmongering was too close to home (not to mention intellectually honest) for Turek to give passing mention to.
Clearly, his veneer of compassion and calls for civilized debates based on truth ring utterly hollow.
The lion's share of Turek's sources come from conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. With the basis for his "facts" coming from such a biased political action group, one cannot help but shake their head at the irony with which the author accuses some of his opposition of being firmly entrenched against the facts and reality of the issue.
On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual. Moreover, it is generally easier for men to have access to young boys, as parents tend to be more protective of the fairer sex.
The mudslinging doesn't stop there. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage." Yet he cannot produce a single example of these militant liberal campaigners fighting to make opposite-sex marriage illegal.
The only liberal he mentions is David Blankenhorn, who, during California's recent Prop 8 trial, recanted his former position (namely, that children require both a father and a mother to be well-adjusted). Research into the vastly heightened scrutiny that adoptive parents (whether gay or straight) has been shown to lead to better outcomes for the children (at least on some measures). Psychologist Michael Lamb has published several studies on this issue, and has testified that no child would be aided through outlawing same-sex marriage. Even Robert Spitzer retracted his research study which claimed efficacy for so-called "reparative therapy."
Turek also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required. So why doesn't he start clarion calls for all available heterosexual couples to annex the care of children currently raised by single parents? In actuality, the most thorough studies have shown that having same sex parents does not harm children, and in some cases, can outstrip the outcomes that would occur in opposite-sex households (US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, published in the American Journal of Pediatrics). The conglomeration of these findings also disprove the accusations he levels on page 20 and 21, in which the lack of a father is claimed to be the ONLY reason why such children suffer from increased suicide rates, juvenile delinquency and lives of crime.
Consistency is clearly not one of Turek's strong suits. In his introduction, he freely concedes that homosexual feelings are not a choice. One would logically conclude (and hope that Frank would do the same) that homosexuality, therefore, is not a choice. This should be a tautology, but the connection (or perhaps simply the intricacies) is lost on the author. Yet on pages 74 and 75, Turek cites NARTH (a repeatedly discredited and proven harmful "treatment" organization) as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible. What actually occurs is brutal repression and/or celibacy. In the case of bisexual individuals, the "change" is made easier to bear via their versatile natural attractions.
Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book. They are also groundless. The marriage rate in the Netherlands began falling in 1970, whereas same-sex marriages were recognized by the government in 2001. To draw a causal link between the two is specious at best. Spain's falling marriage rates during the 2005 to 2011 timespan can be more accurately traced to the inordinate and abrupt rise in unemployment (9% to 22%). Among the under-25 crowd, it more than doubled, from 19% to 47%. This is the other side of the story that Frank hopes his readers will either gloss over or ignore entirely. For a more thorough statistical analysis, the Box Turtle Bulletin blog has a wealth of data.
Turek's case for how same-sex marriage will hurt everyone generally (a blatant appeal to selfishness) begins on page 52. I will tackle them one-by-one.
1. Gay marriage will increases tax rates to compensate for marriage tax breaks given to gay couples.
- So what? If, as Frank claims, 4% of the LGBT population (4% of 5% or so) marry, the tax benefits will hardly be noticeable. The author also fails to consider the productivity and mental health benefits that will clearly follow if gays and lesbians are no longer required to live sham lives and marriages. Moreover, the more married couples there are, the more unmarried individuals will be required to subsidise their taxes. Why isn't Frank calling for everyone to marry less, or for these tax breaks to be revoked?
2. Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) to fund payments to widows and widowers of gay couples.
- The author's anti-equality stance could not be made clearer with this statement. Also, the productivity gains and medical savings mentioned above would more than compensate for this.
3. Medical premiums will increase as gay marriage will lead to more homosexual behaviour leads to higher rates of HIV/AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis etc.
- Evidence? Frank's (decidedly dishonest, deceitful and deceptive) word. If he's so concerned about unsafe sex and polygamous sex among the LGBT community, he should be encouraging them to get married. With current policies in place, there are no incentives to remain faithful to a single partner.
4. Employee benefits will fall as corporations are required to cover homosexual partners.
- An extension of Frank's initial three points, and refuted by the gains in productivity and reductions in medical expenditures.
5. Gay couples will be given preference when seeking to adopt children as they cannot procreate.
- Given the studies mentioned above, this could well be seen as a positive. By encouraging paternal instincts, familial attachments and responsibilities, gay couples would become less likely to engage in risky activities.
Turek asserts, with no evidence, that children will also be treated as trophies. This is clearly refuted by the studies shown above (trophies would not be showered with love and affection. They would be confined so the parents could gaze upon them and bask in their arrogance and pride), although such a bizarre claim does not even warrant a cursory refutation. He also provides no reason as to why this insult would not equally apply to any couple who adopt children.
6. Children will be indoctrinated in schools to accept gay and lesbian behaviour as morally equivalent to heterosexual behaviour.
- Good. Perhaps we can finally move out of the Dark Ages on this issue and do something about the breathtakingly stratospheric LGBT suicide rates.
7. Workplace indoctrination akin to point 6.
- So reducing harassment and fostering respect for all employees is somehow undesirable? Frank, you deserved to lose your consulting gig for Cisco and Bank of America.
8. Churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals.
- Religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation. Would you be perfectly happy if divorced individuals were verboten in your congregation?
9. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.
- Wrong. The only things that will be made illegal will be the incitement of violence and unconstitutional discrimination. Catholic charities are meant to serve all of society. If they refuse to do so, and hold their anachronistic doctrines over the well-being of orphans, then they reveal their onerously pernicious prejudices and inverted priorities.
10. More big government.
- Utter nonsense. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its most obvious. More freedoms and rights are synonymous with governmental intrusion, at least according to Turek's tawdry imagination. A further leap of logic is revealed when he claims that governments will be required to step in to mend the societal harms induced by same-sex marriage (a claim that requires a strong foundation, which is conspicuously absent).
One of the points raised in the second half, in which he attempts to refute arguments for same-sex marriage (and hate crime legislation) is that the LGBT and straight communities are already treated equally (a nonsense - gays and lesbians cannot marry those they love) and that hate crime legislation is unjust, because all crimes should be punished equally (says Turek), regardless of the particular class of victim. He misses the point - when someone is beaten or murdered simply for being gay (or being a police officer), harsher punishments serve as powerful deterrents.
Facts were left behind on the copyright information page. The rest of the book consists of little more than unctuous, baseless diatribes and strenuous mental gymnastics and leaps of logic.
July 10, 2014
Conspiracy much? This author is delusional and needs therapy badly.
And worse, he tries to cheapen and dehumanize gay issues and gays by relating it to "political correctness." They are people. They are not a term or a label. They have rights. They bleed. And feel. And no manipulative book can take that away from them. Political correctness, my ass.
And worse, he tries to cheapen and dehumanize gay issues and gays by relating it to "political correctness." They are people. They are not a term or a label. They have rights. They bleed. And feel. And no manipulative book can take that away from them. Political correctness, my ass.
July 9, 2014
No, thank you. Homophobic bullcrap is not on my list of things to read. Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE! Not letting LGBTQ people marry if they want to marry hurts everyone.
You can dress up your homophobia with pretty words and pretty covers, but it still stinks.
So, no! Not interested.
You can dress up your homophobia with pretty words and pretty covers, but it still stinks.
So, no! Not interested.
July 9, 2014
I read this specifically to understand a social/moral/political stance that differs from my own, so the star rating is NOT to reflect the fact that the author and I disagree. I'll happily five-star a book I don't agree with if the arguments are presented well.
My rating in this case stems from my screaming frustration with every page because the author couldn't seem to grasp the concept that correlation is not the same as causation. Ironically, he actually mentions that concept about halfway through: "You might say 'correlation doesn't always indicate causation.' Yes, but it often does." Indeed, but track and field stars would be grievously injured making the leaps I read in this text.
Not recommended unless your doctor is urging you to increase your blood pressure.
My rating in this case stems from my screaming frustration with every page because the author couldn't seem to grasp the concept that correlation is not the same as causation. Ironically, he actually mentions that concept about halfway through: "You might say 'correlation doesn't always indicate causation.' Yes, but it often does." Indeed, but track and field stars would be grievously injured making the leaps I read in this text.
Not recommended unless your doctor is urging you to increase your blood pressure.
October 2, 2015
Dear Mr. Turek,
I believe Mr. Gervais has a message for you.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Sincerely,
mle
I believe Mr. Gervais has a message for you.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Sincerely,
mle
July 10, 2014
More nonsense from the anti-gay crowd.
1. - He places the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage.
Baloney.
Actually, quite a few civilizations have accepted same-sex relations and bonding and survived to tell the tale. For instance, ancient Rome accepted same-sex relations for roughly 1000 years. The Roman Empire didn't fall until about 200 years AFTER same-sex marriage was outlawed. In fact, the author of the seminal work on the Roman Empire -- Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire -- concluded that CHRISTIANITY played a large part in the downfall of Rome.
2. On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists
Baloney.
Nicholas Groth wrote entire textbooks about sexual predators. His studies are classics in the field.
Groth specifically states:
-- "in over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation";
-- "Homosexual males pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males...".
-- In one study of 175 men who had been convicted of sexual assaults against (male) children, he found that NONE of the offenders showed any preference for adult homosexual relationships.
3. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage."
Baloney.
People who support gay marriage SUPPORT MARRIAGE. There is nothing about gay marriage that will destroy any other marriage.
4. Turek also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required.
In that case, he should be working to outlaw single-parenthood. Single parents raise many more children than gay couples do.
In reality, multiple studies have confirmed that children growing up in stable same-sex households do just as well as children growing up in stable straight households.
Incidentally, one of the findings of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, an ongoing 30 year study, is that kids growing up in stable lesbian homes are SAFER than in stable heterosexual homes, and that kids in those homes do just as well.
5. on pages 74 and 75, Turek cites NARTH as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible.
Baloney.
NARTH has had its tax exempt status revoked by the IRS, and it is no longer accredited in the state of California. Further, several of its board members have recanted NARTH's positions and/or have been caught in homosexual affairs themselves. Heck, two of NARTH'S **founders** left to go off and be a gay couple together.
NARTH's conferences have included such luminaries as Paul Cameron (who was thrown out of the APA for fiddling with his data) and Scott Lively (who has accused gays of being responsible for the Holocaust).
6. Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book.
Baloney.
Heterosexual marriage rates actually **increased** in Scandinavian countries that legalized partnerships. As of 2004 (the date of the most common article cited for this bogus claim), Denmark had its **highest** marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriage rates than before the partnership laws.
In Massachusetts, since gay marriages have become legal, their drop in marriage rates has only been HALF of the average rate drop seen in the rest of the country. Marriage rates in MA are still slightly **higher** than they were just before gay marriages were legalized.
In 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the **lowest** divorce rates allow gay marriage. NY, CT, IA, VT, NH, and MA all have **lower** divorce rates after legalizing gay marriage than just before.
7. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.
Right now, many Christian denominations and Jewish sects are already happy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Yet their freedom of religion is being curtailed in those states that refuse to legally recognize the ceremonies they perform.
Why don't these churches and synagogues deserve freedom of religion? Does the concept of freedom of religion only apply to TUREK's church?
Just yesterday -- July 09, 2014 -- Colorado's marriage ban was declared unconstitutional by REPUBLICAN appointee, federal judge C. Scott Crabtree.
Judge C. Scott Crabtree ruled that the arguments for keeping the ban, that marriage is about the “protection of families” and “procreation of children”, are “recently fabricated” arguments for the purpose of denying that discrimination is occurring. “It is merely a pretext for discriminating against same-sex marriages,” Crabtree wrote.
He further stated: "The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution" and concluded that “There is no rational relationship between any legitimate governmental purpose and the marriage bans."
1. - He places the blame for the collapse of past civilizations on their rejection of natural marriage.
Baloney.
Actually, quite a few civilizations have accepted same-sex relations and bonding and survived to tell the tale. For instance, ancient Rome accepted same-sex relations for roughly 1000 years. The Roman Empire didn't fall until about 200 years AFTER same-sex marriage was outlawed. In fact, the author of the seminal work on the Roman Empire -- Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire -- concluded that CHRISTIANITY played a large part in the downfall of Rome.
2. On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists
Baloney.
Nicholas Groth wrote entire textbooks about sexual predators. His studies are classics in the field.
Groth specifically states:
-- "in over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation";
-- "Homosexual males pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males...".
-- In one study of 175 men who had been convicted of sexual assaults against (male) children, he found that NONE of the offenders showed any preference for adult homosexual relationships.
3. He accuses liberals and those who stand for marriage equality as being opposed to "natural marriage."
Baloney.
People who support gay marriage SUPPORT MARRIAGE. There is nothing about gay marriage that will destroy any other marriage.
4. Turek also insults all single parents via his assertion that both genders are required.
In that case, he should be working to outlaw single-parenthood. Single parents raise many more children than gay couples do.
In reality, multiple studies have confirmed that children growing up in stable same-sex households do just as well as children growing up in stable straight households.
Incidentally, one of the findings of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, an ongoing 30 year study, is that kids growing up in stable lesbian homes are SAFER than in stable heterosexual homes, and that kids in those homes do just as well.
5. on pages 74 and 75, Turek cites NARTH as evidence that sexual orientation change is possible.
Baloney.
NARTH has had its tax exempt status revoked by the IRS, and it is no longer accredited in the state of California. Further, several of its board members have recanted NARTH's positions and/or have been caught in homosexual affairs themselves. Heck, two of NARTH'S **founders** left to go off and be a gay couple together.
NARTH's conferences have included such luminaries as Paul Cameron (who was thrown out of the APA for fiddling with his data) and Scott Lively (who has accused gays of being responsible for the Holocaust).
6. Claims that gay marriage would reduce marriage rates are also rife in his book.
Baloney.
Heterosexual marriage rates actually **increased** in Scandinavian countries that legalized partnerships. As of 2004 (the date of the most common article cited for this bogus claim), Denmark had its **highest** marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriage rates than before the partnership laws.
In Massachusetts, since gay marriages have become legal, their drop in marriage rates has only been HALF of the average rate drop seen in the rest of the country. Marriage rates in MA are still slightly **higher** than they were just before gay marriages were legalized.
In 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the **lowest** divorce rates allow gay marriage. NY, CT, IA, VT, NH, and MA all have **lower** divorce rates after legalizing gay marriage than just before.
7. Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed.
Right now, many Christian denominations and Jewish sects are already happy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Yet their freedom of religion is being curtailed in those states that refuse to legally recognize the ceremonies they perform.
Why don't these churches and synagogues deserve freedom of religion? Does the concept of freedom of religion only apply to TUREK's church?
Just yesterday -- July 09, 2014 -- Colorado's marriage ban was declared unconstitutional by REPUBLICAN appointee, federal judge C. Scott Crabtree.
Judge C. Scott Crabtree ruled that the arguments for keeping the ban, that marriage is about the “protection of families” and “procreation of children”, are “recently fabricated” arguments for the purpose of denying that discrimination is occurring. “It is merely a pretext for discriminating against same-sex marriages,” Crabtree wrote.
He further stated: "The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution" and concluded that “There is no rational relationship between any legitimate governmental purpose and the marriage bans."
July 11, 2014
Really can't be bothered looking for gifs for this kind of vitriol so I've decided that in the future when I come across these kinds of ridiculous books that I will post this picture instead!!
July 10, 2014
Like my friend would say: This book is only good for two things...
1) Toilet paper
2) Picking up dog poop
1) Toilet paper
2) Picking up dog poop
February 23, 2020
Okay, yes, I'm very queer and a huge believer in marriage equality but hey, it's always good to read things you disagree with.
The biggest problem with this book is that it pretends to be scientific but it simply is not. Oh sure, there are citations and statistics get mentioned but once you look at them, you see that the vast majority of the citations refer to research done by right wing thing tanks (which isn't a valid source at all) or to websites which no longer exist. It's a shame because I'd love to see a basis for some of the bizarre things claimed here.
I could go into all of the problems of his claim but really, I think I wasted enough time today reading this book. Suffice to say that Turek did not manage to convince me that same sex marriages are harmful to society. The bit where he tries to claim that gay marriage is bad for lgbt+ people is laughable. Beyond that, even if they were, Turek seems to claim that it's the government's job to protect us from wrong behaviors. He says this as if it's a fact when in reality, it's such a heated subject and isn't so black and white.
A lot of his claim weirdly enough rests on the idea that biologically, men and women were just build for each other. This view of "the genitalia fits together! this is what god wants! gay marriage is bad because biology!!" is just silly. From personal experiences, I assure you, Frank, lesbians find their way around this and in any way, why should the ability of a couple to have sex influence their ability to get married?
In the list of strange claims, I have to say the part where he says that we shouldn't let lgbt+ get married because it'll force us to pay more taxes for benefits is also quite high on the list. I honestly have never heard anyone be against marriage equality because of taxes. As an Econ student, that also just sounds plain wrong because that's not how money seems to work (but I also failed my first Micro exam so heck, he might be right, someone stop me before I take my notebook out and try to do the math to prove my point (I'm pretty sure that if I'll read this in the future, I'm just gonna be like "pfft, you couldn't have calculated this right after your first semester")).
Only second to this is that part where he tries to claim that legalizing gay marriage in the Netherlands and in Norway has led to the decay and "degradation" of marriage and that's the reason for the "illegitimacy" there . This seems to be a mix up of causation and if I cared enough, I'd start looking up divorce and marriage rates and show that really, if anything, it seems like conventional marriage is simply losing its appeal and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Another highlight is the part where he dramatically "reveals" that the gay agenda is not marriage but social acceptance. Really, I can't imagine how he managed to break into the gay agenda and come out with such an earth shattering understanding. Like, without this book, I don't think I could have ever understood that, you know, lgbt+ don't just want to get married, they'd also like not to be discriminated against and to be able to live their lives with social acceptance.
But this isn't enough for Frank Turek. Oh no, according to him, not only do lgbt+ want social acceptance, but marriage is actually a disguise for this. You all thought that lgbt+ wanted to get married but alas, according to one of his bizarre statistics, 96% of the same-sex couples do not get married when given the chance. Obviously, this statistic feels very wrong. How did he calculate this? Did he look at couples who were together? Attempt to figure out the number of gay people and count how many got married? Does this hinge on the idea that 18 year old Dutch gay guys might not want to get married immediately? In any case, Frank reaches the conclusion that lgbt+ people are actually invested in ruining marriage for everyone, that they all want to destroy all that he holds dear.
A religious friend of mine once said something that's stayed with me since: conservatives tend to believe that you can't change your gender (and the roles that come with it) but that you can change your sexual orientation. Liberals tend to think you can change your gender (and the roles) but that you can't change your sexual orientation. However, Frank is unable to make up his mind about whether gay people can change their orientation.
I felt like trans people are entirely ignored (apart from the bit where they are mentioned next to pedophiles in a list of perverse groups that support the gay cause). It's interesting because I'd love to hear what Frank thinks about that lesbian couple that was able to marry in Russia due to one of them being trans.
Okay, I could spend more time talking about this book but really, I've had enough discussions about this. If I'll ever feel the need to get into it again, there is no lack of homophobes around me (although none are concerned about increased taxation). I suppose this is a good book to read if you'd like to see how a person can write something that's entirely wrong and still pretend to be objective.
What I'm Taking With Me
- This guy tries to claim that marriage equality is literally hazardous to your health but both Norway and the Netherlands have a higher life expectancy that the United States. Has Frank Turek considered healthcare is the problem in the United States, and not the existence of queer people?
- While googling this, I just learned that Israel actually is 9th in the world in life expectancy (sharing that spot with South Korea) and I'm so confused because we're all stressed all the time and our healthcare is not particularly amazing and we average a war every 4 years.
- I suppose 2015 was a year that did not make Frank happy although I hope he at least is able to see that the states are fine, even with gay marriage.
- You know, I think if I were given the choice, I'd like to be cis but I wouldn't like to be straight because come on, have you seen how great people of all genders are?
The biggest problem with this book is that it pretends to be scientific but it simply is not. Oh sure, there are citations and statistics get mentioned but once you look at them, you see that the vast majority of the citations refer to research done by right wing thing tanks (which isn't a valid source at all) or to websites which no longer exist. It's a shame because I'd love to see a basis for some of the bizarre things claimed here.
I could go into all of the problems of his claim but really, I think I wasted enough time today reading this book. Suffice to say that Turek did not manage to convince me that same sex marriages are harmful to society. The bit where he tries to claim that gay marriage is bad for lgbt+ people is laughable. Beyond that, even if they were, Turek seems to claim that it's the government's job to protect us from wrong behaviors. He says this as if it's a fact when in reality, it's such a heated subject and isn't so black and white.
A lot of his claim weirdly enough rests on the idea that biologically, men and women were just build for each other. This view of "the genitalia fits together! this is what god wants! gay marriage is bad because biology!!" is just silly. From personal experiences, I assure you, Frank, lesbians find their way around this and in any way, why should the ability of a couple to have sex influence their ability to get married?
In the list of strange claims, I have to say the part where he says that we shouldn't let lgbt+ get married because it'll force us to pay more taxes for benefits is also quite high on the list. I honestly have never heard anyone be against marriage equality because of taxes. As an Econ student, that also just sounds plain wrong because that's not how money seems to work (but I also failed my first Micro exam so heck, he might be right, someone stop me before I take my notebook out and try to do the math to prove my point (I'm pretty sure that if I'll read this in the future, I'm just gonna be like "pfft, you couldn't have calculated this right after your first semester")).
Only second to this is that part where he tries to claim that legalizing gay marriage in the Netherlands and in Norway has led to the decay and "degradation" of marriage and that's the reason for the "illegitimacy" there . This seems to be a mix up of causation and if I cared enough, I'd start looking up divorce and marriage rates and show that really, if anything, it seems like conventional marriage is simply losing its appeal and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Another highlight is the part where he dramatically "reveals" that the gay agenda is not marriage but social acceptance. Really, I can't imagine how he managed to break into the gay agenda and come out with such an earth shattering understanding. Like, without this book, I don't think I could have ever understood that, you know, lgbt+ don't just want to get married, they'd also like not to be discriminated against and to be able to live their lives with social acceptance.
But this isn't enough for Frank Turek. Oh no, according to him, not only do lgbt+ want social acceptance, but marriage is actually a disguise for this. You all thought that lgbt+ wanted to get married but alas, according to one of his bizarre statistics, 96% of the same-sex couples do not get married when given the chance. Obviously, this statistic feels very wrong. How did he calculate this? Did he look at couples who were together? Attempt to figure out the number of gay people and count how many got married? Does this hinge on the idea that 18 year old Dutch gay guys might not want to get married immediately? In any case, Frank reaches the conclusion that lgbt+ people are actually invested in ruining marriage for everyone, that they all want to destroy all that he holds dear.
A religious friend of mine once said something that's stayed with me since: conservatives tend to believe that you can't change your gender (and the roles that come with it) but that you can change your sexual orientation. Liberals tend to think you can change your gender (and the roles) but that you can't change your sexual orientation. However, Frank is unable to make up his mind about whether gay people can change their orientation.
I felt like trans people are entirely ignored (apart from the bit where they are mentioned next to pedophiles in a list of perverse groups that support the gay cause). It's interesting because I'd love to hear what Frank thinks about that lesbian couple that was able to marry in Russia due to one of them being trans.
Okay, I could spend more time talking about this book but really, I've had enough discussions about this. If I'll ever feel the need to get into it again, there is no lack of homophobes around me (although none are concerned about increased taxation). I suppose this is a good book to read if you'd like to see how a person can write something that's entirely wrong and still pretend to be objective.
What I'm Taking With Me
- This guy tries to claim that marriage equality is literally hazardous to your health but both Norway and the Netherlands have a higher life expectancy that the United States. Has Frank Turek considered healthcare is the problem in the United States, and not the existence of queer people?
- While googling this, I just learned that Israel actually is 9th in the world in life expectancy (sharing that spot with South Korea) and I'm so confused because we're all stressed all the time and our healthcare is not particularly amazing and we average a war every 4 years.
- I suppose 2015 was a year that did not make Frank happy although I hope he at least is able to see that the states are fine, even with gay marriage.
- You know, I think if I were given the choice, I'd like to be cis but I wouldn't like to be straight because come on, have you seen how great people of all genders are?
July 7, 2025
Huh. I have never, ever, in my 20 years of foster parenting, come across a single instance of a child in foster care who came from a gay family. I have, however, come across hundreds of children from heterosexual relationships. I also have come across a disproportionate number of homosexual families willing to take in these kids. I've also seen a lot of single parents raising other people's kids, too. None of them have both men and women in them. Will you take in those kids, Mr. Turek, when you disallow gay parents and single parents (after all, a child with a single parent doesn't have both a male and a female presence)?
Excellent. How about taking them now? We're always looking for new foster homes.
Excellent. How about taking them now? We're always looking for new foster homes.
January 2, 2015
Hate manual!
The guy seriously has some problems,it's a sick vile manual of homophobic hatred!
I am a bit of a masochist sometimes so I some times read books written by people with 'values' entirely unacceptable to me,for example those creepy 'Men are victims and feminists are real bullies/monsters whatever'!
This BS about same sex marriage is so dubious,it's almost as absurd as those claims of so called reverse sexism 'Feminists are the real sexists.' or reverse racism or how White Evangelical Christian America i the most persecuted religious group in America(or any other majority group with such absurd claims because Christians are indeed among the worst persecuted in the world as minorities in hells of Iraq,Syria and Pakistan etc,just to make sure,but they are not one bit persecuted in America).
Such equally absurd claim is that how there's a Gay/homosexual agenda going around and how acceptance of 'Homosexual behavior' will lead to demise of marriage as an institution and demise of society and civilization and society and America etc!!I mean talk about hyperbole and a half,this guy is soo out there rationalizing this outrageous hatred of the real persecuted minority the LGBT communities all over the world in virtually every continent other than Antarctica!
He falsely blames 1/3rd child molestation cases on gays,yet the source he cites itself said that 'They were yet to come across an incident in which molestation was done by a gay'..Or his sources are far right lunatics like Tony Perkin's FRC Family Research Council,some1 who is such a hater and a homophobe that website RWW Right Wing Watch features him almost daily for hate watch!!I mean come on!
Some of arguments in the book are so ridiculous,it will make you laugh,like he claims he's not a bigot,that homophobes like him are the real allies of LGBT community as they prevent them from 'self destruction' while pro LGBT people are the real enemies of LGBT!!Puhlease!!Give me a freaking break!
In his shallow world we lesbians tend to push each others to our emotional boundaries!Jeez,not stereotyping at all,of women being emotional and lesbians even more so!!Ha!!And apparently lesbians are fat too!Huh?Yeah that's in the book!
His all premise is that Homosexual behavior is bad,for the LGBT person,for the society and apparently for the homophobe straight dudes like himself!That it hurts kids,society etc,dude no1 is forcing you to marry a dude so just get lost!!Let people love and spend their lives together if they wish to,no1 is imposing gays on straight dudes as if straights are being forced to marry gay men!Such a poor pathetic book!
0 star!
#Fail
The guy seriously has some problems,it's a sick vile manual of homophobic hatred!
I am a bit of a masochist sometimes so I some times read books written by people with 'values' entirely unacceptable to me,for example those creepy 'Men are victims and feminists are real bullies/monsters whatever'!
This BS about same sex marriage is so dubious,it's almost as absurd as those claims of so called reverse sexism 'Feminists are the real sexists.' or reverse racism or how White Evangelical Christian America i the most persecuted religious group in America(or any other majority group with such absurd claims because Christians are indeed among the worst persecuted in the world as minorities in hells of Iraq,Syria and Pakistan etc,just to make sure,but they are not one bit persecuted in America).
Such equally absurd claim is that how there's a Gay/homosexual agenda going around and how acceptance of 'Homosexual behavior' will lead to demise of marriage as an institution and demise of society and civilization and society and America etc!!I mean talk about hyperbole and a half,this guy is soo out there rationalizing this outrageous hatred of the real persecuted minority the LGBT communities all over the world in virtually every continent other than Antarctica!
He falsely blames 1/3rd child molestation cases on gays,yet the source he cites itself said that 'They were yet to come across an incident in which molestation was done by a gay'..Or his sources are far right lunatics like Tony Perkin's FRC Family Research Council,some1 who is such a hater and a homophobe that website RWW Right Wing Watch features him almost daily for hate watch!!I mean come on!
Some of arguments in the book are so ridiculous,it will make you laugh,like he claims he's not a bigot,that homophobes like him are the real allies of LGBT community as they prevent them from 'self destruction' while pro LGBT people are the real enemies of LGBT!!Puhlease!!Give me a freaking break!
In his shallow world we lesbians tend to push each others to our emotional boundaries!Jeez,not stereotyping at all,of women being emotional and lesbians even more so!!Ha!!And apparently lesbians are fat too!Huh?Yeah that's in the book!
His all premise is that Homosexual behavior is bad,for the LGBT person,for the society and apparently for the homophobe straight dudes like himself!That it hurts kids,society etc,dude no1 is forcing you to marry a dude so just get lost!!Let people love and spend their lives together if they wish to,no1 is imposing gays on straight dudes as if straights are being forced to marry gay men!Such a poor pathetic book!
0 star!
#Fail
September 26, 2014
I feel so sorry for this guy. I wish he could accept himself and come out. Frank, we won't hate you for writing this when you step out of that closet. We understand. Just stop living in hate. You'll feel better.
If being gay is a choice, then when did you decide to become straight?
Being gay is not a choice, but being a bigot certainly is.
If being gay is a choice, then when did you decide to become straight?
Being gay is not a choice, but being a bigot certainly is.
nope-never
September 28, 2014Turek provides concise answes to obections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people.
Not only is there a spelling mistake in the blurb, there's a mistake in the way this author thinks.
When human rights are solely and purely decided by the majority in power by voting, the minority, whether they are women, African American, religious minority, homosexual or any other will always draw the short end of the stick.
Without the courts getting involved segregation would have lasted a hell of a lot longer ( just look at SA if you doubt me).
I'm not even going to dignify the rest of the crap he's spewing with any kind of rebuttal.
July 10, 2014
Your gayness hurts me! It's painful! It's destroying the planet!
Seriously, folks? There is not one piece of evidence that gay marriage in any way, shape, or form is hurting you. You don't like it? Cool. Then don't enter into a gay marriage, easy enough.
What happens when we start depriving the entire world of other things that you don't like? You don't like hamburger buns? Now everyone is eating bun-less hamburgers for eternity even though it makes absolutely no difference in your life whether said hamburger buns are consumed by others or not.
Same concept.
Love is love. And love is beautiful thing, and not something that is easily found in this world. If someone has found their life mate, their partner... someone they cherish, respect, love, and honor- who the fuck do you think you are to tell them their love is any less valid than any other couple's?
It is this kind of close-minded, ignorant dribble that is truly hurting the planet- not the love between a gay couple.
Seriously, folks? There is not one piece of evidence that gay marriage in any way, shape, or form is hurting you. You don't like it? Cool. Then don't enter into a gay marriage, easy enough.
What happens when we start depriving the entire world of other things that you don't like? You don't like hamburger buns? Now everyone is eating bun-less hamburgers for eternity even though it makes absolutely no difference in your life whether said hamburger buns are consumed by others or not.
Same concept.
Love is love. And love is beautiful thing, and not something that is easily found in this world. If someone has found their life mate, their partner... someone they cherish, respect, love, and honor- who the fuck do you think you are to tell them their love is any less valid than any other couple's?
It is this kind of close-minded, ignorant dribble that is truly hurting the planet- not the love between a gay couple.
September 28, 2015
Oh hell to the FUCK no.
Sound reasoning my ass.
Know who this reminds me of?
Because his reasoning was sound as fuck too.
But then...
And in parting
Sound reasoning my ass.
Know who this reminds me of?
Because his reasoning was sound as fuck too.
But then...
And in parting
July 14, 2013
Over the years, I've developed my own objections towards the issue of same-sex marriage. While I have multiple homosexual friends/acquaintances that I truly appreciate as individuals, I have never supported their behavior. This book validated by reasoning and it did so from a secular perspective. While most people know that the Bible is against homosexuality, not too many bother to approach the argument against same-sex marriage from a secular perspective because many people are under the false impression that the Bible is the ONLY source we have for objecting to it. We see so many of these sound-bites for 'equality' depicting how conservative Christians are bigoted and intolerant people that we tend to forget that there is a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage.
Essentially, the primary reason why same-sex marriage advocates are pressing so hard on legalizing gay marriage isn't necessarily because homosexuals want to get married but because they want to feel validated in the public eye. Meaning, if the government promotes this behavior, the culture will change over time in a manner that will no longer differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Despite what anyone hears from the liberal Left, this prospect is littered with terrible consequences for the American populous. Turek lays out a persuasive set of facts and figures describing how same-sex marriage is destructive to civilized society. As his title indicates, 'correct, not politically correct', which serves as an appropriate disclaimer for those considering the reading of this book.
It was a well reasoned book supported by sound logic and facts and figures that validate his conclusions. Those that are sympathetic to the same-sex position will be made to feel extremely uncomfortable, but truth isn't always easy to swallow. As this is a hot topic in the political sphere right now, I thought I'd pick it up and gather additional perspective from a brilliant scholar who isn't afraid to beat around the bush. All in all, I highly recommend the book.
Essentially, the primary reason why same-sex marriage advocates are pressing so hard on legalizing gay marriage isn't necessarily because homosexuals want to get married but because they want to feel validated in the public eye. Meaning, if the government promotes this behavior, the culture will change over time in a manner that will no longer differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Despite what anyone hears from the liberal Left, this prospect is littered with terrible consequences for the American populous. Turek lays out a persuasive set of facts and figures describing how same-sex marriage is destructive to civilized society. As his title indicates, 'correct, not politically correct', which serves as an appropriate disclaimer for those considering the reading of this book.
It was a well reasoned book supported by sound logic and facts and figures that validate his conclusions. Those that are sympathetic to the same-sex position will be made to feel extremely uncomfortable, but truth isn't always easy to swallow. As this is a hot topic in the political sphere right now, I thought I'd pick it up and gather additional perspective from a brilliant scholar who isn't afraid to beat around the bush. All in all, I highly recommend the book.
March 2, 2013
Author Frank Turek is not afraid to get to the root core of the same-sex marriage debate. His passion for marriage between a man and a woman is not at all hidden in the pages of this book. His defense for hetero-sexual marriage and arguments against the evils of homo-sexual marriages are both thought provoking and inspiring.
If you are looking for a book that intolerantly bashes and ridicules Gays then this book is not for you. Never at anytime does Frank vilify or slander a person or a people. He is very adamant that he is attacking the behavior not the person.
This book is a great supplement to my bookshelf in that I can reference it in time of need.
If you are looking for a book that intolerantly bashes and ridicules Gays then this book is not for you. Never at anytime does Frank vilify or slander a person or a people. He is very adamant that he is attacking the behavior not the person.
This book is a great supplement to my bookshelf in that I can reference it in time of need.
June 16, 2017
A couple logical loopholes like, for example, when he says there's no gay gene simply bc gay people don't reproduce, but overall, good points which I've been making myself for a long while already so I can't say this book presented any new arguments for me, partly because I already agree with the author's view on the issue of same-sex marriage so it was mostly yet another confirmation of my own stance. 4 stars, regardless, bc of Frank Turek's polite approach (there's a disclaimer at the very beginning for all you triggered snowflakes) and for making it clear that he's not against gay marriage bc he aims to offend and "discriminate", what he's against is the normalization of homosexuality which is the obvious driving force behind the whole facade of pushing for legislation of same-sex marriage. You may not agree with his opinion (or mine, for what it's worth) but at least, the man tried.
March 1, 2021
This book is basically a Reddit post on a alt-right circlejerking subreddit.
Lesbian people, bi people, gay people, pan people and other people of ALL sexual orientations are valid. Full stop.
I just CAN'T anymore.
Edit: Yes, straight people are valid too. Y'all non-oppressed people smh.
Lesbian people, bi people, gay people, pan people and other people of ALL sexual orientations are valid. Full stop.
I just CAN'T anymore.
Edit: Yes, straight people are valid too. Y'all non-oppressed people smh.
March 28, 2015
Look at all the trolls here bashing this book with ad hominem attacks, profanity, insults, name-calling. I have read this book and it is full of logical common sense explanations regarding the implications of redefining the marriage law. Whether immediate or over time, laws teach and influence our society on what is right and wrong, so it's important that our laws are based on reason and reason is based on self-evident truths. In this case, self evident truth has to do with biological realities and the psychology and sociology that flows from that. We are on the dark road of instituting a law that teaches people that separating the sexes (male and female) is just as good (if not better) than bringing them together. Not every marriage produces children, but if every child is born from a biological mother and father. So what good will it do for society (and the economy) if we have laws that claims this is no longer a necessary component to the child-rearing of loving parents? Anyway, the trolling that you see here reveals that this must be a great book with a very effective message. So we should be inspired by that alone to buy it and share it with others. Thanks
July 27, 2025
hmmmm.
September 1, 2017
Written in 2008, it's still a good educational read even after the SCOTUS decision against natural marriage. Sound reasoning, with lots of statistics from CDC and other countries, laying out the case why homosexual "marriage" is not equivalent to natural marriage, why it hurts everybody (including those engaging in homosexuality), and why it should not be promoted by the government. Probably a more controversial book now than when it was first published, but I would still challenge anyone opposed to the book's conclusion to actually show where it's premises are false or it's reasoning invalid. An emotional objection doesn't refute truth.
April 3, 2010
Not a pleasant topic but one that I feel a personal responsibility to be well versed in. Frank Turek does a good job of detailing all the logical reasons why same sex marriage isn't good for society using clear social science data. No nonsense, non-hysterical approach which I appreciate. Worth reading.
Read
September 10, 2020Let me state this:
Freud defined sexuality as a continuum rather than different poles. Writing a book that states ALL the STUPID reasons modern societies don't allow freedom of sexual expression is not only offensive but dare I say it, STUPID.
Freud defined sexuality as a continuum rather than different poles. Writing a book that states ALL the STUPID reasons modern societies don't allow freedom of sexual expression is not only offensive but dare I say it, STUPID.
September 28, 2015
one star to show how much this train of thought interests me.
February 17, 2016
I haven't yet read a better presentation of the issue of marriage and why it is crucial to societal health. The ideas and arguments for changing the definition (as if human beings can even do that) and practice of marriage are thoroughly dismantled. Yet, it's done with respect and kindness. The book resounds with solid evidence and reality, and the politically correct slogans are seen for how empty and misguided they are.
Gay "marriage" experiments are unnecessary. It's been in place long enough in other countries to get a good read on the results, and they are not healthy. The book is packed with reports and statistics emptying the gay "marriage" arguments of their power. They are based on falsehood and misunderstanding.
Gay "marriage" experiments are unnecessary. It's been in place long enough in other countries to get a good read on the results, and they are not healthy. The book is packed with reports and statistics emptying the gay "marriage" arguments of their power. They are based on falsehood and misunderstanding.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews