RUSH: Have you heard this? By the way, it’s true. It is being said that gay marriage is superior to heterosexual marriage. I can’t believe we’re even using language that signifies the difference, but, anyways, we have to.
The militant gay community says that gay marriage is superior because they get to pick their children via adoption. Therefore, they — having chosen the exact kind of child they want– have a much better chance at raising that child than a hetero couple who simply have to deal with whatever the sperm and the egg produce. Do not doubt me on this. There is a movement on — subtle and quiet though it may be — that touts that the gay lifestyle is more superior and enlightened.
It features a higher degree of awareness and sensitivity, and that gay marriage itself is superior to standard, same-old, heterosexual marriage. In part, it is because gay couples get to choose the children that they will raise, and heterosexual couples are “stuck” with whatever they end up producing. (interruption) You’re frowning at me, which means you have not seen this. (interruption) They know… (interruption) They know exactly what it sounds like and they’re touting it.
I don’t even know if you would find this if you would Google it. You might if you Googled it. You’ll find it. It’s there. I mean I ran across it. I’m not making this up out of whole cloth. It’s there, and it’s not something that they’re leading with. It’s what they believe internally and it’s what guides their treatment of everybody else. It’s now a superior lifestyle, a supremacy lifestyle.
RUSH: If you doubt me on gay marriage and how gay marriage and homosexuality are healthier, right here is Politico. Politico magazine, June 26, 2015, just a couple of weeks ago, “Are Gay Marriages Healthier Than Straight Marriages? — Gay relationships benefit for being the very thing straight relationships are not: a union of two people of the same sex.” I’ll read that to you again. This is not satire. This is not United Media Publishing.
This is the Politico magazine: “Are Gay Marriages Healthier Than Straight Marriages?” and then the subheadline is: “Gay relationships benefit for being the very thing straight relationships are not: a union of two people of the same sex.” So right there: “a union of two people of the same sex” is a much greater benefit than a union of two people of the opposite sex. Somehow, a union of two people of the same sex is automatically superior.
“Ask any husband and wife and they’ll admit that marriage is hard — but social science is beginning to discover that part of the challenge of marriage stems from the fact that most couples choose to marry a member of the opposite gender. Mixing a man and a woman in a marriage, it turns out, makes a union harder.” That’s the lede! “As trite and overdone as the cliche ‘men are from Mars and women are from Venus’ may be, it does contain a grain of truth:
“Men and women are fundamentally different in certain ways, and those differences can pose major challenges in straight marriages. Same-sex couples, by definition, don’t face these obstacles, which is why recent research suggests that same-sex marriages aren’t just equal to straight marriages: in important regards they are superior.” And you thought I was making this up? I’ll forgive you today because I did pull the hoax on you about the fake menstrual cycle.
But again: I pulled that back inside of three minutes. I didn’t let you go the whole day believing that. But I’m sorry. That was so good, I had to do it. But this is Politico magazine: “Same-sex couples, by definition, don’t face these obstacles, which is why recent research suggests that same-sex marriages aren’t just equal to straight marriages: in important regards they are superior.
“Now that the Supreme Court has decided that gay marriages deserve the same rights as straight ones, it’s worth keeping in mind the findings of psychologists John and Julie Gottman, arguably the world’s leading experts on what makes relationships work.” Arguably? I never heard of these people. Why are we automatically just accept that John and Julie Gottman are “the world’s leading experts on what makes relationships work”?
Well, “They are finding that gay and heterosexual marriages share a lot in common in terms of why they thrive or fail, but on one of the biggest determinants of marital success — how couples fight — gay couples have an edge. ‘They are,’ John Gottman [says], ‘a lot nicer to each other during fights.’ Some couples fight frequently and other couples avoid conflict altogether. The key distinction between couples who ultimately stay together and those who get divorced is not how often they fight, but how they handle themselves during conflict. And gay couples have a healthier fighting style than straight couples.”
Well, there’s a huge gay divorce industry just starting. There’s the first law firm has just established itself. I forget what state. But there’s a law firm just waiting for the wave of gay divorces to begin. You see what caca here is developing? This is Politico! This is the equivalent, as far as the establishment is concerned, it may as well as been in the New York Times. It may as well be in the Washington Post.
So gay marriages are healthier than straight marriages. Gay parenting, better than heteroparenting. They get to choose their kids. They are nicer people. They don’t fight nearly as mean and therefore the kids don’t suffer nearly as much and there will be fewer divorces — and there’s even peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Homosexuality that supposedly confirms all of this. And you will be made to love it.
RUSH: You want to hear some quotes from this Politico magazine story: “Are Gay Marriages Healthier Than Straight Marriages?” What the hell, folks, we’ve lost the issue here. We may as well just have fun with this. What else is there to do here? Okay, so, here you go: “For one peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Gottman…” Again, just to remind you, John and his wife Julie, John and Julie Gottman, two heteros, have become the experts in relationships.
It says here, “psychologists John and Julie Gottman, arguably the worldÂ’s leading experts on what makes relationships work.” They’re hetero. How the hell do they know anything? Wouldn’t they have to be in a gay relationship in order to be experts here? Anyway, I don’t want to confuse everybody. But here we go. Again, it’s Politico magazine. This is from June 26th. “[I]t’s worth keeping in mind the findings of psychologists John and Julie Gottman, arguably the worldÂ’s leading experts on what makes relationships work. …
“For one peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Homosexuality…” Do you have your subscription yet? (chuckles) “Gottman and his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington brought straight and gay couples into Gottman’s lab and interviewed each couple separately about an issue they fought about. Gottman has performed some version of this study many times and has found that couples often bring up topics like uneven division of chores, money problems and sex — usually one person wants to have more and the other person doesn’t.
“In this study, the gay and straight couples brought up the same sort of problems, but gay couples were, by a statistically significant margin, less defensive during fights and more likely to use shared humor to soften the tension of the conversation. ‘The gay and lesbian couples,’ Gottman [said], ‘were much more open and much more direct, particularly when talking about sex.’ Gottman gave me an example of two gay men who were debating who initiates sex more. The first said to his partner, ‘Who do you think initiated sex this morning?’
“His partner responded saying, ‘You donÂ’t have the kind of body on a man that I find most sexually attractive.’ To that, his partner said, ‘I know that. But my question is: Who do you think initiated sex together this morning?’ ‘Can you imagine,’ Julie Gottman,” his wife, “a clinical psychologist, chimed in, ‘A man saying to his pregnant wife: “You donÂ’t have the kind of body right now I find most attractive in a woman?”‘” A gay couple, one can say that to the other, “I don’t find your body attractive.
“You don’t have the body on a man I find most sexually attractive.” Then what are you in the relationship for, would be my reaction? If you’ve got two guys in a relationship and one of them in a fight says, “You know what? You don’t have the kind of body on a man I find most sexually attractive.” I would say, “Well, then why are you here?” But the Gottmans say that’s a much healthier fight in a gay relationship because in a hetero relationship the guy says to his pregnant wife, “You don’t have the kind of body right now I don’t find most attractive in a woman, that could end the marriage.
But the gay couple will laugh about it and move on and ultimately have sex, and everything will be okay. “The directness and lack of defensiveness have an added benefit: It lets the couples actually resolve their conflicts. John Gottman told me about a lesbian couple he saw in his lab who were having a disagreement about whether one of them was being too flirty with men.” Now… Now, just that sentence… See, ladies and gentlemen, I read the stitches on the fastball.
I can see the spin on a curveball, and I read between the lines, and that sentence — let’s break this down. “John Gottman told me about a lesbian couple he saw in his lab…” Okay. He’s in his lab, and there’s a lesbian couple in there. Imagine! And he saw them. What the hell is the lesbian couple doing in his lab? What the hell is his lab? So he’s got a lab. He’s got a lesbian couple in there. He happened to see them.
Yeah, “John Gottman told me about a lesbian couple he saw in his lab who were having a disagreement about whether one of them was being too flirty with men.” Why would that matter if they both know they’re lesbians? Why would flirting with men matter? What could possibly cause any problems there? What am I missing? Help me out in there. (interruption) “The woman accused of being too flirty worked in a bar and made a lot of money in tips by being flirtatious and dressing provocatively.
“Her partner thought her behavior was threatening and obnoxious. The flirty partner swore that she was only making herself attractive to men for the money. Her partner upped the ante, though, saying, ‘That’s bullshit, I think you get off on this, on dressing provocative and on all of these double entendres. I’ve watched you flirt and I think you love the attention.'” Even this turned out to be a much more healthy fight than would it been had it been a heterosexual couple because they were able to…
Now that’s enough, but you get the flavor for this. You get… (Well, that may be a bad term.) You get the idea here. Are gay marriages healthier than straight marriages. At the same time, folks, there are articles on gay parenting being superior to traditional parenting. You don’t understand what happened? You mean…? We talked about this yesterday, “One day things were normal.” When was that day? Seemed like just yesterday, right? Five years ago, ten years ago. It’s been coming. (sigh)
I like to think… I’ll just be honest. My perception of this program, it would be interesting to compare my perception with yours. Now, I consider this program to have many facets and to have a bunch of different appeals. People listen to it for a variety of reasons. But one of the things I have always thought this program would be — or was and is — is a warning, a series of warnings every day about what is happening in the country and where we are headed if people don’t do anything.
Now, I have not said that per se. I have just assumed that the vast majority of people in the audience would understand that that’s what I’m doing here, is warning. So this story, to me, is not as big a shock as it might be to you, to whom you think this stuff just happened overnight. It hasn’t been going on overnight. This has been building! We’ve been talking about in one way or another — you can call it the cultural rot, you can call it the cultural perversion. You can call it cultural transformation, cultural change.
We’ve been documenting it here every day I’ve been doing this program for 25-plus years, and where it’s headed. What you’ve thought is, “Somebody is eventually going to stand up and say, ‘Stop, this is enough,'” or it’s going to bottom out and the mass of public opinion is going to oppose it. That may have happened, but it’s not enough to stop it. Who do you think…? How do you think a story like this ends up in the Politico magazine? What needs to be in place? What needs to happen?
Who needs to be there for something like this to get commissioned, to be reported, to be studied and then to be written and be published. What has to happen? What has to happen for the portrayal of homosexuality as it is in film and on TV? What has to happen for that to happen? The answers are self-evident, and it has been happening every day. So I have viewed much of what I did as not just political analysis and not just political advocacy and all those things, but I’ve also thought that what I do here every day is essentially ring a bell, a warning bell.
“Here’s what’s happening.”
That’s what I’m doing today, too. That’s what this all is. So when I say there are stories effervescing out there about the superiority of gay parenting and gay child raising, if you’ve not seen them, I’m sure you’re pooh-poohing it, once again thinking… Just remember that I told you what the Sierra Club was going to try to do with your SUV. Remember how you pooh-poohed that? All these things are happening, and they are now intricately woven into the fabric of culture and society, and the majority is losing every battle.
The majority we’re talking about is a 71 to 73% majority. That’s the number of people, the percentage of the people in the country who identify as Christian. The gay population, the total gay population is less than 2%. The transgender population is so small, it’s hard to measure it. It’s not even half of 1%. But yet, take a look at who is dominating and who is transforming, who is changing the culture. It isn’t the 71%, 73% percent majority. They are being steamrollered, bullied, however you want to characterize it.
And it’s not just in culture. I think the same thing is happening in politics. I don’t think the size of the majority is quite as large as, say, the Christian majority is. But, folks, this is not even arguable. The number of people in America who identify and say they’re Christian is 71, 73 percent, depending on the poll you look at. Now, a lot of people think the gay population’s 25% or 30%. They’re wrong, but that has resulted because of the pop culture mainstream culture portrayal.
It just seems that it’s much larger than what it actually is. Now, in the political realm, I think the last I saw was that 37% of people identify as conservative and 25% identify as liberal. When you get to Democrat-Republican, that shifts a little bit. But still the majority of the adult population, not 71%, probably in the 50s. But it’s still losing everything, and because everything happening culturally is part of a political agenda — part of the Democrat Party political agenda…
All of this gay marriage, healthier than straight marriage; gay child rearing superior to traditional child rearing. That’s all being promoted, politically, by the Democrat Party, which gives it its authority and also contributes to people thinking that it is a sizable bunch of people or movement. But it’s all politics. Every bit of it is politics, and the fact that it’s politics — and so many people don’t want to have anything to do with politics, because they hate it — is one of the things that enables this to happen so readily.
People ignore it, because they don’t like politics. It rubs them wrong. But everything that’s happening here is the result of a political agenda. It’s not… I don’t believe this is legitimate societal shift. I don’t believe this is legitimate transformation. It’s the result of a political agenda being implemented and being forced upon the country. And it’s being forced on the country because nobody is standing up and saying, “Stop!”
Because when somebody does, what happens to them?