Murray: Social Security Causes The Gay


I was never a big fan of Madilyn Murray O’Hair. I certainly recognize the good she did in creating an atheist movement in America, but I thought she was far too often ignorant and simpleminded. But her son William, now a fundie preacher, is far, far worse. Look at this bizarre rant about how Social Security and Medicare are an attack on the traditional family and cause homosexuality. Yes, I’m serious.

The war on the traditional family began with President Franklin Roosevelt’s Social Security and other programs. One of the main reasons for marriages staying together was maintaining homes and wealth for old age. With the promise of government retirement money, many marriages could be walked away from for some very frivolous reasons. The divorce rates climbed as Social Security and other government benefits increased.

With many elders taken care of by the government, younger Americans could spend their money on themselves. Social Security and other benefits provided by government encouraged people to borrow and spend rather than to save. With a promise of government payouts to come in the future, the savings rate in the nation dropped to zero.

In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” started providing “poor children” and “single mothers” with government benefits. A second front was opened up against the traditional family. Now the government paid women with children not to marry. With the advent of Medicare for the aging and SCHIP to provide medical care for children in homes with incomes of up to four times the level of poverty, younger adults had even more money to spend on everything from booze to cars to Chinese-made clothes. The more adults were freed from the financial responsibilities of family life by government, the more families began to deteriorate…

When government rather than the family becomes the main provider, people see fewer practical reasons for morality. More adults live together without benefit of marriage. More children are born out of wedlock. More young men destroy their lives in homosexuality. Drug use destroys the will to work and the will to live. And government finances it all, but at a cost to the future. Benefit payments are so high that basic government services are not affordable.

Wow. Just wow. What else is there to say?

Comments

  1. busterggi says

    If marriage & family were all that great no one would ever want to leave them just for pocket change.

  2. Synfandel says

    Which clearly explains why 97.2 per cent of Sweden is gay. With government keeping you from falling into abject poverty, why wouldn’t you be?

  3. andrewjohnston says

    William must be a big fan of the People’s Republic of China. With their porous safety net that unduly favors the already well-off, people are forced to rely on family to avoid spending old age begging on the street. And the children are easily controlled through a combination of guilt and fear.

    Oh, and:

    More young men destroy their lives in homosexuality.

    Only men, apparently. Social cons must believe that lesbians are a myth. More support for the compensation theory, I suppose – why wouldn’t women want to be with men when men are so great?

  4. brucegee1962 says

    Translation: “I acknowledge that, prior to the creation of social welfare programs, many women felt trapped in loveless or even abusive marriages by economic pressure. Poor people were also significantly worse off than they are today. Weren’t those good old days terrific? Since God obviously caused people to be women and poor in order to punish them, we should strive to turn the clock back to those halcyon times.”

  5. lldayo says

    I would guess he wouldn’t count churches not having to pay taxes as not being a type of government handout. Because that would make all church goers gay, or something.

  6. laurentweppe says

    The funniest thing is how he inadvertently concede that “traditional” marriage was more of a business contract than anything else and that the threat of destitution wa what kept many loveless marriages afloat.

  7. Akira MacKenzie says

    Translation: “I AM A GOOD CHRISTIAN LIKE EVEYONE ELSE! I’M NOT LIKE MY HATED ATHEIST MOTHER! SEE, I’M SOOOOOOO CHRISTIAN I EVEN THINK SOCIAL SECURITY CAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY! PLEASE, LIKE ME! PLEASE, OH PLEASE, LIKE ME, AMERICA!!!”

  8. Chiroptera says

    And don’t forget that public education is evil because it takes children out of the home, where they should be learning how to till the fields with their parents.

    I have to acknowledge the Right Wing’s recognition that the main purpose of the “traditional family” was to be the principle unit of economic production in a feudal economy.

  9. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    I was never a big fan of Madilyn Murray O’Hair.

    Just for the record, Ed, she spelled her first name “Madalyn”.

  10. DaveL says

    With a promise of government payouts to come in the future, the savings rate in the nation dropped to zero.

    According to government statistics, the personal savings rate was steadily above 6.5% from 1959, peaked at around 12% in the 80s, and hit a low of 1% around 2005.

  11. thalwen says

    I love how he talks about people being able to live outside abject poverty and in relationships with people they actually like as bad things.

  12. says

    …Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” started providing “poor children” and “single mothers” with government benefits.

    His “use” of “scare” quotes is astoun”ding.”

  13. jamessweet says

    The first paragraph is that good ol’ chestnut, “things were much better when people were forced to stay in unhappy, often abusive marriages.” Cute.

  14. raven says

    Murray and his fellow kooks are free to reject social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. The government doesn’t force people to cash those checks. It will at least keep the gay away.

    Although even Saint Ayn Rand didn’t do that.

  15. greg1466 says

    I’m right there with #8 laurentweepe. This really jumped out at me…

    When government rather than the family becomes the main provider, people see fewer practical reasons for morality.

    Interestingly enough the vast majority of benefits of being married, both practical and otherwise, are gained by simply living with someone, not by the act of getting married. Shared expenses, companionship, etc. The only real advantages you gain by actually getting married are the legal benefits provided for by the, uh, government.

  16. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    How does he explain the rampant drug use in the US during the nineteenth century, before there was a safety net?

  17. theguy says

    “Benefit payments are so high that basic government services are not affordable.”

    The reality is that benefit payments are meager, for just about any anti-poverty program you look at. Social Security doesn’t replace even close to 100% of past wages. Food stamps aren’t enough to remain healthy (but it beats the heck out of starvation). Some of the means-tested benefits have a lifetime limit, so some people are cut off welfare even if they haven’t found a job. Medicare might be the only substantial benefit, but how do people become lazy or irresponsible by waiting until 65 to take advantage of it?

    I notice Murray doesn’t mention the 1996 welfare reform, probably because it would have undermined his argument. The research that has been done in the real world (as opposed to Murray’s unsupported assertions) finds little or no connection between welfare policies and marriage rates.

  18. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    The only real advantages you gain by actually getting married are the legal benefits provided for by the, uh, government.

    That is why marriage should only be defined and sanctified by the church. But what church? The official church of the government.

  19. andrewjohnston says

    Oh wow, read the rest of Murray’s article. He’s barely even bothering to conceal the racism, what with his claims that black people were bought off with welfare. Also, he thinks Rick Santorum would have had a real shot at the White House.

  20. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Zinc Avenger, I am afraid of what it would take to have the power to shoot santorum at a target, let alone the White House.

  21. thisisaturingtest says

    When government rather than the family becomes the main provider, people see fewer practical reasons for morality.

    This seems to be based on the oh-so-moral idea that the only reason to help other people is when they’re family. Which, in turn, is based on the idea that government is a thing only, not the people, or their principles, that make it up; and that this thing can’t possibly have any morals, or moral grounding.

  22. John Hinkle says

    Funny how he rails about people (democrats) living on handouts. But isn’t that how he makes his living, on handouts?

    He’s chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition (yet another org that is anti-equality, forced-birther, pro Xianity-establishing government), and all he does is peddle woo, including in foreign countries. Ok, he’s written 7 books, but all but possibly one look like woo peddling.

    So he hawks vapor and gets paid for it. Sounds like handouts to me.

  23. footface says

    younger adults had even more money to spend on (…) Chinese-made clothes.

    You know those kids and their love of… frivolous… Chinese… clothes?

  24. baal says

    More young men destroy their lives in homosexuality.</blockquote?

    Only men, apparently. Social cons must believe that lesbians are a myth.

    Nonsense. All women are subservient to their husbands and must obey his orders for sex. Her sexuality is entirely beside the point.

    many marriages could be walked away from for some very frivolous reasons.

    Work on being decent and figuring out how you and your spouse should get their needs met and wants filled rather than worrying about ‘frivolous’ reasons. Dependency is a terrible reason for sustaining a marriage.

  25. DaveL says

    What he’s basically saying is “Our society’s progress in mitigating misery and fear has been a fucking disaster for my religion.”

    And he’s right.

  26. gratch says

    I love the picture of matrimony he paints. Apparently marriage serves two and only two purposes. Creating a life long financial contract with another person and the chance to become soldiers on the front line of the war against the encroaching Gay Menace. And that’s all. Is he married? She must be a lucky woman.

  27. dingojack says

    A quick google finds these interesting factiods:
    * Divorce rates in 1920 and 1930 were steady at 1.6 per 100000.
    * The marriage rate peaked in 1940 at 12.1 per 100000 (that’s 1,595,879 marriages) and has been declining ever since.
    * The number of divorces (per 100000) compared the the number of marriages (per 100000) numerically declined between 1930 to 1940 (off a generally rising trend of 0.031 between 1900-1960).
    * The number of divorces (per 100000) compared to the number of marriages (oer 100000) jumped steeply between 1965 to 1975. From
    0.26 divorces per marriage to 0.48 divorces per marriage.
    * Since 1975 the number of divorces (per 100000) compared to the number of marriages (per 100000) has been rising 0.0004 per year with a correlation of 0.051 (that’s the slowest growth rate and the weakest correlation between marriages and divorces since 1900).
    * In 1981 there were 2,438,000 marriages (10.6 per 100000) and 1,219,000 divorces (5.3 per 100000). This is the highest rate of divorces per 100000 since 1900.
    * Since 1981 the divorce has declined, in 2009 there were 3.5 divorces per 100000 population, the same as in 1970.

    In other words, the O’Hair character’s full of shit.

    Dingo
    —–
    Source.

  28. MikeMa says

    Dingo,
    You didn’t need to do all that work to know he’s full of shit but thanks for the effort.

  29. slc1 says

    It is my understanding that Ms. Murray O’Hair was death on drugs and supported strong anti-drug laws.

  30. bradleybetts says

    @andrewjohnston #4

    “Oh, and:

    More young men destroy their lives in homosexuality.
    Only men, apparently. Social cons must believe that lesbians are a myth. More support for the compensation theory, I suppose – why wouldn’t women want to be with men when men are so great?”

    I’m more inclined to believe that the focus on gay men is due to the attitude that, well… Lesbians are hot. But man-sex, that’s just icky.

Leave a Reply