My Evolution Against “Gay Marriage”
Like Obama, I have also evolved on the marriage debate. I suspect a lot of people journeyed a similar path, and even more so, I suspect a lot more people are evolving now. Here’s how I went from not really caring to wide-eyed activism.
“Let’s Be Diverse” Stage: It was cool and sophisticated to hang out with “gay” people, and people made sure others knew they hung out with “gay” people to appear diverse and tolerant. As a single, liberal, non-religious, bicep-pumping, hair-tossing mom and career woman (career woman before mom) I had plenty of “gay” friends. They seemed to love my approval, and well, I loved theirs. Everybody was somebody, especially if you made somebody else look good. “I do what I want, you do what you want, we’ll all just tell each other how wonderful we are!” It was kind of fun. So I frequented trendy night clubs where the free people went. We were crazy and fabulous together!
“Ambivalent” Stage: I realized my priorities were — not right. This whole message in society seemed to be that adults can do whatever they want, that they could follow any desire and frown at anyone who criticized them. It wasn’t about children; but about adults and their desires. At some point a grown-up senses he or she needs to act grown up, however, and demanding your way is childish. There are reasons not to make certain choices. As my priorities changed and I focused more on raising my kids, I still knew “gay” couples and my kids played with their kids. I honestly did not care one squash about “gay rights” or “gay marriage” though. If that’s what they wanted, fine. I was too busy with my own life trying to align my priorities and figure out how to be a responsible parent.
“Leave Me Alone” Stage: As I converted to Catholicism, I began to understand the teaching of the Church regarding Marriage, and how children are gifts who ought to raised by parents committed to loving them unconditionally. I began to notice how the modern cultural message I’d always gulped down was different from the beautiful message of the Church, how women really did not realize the truth of their femininity, nor did men realize the truth of masculinity. Even as I realized the beauty of Marriage, I still didn’t really care if two men or two women wanted to call themselves married. Rather libertarian in my views, I thought perhaps government should just stay out of marriage altogether and leave that personal part of life alone. Once I understood the Sacrament of Marriage, I actually resented that I had to get permission from the state to get married.
“Imposing?” Stage: I discovered social media and began to identify myself as a Catholic wife and mother. Immediately, to my shock, I got called names I’d never been called in all my life, even when I explained my views about government leaving people alone. I got called “misogynist” and “homophobe” and “bigot” and “seeyounexttuesday” and people jumped from the abyss of the internet to tell me how much they despised me. I began to realize that the issue isn’t really so much about two same-sex people having the liberty to live however they want and to call themselves whatever they want, but the issue was far more politically driven and weighty. Whether I wanted to or not, I had to approve and people were going to use the government to impose approval on me and my family, or silence us. Tolerance wasn’t enough. I had flashbacks to the behaviors of people I met in the “Let’s Be Diverse” stage.
Click. Click. Click. Oh yeah!
“I Must Stand” Stage: It is worth noting that even then, I still knew same-sex couples whom I considered friendly acquaintances. They respected my faith and my family, and they knew where I stood; there was trust. However, the hostility and tyrannical behavior of the “gay rights” activists was remarkably disturbing. Not only do they want to silence anyone who doesn’t approve, they want to harm them too. I grew resentful until I realized that anger wasn’t helpful, so I grew attentive and dedicated. I saw the slow creep of social change they pushed for – to make marriage meaningless – and I saw that it was not healthy for society, not good for the future of our children because it isn’t about the children. I saw the lies that a Godless society tells young people in greater clarity than ever before, and I saw how that message is destructive. Then I posted my frustration, and hell broke loose. I realized that I owe it to my children to defend the truth without compromise in my country and my world. Even more, I owe it to God who gave me those children.
Unlike Obama, I’m not going to say my children sat around the dinner table and made me aware of what was going on in my country, so I changed my mind. I’m not going to say I might be personally this but politically that. I’m thinking for myself, and I’m proud to say I evolved and changed my mind because I saw the truth and I love my children. I’m also proud to say I did not evolve because of political pressure from people who fund me and keep me in power.
I am 100% against making marriage meaningless because I’ve seen how when a word can mean anything, it means nothing. We need Marriage to mean something again in this country, and in this world. Satan’s most effective weapon is the destruction of the family. Break families, and you break people and societies for generations.
God. Love. Commitment. Marriage. Sacrifice. Children. Eternity.
Category: Featured, Marriage, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (559)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Marriage should be earned | Intentious | May 14, 2012
- How my views on gay marriage have evolved... - Christian Forums | May 15, 2012
- One Woman’s Evolution Against Gay Marriage | May 31, 2012
- A different evolution « A FINE MESS!! | June 1, 2012
- Catholic « o3811236 | December 1, 2012
You know, Stacy, I really like your use of the participial use of the word Accept in the title of this blog. You are, by nature, by desire, and by extraordinary effort, a strong and advanced defender of our faith, advanced enough, in fact to realize that there is no end point. Thus you and hopefully all of us ars continually “Accepting”.
I often laugh when certain of my evangelical friends will say, “Well, I was saved on – insert date – . I always tell them “No, dummy, ( well, actually, I only call the men, dummy.) you were saved 2000 years ago, you WOKE UP on -insert date-. We then proceed to the inevitable eternal security vs eternal salvation discussion and, well…you know. I always end up telling them that my born again experience happens constantly, because immersion into the beatific vision must become deeper with each breath, until we become one with God in heaven. I’m “accepting” my salvation in inverse proportion to my rejecting of my own will.
Now, at long last, to my point. If any word out of BHO’s mouth yesterday was actually true, then he really is devolving from an amoral position to an immoral one. The situational ethicist has no fixed endpoint, for he has no absolutes, save his own ego. You ( and hopefully I) have a very clear endpoint, one in fact, that we know is utterly unattainable in this life. “be PERFECT, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”. How do we do this? Well, God’s instruction manual for life, the Ten Commandments, are 70 words. The instructions for this computer were probably 70 pages.
Pursuit of perfection, as you so accurately describe is, by definition, participial. Your evolution in this matter is simply the childlike purity of the soul bringing order to the intellect.
I love your post. I’m somewhere in the “Imposing? stage” desperately wishing, in vain, to return to the “Leave Me Alone stage”. And at the same time trying to figure out how to approach moving to the “I Must Stand stage”.
In reality, I just want to hide in a hole and cry because it all makes me so overwhelmingly angry.
Thanks, for keeping me semi-sane.
To me, it’s about the future — specifically, what kind of a future the children will grow up in.
That thought got me into the stand for marriage stage real fast, but not until the second time we Californians were about to vote that marriage was between the union of a man and a woman — and partly because the polls predicted the vote was going to be close, so I felt I could make a difference.
I realized that, what marriage was, was important to me. It was important to me that it not be redefined in a way that debased, sullied or tarnished it.
The idea and ideal of marriage is a beautiful thing, and a good thing for children to aspire to.
I’d befriended gays on three continents, and observed their relationships — and while I’ve never felt that gays were better or worse people than heterosexuals, I felt their relationships were mostly about the (anal) sex. (One actually told me that.) These relationships had nothing to do with marriage, in which a man and a woman choose to share their lives, and often found a family.
There are now civil unions and same-sex “marriages” in several states. Now we’ll see if the differences between the relationships I’ve observed, and marriages, were due to the gays not being married, or whether there won’t be much difference — unless the Supreme Court imposes SSM on the entire country.
Like countless other words we use every day, the word “marriage” means different things in different contexts, and the Church speaks, understands and accepts them all in her love. With that in mind and heart, I can support both “same-sex marriage” –AND– the Church’s official teachings on “marriage”. It does not render “meaningless” that which the Church refers to by that word, nor does a word become meaningless by having multiple meanings in a dictionary.
Minnesota Marriage Minute Episode 10
Minnesota Marriage Minute: Episode 22
Adam, those were great, short and helpful. Thank you.
I think it was Bastiat that made reference to the knee jerk reaction of so many. He said something like being against public school and people would shout at him for being against educating children.
Just because I don’t think marriage can be redefined and that it has specific meaning with specific goals and those goals are for the common good of society does not equal hate to anybody.
“So I frequented trendy night clubs where the free people went. We were crazy and fabulous together!”
Would you please provide complete details on this phase please.
I don’t think I can even begin to put into words how much I love this post. Thank you for sharing.
Peggy Sue,
“Like countless other words we use every day, the word “marriage” means different things in different contexts, and the Church speaks, understands and accepts them all in her love.”
Um, no. The Church does not speak, understand and accept that two same-sex people can be married.
Why do you say that?
Stacy, depending on what is meant by the word “married”, two people of the same-sex can be “married” and living in a relationship that is in keeping with Church teaching. The word “married” has many meanings, and the Church speaks, understands and accepts them all in her love.
Howard,
Those clubs are literally hell on earth. Read my conversion story (in the About Me tab). I know the boundless mercy of God. That’s why I couldn’t shut up.
Peggy Sue,
Help me out. What are you talking about? Cite a source from the Church, that would help.
Stacy, I did just read your conversion story. You remind me somewhat of my oldest son, different circumstances obviously, and the intensity of the pain of destructive behavior is something that we shouldn’t and probably can’t compare. He has many demons to fight and an embarrassing past. But after an awakening (not religious) he tells people if they ask about something sensitive, you can ask me anything I am an open book. That is a great therapy for him as he is faced with his past mistakes and is reminded that he is conquereing them and that he has to maintain that victory. I can talk to him about the faith and he is evolving. Evolution can be in the right direction and not Darwinian.
Peggy Sue, the Church does not have any teaching favoring, accepting or blessing on “two people of the same-sex can be “married” and living in a relationship”. But the Church can giive you the teachings against it going all the way back to the Old Testament.
Stacy; great piece again, and would put myself in the “I Must Stand” stage.
Richard
Stacy, by “speak, understand and accept in love”, I’m talking about charitable communication overcoming linguistic divisiveness, not about pushing or subscribing to a false theology. That’s “speak”, as in we can use terms like “same-sex marriage” or simply “marriage”, even at times when referring to relationships between persons of the same sex. And “understand”, as in we comprehend when something called “marriage” isn’t an indissoluble union of a man and a woman open to procreation. And “accept”, as in accepting that the word “marriage” can mean things other than an indissoluble union of a man and a woman open to procreation.
That way, when my chaste neighbor and his partner who happens to be the same sex as my neighbor speak of their “marriage” as lasting near 40 years, or the lecturer talks about an economic marriage of two countries, or I’m offered a married set of jewelry, or we’re scoring marriages in a game of pinochle, or someone asks me for my thoughts on the marriage of words and music in a hit song, I won’t respond with something stupid like, “What?! No such thing! I’m ‘against’ it! A marriage must be an indissoluble union of a man and a woman open to sexual reproduction.”
I never use the term “marriage” to refer to relationships between persons of the same sex, because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Homosexual relationships aren’t. I don’t “understand” or “accept” that “marriage” isn’t a union of a man and a woman.
I don’t believe that the proposed redefinition of marriage would be an improvement. Marriage often leads to families in which children are raised by their biological mothers and fathers. When homosexual couples adopt, the children are deprived of a mother or a father, simply because that is the way the adults want it. Mothers don’t father and fathers don’t mother. This causes problems in the children.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/03/06/studies-children-raised-by-lesbians-not-problem-free/
Metaphors and other figures of speech don’t establish that marriage isn’t the union of a husband and wife.
Richard, I was referring to definitions of the word “marriage” in the English language that do not involve a homosexual act or consent thereto. But apparently, by your response, you yourself accept and use definitions of “marriage” that involve a homosexual act or consent thereto.
Peggy Sue,
It has been said that Language is to thought what a bird cage is to a bird. You can see it and hear it but thoughts can’t ever truly fly free when limited by words. For the purpose of this very serious discussion, a subject so offensive to God that he would destroy entire cities over it, the use of the word “marriage” is intended to mean, and only mean, the type of marriage where, “A man shall cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” …period.
To introduce any of the other common meanings to the word within the context of this discussion reduces it to the absurd. We are not talking about the marriage of gin and vermouth making a perfect martini here, or a Reese’s cup being the perfect marriage of chocolate and peanut butter. We are all discussing sacramental marriage. “Legal” marriage is a derivative of God’s plan for the procreation of the species. It is furthermore an expression of the love of the Holy Trinity mirrored in it’s children. To interject any other meaning under these circumstances is to diminish the gravity of the discussion. With all due respect, while what you are saying may be grammatically excusable, you may be sending entirely the wrong message for faithful Christians to hear.
Stacy,
The number one rule for writers is to write what you know; so please, stick to judging strippers, cheaters, cocaine-users, three time marriage losers, bad mothers… well you get the idea. You don’t know any thing about what it is to be gay. And for a former harlot to be so judgmental is outrageous.
If all else fails, please refer to your churches procedures; wait till the last minute when you realize you’re about to become irrelevant, then quickly update.
Clubs are hell? Suburbia is hell.
Stacy, you don’t know a thing about god, you only know how to be right. You haven’t changed a bit since you were 22.
“The number one rule for writers is to write what you know”
Mjeck knows how to be a homosexual.
Mjeck knows how to criticize.
Mjeck knows……………………….?
Mjeck,
Nope. From my conversion story:
“When the demons of my past try to cower or taunt me now, to stop me from telling the truth, to tell me to be afraid, I make one gigantic sign of the cross over my body and raise my hands Heavenward, and then I let that robe and that mantle clothe me in protection. There’s work to be done for the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Someday you will face your Creator and be judged. There’s a reason you are so compelled to try to ridicule someone into submission, and I pray you are free from it because you know as well as I do that behaving like that is not the path to real happiness.
And — your comment only proves the point of the post. I’m not your enemy.
Val,
“You know, Stacy, I really like your use of the participial use of the word Accept in the title of this blog.”
I wanted to say something I’ve been itching to say. When I read the title of this blog sometimes I wince because it sounds so…new agey hypnotic or something. But when I chose it, it was for the reason you mentioned. I said so many times that every morning was like Christmas morning, excitement over new REAL gifts. I really did feel like a kid again. Part of my struggle was accepting those gifts. For a long time I couldn’t accept it, and then I realized I was only hurting the people offering them to me and that rejecting God’s gifts was sinful in and of itself. But it’s still hard sometimes to grasp the enormity of it all. I am so grateful. God is good!
Val
I am confused. You say ““Legal” marriage is a derivative of God’s plan for the procreation of the species”
“Stacy” says “I thought perhaps government should just stay out of marriage altogether and leave that personal part of life alone. Once I understood the Sacrament of Marriage, I actually resented that I had to get permission from the state to get married.”
So should the government be in the business of marriage?
And realistically is marriage really necessary for procreation of the species?
is marriage really necessary for procreation of the species?
No, but the ideal environment for raising children is in a family with their married mother and father.
Marriage came about because of the unique goodness that results when a man and woman marry and therefore stay together to raise their children.
Men and women coming together in love is a beautiful thing, complementary bodies and all, but it is that vow to stay together that is marriage.
Why is it so important that men and women stay together? Because they create families! Not always, but often enough for society to have recognized the importance and goodness of that special commitment, and have adorned it with a beautiful ceremony.
SSM advocates posting here are trying hard to trivialize this connection between marriage, and families with children, by repeating over and over that there are exceptions (empty nesters) — or that having children isn’t a requirement of marriage. Somehow exceptions or the lack of a child requirement substantiates, in their arguments — declaring away the connection between marriage and family.
But this distracts from fundamental questions: Why does marriage exist and what is its benefit to society?
Attacking marriage as discriminatory suggests that it exists, as is, for little or no good reason — and that marriage is not of benefit to society. So it’s more important to redefine (and therefore do away with the concept of marriage) — God save us — for the good of homosexuals and their specious sound bites (“marriage equality,” “freedom to marry”).*
It’s no wonder SSM advocates don’t like to admit there’s an important reason marriage exists — and that it’s to society’s benefit for it to exist, as is.
A problem for SSM advocates, is where this inevitably leads to.
There’s not the same benefit to society to recognize homosexual couples, because they never produce children. If married, they can obviously adopt — but even then, the children they adopt are always deprived of at least a mom or a dad (with deleterious consequences).
Not so with married couples, even when they adopt. And even though there are exceptions, exceptions don’t just make the rule go away.
So yes, it is good that marriage exists as the unique commitment of a man and a woman for the above-mentioned reasons, but also for the reasons expressed by Catholicism’s Natural Law. We all know that marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing for society. That’s why it’s a celebration respected by all.
Homosexuals pairing up two-by-two for rights and benefits is not so obviously a benefit to society — unless they adopt, and then break up, but they shouldn’t adopt.
And besides, hospital stays and inheritance issues can be resolved without momentous change. If homosexuals are wigging about not having the ‘benefit’ of filing income taxes jointly — after never having been able to do that — whoa, that’s some amazing benefit. Not!
* Equality? The law can’t make same-sex couples equal to opposite sex couples.
Freedom to marry? They have that freedom.
Spare us the deceitful spin.
they shouldn’t adopt.
Actually, they may provide an acceptable setting in which to raise children who cannot be raised by both of their biological parents.
“Stacy”
you write “Someday you will face your Creator and be judged. There’s a reason you are so compelled to try to ridicule someone into submission, and I pray you are free from it because you know as well as I do that behaving like that is not the path to real happiness.”
I know you wont see this, but that is essentially what you are doing to those of us who don’t follow “catholicism”.
“I am 100% against making marriage meaningless because I’ve seen how when a word can mean anything (is this referring to Jose’s erred definition of euthanasia?), it means nothing. We need Marriage to mean something again in this country, and in this world.”
Funny thats what we think too. Marriage should mean something, and to us it does. Why can’t you see that?
” Satan’s most effective weapon is the destruction of the family. Break families, and you break people and societies for generations.”
Again it is what we want, well minus the satan part. We are not about breaking families apart, but rather for creating them. Why can’t you see that?
“I’ve evolved. I’ve arrived. I am truly human now.”
How I wish this were true. Your childish ” ” words you don’t agree with, well that is not evolved at all. Plus you are relying on 2000+ years of history, further showing no evolution on your part. As for human, yes, you are indeed human by definition.
If you think government should not be involved in marriage then your fight should be to end that, not to keep people who love each other, who want to be together and create families from doing so. You keep telling me how I don’t need permission, and there you are right. But until we get recognition (same as you) we wont stop. Why don’t you see the difference between permission and recognition?
and please understand when I say recognize I mean legal recognition. I think god has far more important things to worry about than my marriage.
Alan,
You will never get the catharsis you seek by attempting to infect the Church with the abnormal and grave sin of homosexuality. NO ONE seeks to intrude upon the homosexual life style, save for your own good. You may not, however, attempt to scandalize the rest of society by exposing our children to the tragedy of active homosexuality.
Carnal love is reserved for one man and one woman, married for life, to become co-creators with God of another human life. Every sexual act MUST be consummated in such a manner as to be open to the possible transmission of life. All acts, be they heterosexual, homosexual, or individual, which fall outside these norms are intrinsically morally wrong, and do grave offense to God, the actors and society. These are not my ideas, they are church teaching.
I offer this direction in the genuine spirit of love and compassion. Take it or leave it, I would not presume to debate it. For further clarification, seek a priest. I wish you wellness and healing.
And here is why religion and government don’t mix and never should TRY to mix. Val states “You will never get the catharsis you seek by attempting to infect the Church with the abnormal and grave sin of homosexuality.” Like most religious people, her center of the world is the Church and its message. If someone does something that the Church doesn’t approve of, then they’re trying to infect the Church with sin. Apparently, it’s the old “You’re either for us or against us, all or nothing” baloney all over again.
Val, your religious views are not shared by everyone. You have no right to try to force your religion onto anyone else. Your words are shaped by your church, your religion and that’s fine. But not everyone feels that way. Not everyone thinks sex has to be approved by God or just for having children. And not everyone has to believe that, either.
No one is forcing the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter, to accept same-sex marriages. Your church doesn’t have to perform the ceremony, nor does it have to accept that couple as members of your church. But the government, the CIVIL authority here in the United States of America, DOES have the right to allow same-sex couples to get married. And someday it will.
If your Church doesn’t like it, let them shake the dirt off their feet and move on. They’ve done it before, they can do it again. Quit imposing your religion onto those of us who have a different faith.
Teri Simpkins wrote, But the government, the CIVIL authority here in the United States of America, DOES have the right to allow same-sex couples to get married.
Maybe in your state. In mine, the Constitution states, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.”
And someday it will.
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review:
Quit imposing your religion onto those of us who have a different faith.
I’m not a person of faith, yet I oppose redefining marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ_jAAvNoNk
Alan,
You need a reminder!
You are here on a Catholic blogger’s website of your own volition.
If you really understood love, you wouldn’t care about having the recognition of strangers.
Just now getting caught up on the discussion as I shut down early last night.
Peggy Sue,I was replying to what you had written and Val said what I would of said: “To introduce any of the other common meanings to the word within the context of this discussion reduces it to the absurd. We are not talking about the marriage of gin and vermouth making a perfect martini here, or a Reese’s cup being the perfect marriage of chocolate and peanut butter. We are all discussing sacramental marriage.”
Mejeck; when you wrote about Stacy: “And for a former harlot to be so judgmental is outrageous.” Icould not help but think of the ‘harlot’ who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears, dried them with her hair and annointed them with precious costly oil, and though scripture does not say anything further on her, I feel she became one of His followers.
Alan, you quoted Stacy: “Someday you will face your Creator and be judged.” In relation to the theme of this discussion, we will be judged on how we act and treat the individual person. So many want to condemn the person but we are told that we should love the person, but not their sin, in this case it is the ‘sexual act’. The gay person who lives a chaste life would not be refused the Sacraments of the Church.
Mjeck knows that Stacy is still a performer who knows how to captivate an audience.
In the past, harlots were silenced, sometimes stoned. How Stacy’s now the spokesperson for the Catholic church shows that if you now accept harlots, you will soon accept homosexuals.
“..that if you now accept harlots, you will soon accept homosexuals.”
Mjeck, how confused are you! All persons were accepted by Jesus, it is their actions that were rejected. That was 2,000 years ago! Get with it man, it’s old news.
Richard,
The harlot washed Jesus feet, like a servant. How is Stacy serving Jesus at this moment?
How can she have lived the life she has, then write what she wrote? It’s absurd.
Mjeck writes, “How can she have lived the life she has, then write what she wrote? It’s absurd.”
Yes, it’s absurd. Absurdly generous of God to love us and forgive us NO MATTER what we did in the past. It’s beautifully, wonderfully, astonishingly absurd, yet true: that we –who have been so very screwed up, made so very many mistakes, done so very many foolish, unkind, even vicious things, — we can still be loved and accepted and redeemed. Every single one of us, from the harlot to the shoplifter, from the drug addict to the sex addict to the tyrant and his or her abused victims, ALL of us can come from darkness into the blessedness of light.
You’ve hit the heart of Christianity on the head there, Mjeck. It’s absurd…..and yet, and yet!!….. it’s true.
I’m hardly the spokesperson for the Catholic Church. My bishop does that, not me.
You aren’t the first person to try to knock me down like that though, Mjeck, but you understand so little. God made us all, of course He accepts us if we turn to Him. Christ died to redeem us, something we could never have done for ourselves.
That doesn’t mean we get to tell Him what is right and what is wrong. I understand this as a parent with small children pitching tantrums when they want cookies for dinner and I don’t shower them with two dozen served up on a golden plate.
Anyway back to the discussion.
The question we always ask…
What are your thoughts on the legalization of polygamy? Or fathers marrying daughters? Women marrying buildings? Men marrying cars? Sorority sisters declaring themselves married for tax breaks?
Or — could you just define marriage? Peggy Sue, can you?
If marriage is redefined as a genderless institution, I predict the polygamists will be next, making many of the same arguments homosexual “marriage” advocates have made.
First they’ll fight to have it decriminalized, stating that this is all they’re asking for.
They’ll file suits challenging the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws, with the ACLU. This has already started.
Then they’ll invoke the constitutional right to marry the number of people they love, and want to commit to, because two-adult couples can.
It’ll come up as a defense against bigamy charges.
They’ll spin it.
They’ll claim it’s part of their faith.
They’ll form a lobbying organization and a PAC, and demand the rights married couples have.
Then civil unions.
Then “marriage equality.”
They’ll sue and bribe (contribute to campaigns).
Polygamists will argue that the sexual orientation (toward more than one woman) is immutable.
They’ll claim marriage laws “single out” polygamists for discrimination.
Pretty soon theirs will be the next “civil rights” struggle.
… and they’ll be calling themselves “merries”.
Merry marriage. Who could argue with that?
Mjeck
You can have what Stacy has. All you need do is kneel
and ask. Insulting her only deepens the respect of her
friends and further endears her to her Lord.
I can’t tell by your name whether you are a man or a woman,
neither or both. By definition the homosexual life style tends
to erase such distinctions, but what I am sure of is that you
are a precious soul, that God loves you and there is nothing
He won’t forgive you. If nit a single human life had ever been
created but yours, He would have died for you.
Let it go, just reject Satan and let the hatred of yourself and
others go. You can have what Stacy has, but you have to
want it.
Polygamy? Fathers and Daughters having sex? Maybe you should tell me… haven’t you read the old testament?
Stacy, you spent your 20′s in a life of poor judgement and you’re doing it again.
Serve Jesus by helping the people who are in the situation you once were, and leave the soapboxing to someone who’s lead a pure life.
Honestly, take the plank out of your own eye
Mjeck: in relation to your last comment, from the life she lived to what she writes now; In relation to the woman who washed the feet of Jesus, He told everyone present “her many sins have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love.” Or we can look at St. Paul who went from being a persecuter of the followers of Christ to be one of his greatest spokesmen.
Val,
I do not want what Stacy has. She’s given herself a license to judge. No thanks.
I’m not a homosexual. I didn’t do cocaine or anything else she’s done.
Stacy does not speak for God, or salvation. Sorry
“Honestly, take the plank out of your own eye”
Another casual bible reader!
Howard,
In my 20′s, while Stacy was a stripper, I memorized 31 chapters of the bible, including the entire sermon on the mount.
I don’t know anyone who’s done that. Try again.
Mjeck, I will try again.
Explain for us the meaning of the passage you quoted as it pertains to yourself.
First, did someone really just use the world “harlot” in conversation? LOL, and the Catholics are the antiquated sexist ones!
Second, I just really love this post, Stacy. As I continue to struggle with what it means to be a Catholic mother teaching in a purportedly Catholic university setting (wherein, recently, I had to listen to yet another conversation where Catholicism was mocked and reason had apparently taken a sick day), your blog is a huge help to me. I’ve followed a similar trajectory to yours, but am not quite to the last stage.
I think it’s important to stress the polyamory/polygamy question in the debate, because that’s where we’ll be going next–I give it ten years, max. We’ll start getting a lot of conversation about what’s “natural”, especially for men, and how it would really be better (for mainly men, though no one will say that out loud) to just serially marry, because divorce has been hard on women and children. It will be promoted as better and more enlightened, and everyone will be asked to stop being so judgey. Bisexuality will probably be promoted as the “natural” state of most human beings.
I always ask people what’s so precious about the dyad in a marriage, and I get back bupkiss. Because without gender complementarity, couples make no more sense than threesomes, foursomes, or whatever.
What Does “Marriage Equality” Mean for Bisexuals?
June 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm
When it comes to LGBT “equality”, we hear an awful lot about L and G “equality” and never anything about “B” equality.
Terence Jeffrey of CNSNews asks the same question of President Obama:
So what gives? What does marriage equality for bisexuals look like?
I am not for the State defining marriage at all; it doesn’t have the power to do so. Marriage precedes the State. All the state can do is acknowledge the institution that has been designed such by the nature of human person and is for the common good.
Mjeck, I am not a logician, but I am pretty sure ad hominem attacks are still logical fallacies.
“In my 20′s… I memorized 31 chapters of the bible, including the entire sermon on the mount.”
Mjeck, Nietzsche did that. It turned out interestingly for him, I think.
…sigh…
I made a rule to myself never to comment on this blog again, but I still read it. I’m breaking that rule right now. I have to.
Mjeck, I’m a committed Christian. I’m strongly Protestant, and have a great deal of love for the Bible. I support gay marriage and am often on the opposite side of the issues with Stacy (and not often very charitable).
Your posts are equally obtuse and insulting! Way beyond everyone that I have seen post here recently, including the atheists and other extremists, including even myself. I did not think it could be done!
If you were able to present a coherent viewpoint, you’d have alienated anyone who might have accepted it! Fortunately for you, your agenda is protected by a basic failure to communicate effectively.
Only people who have led (not lead) a pure life can say something meaningful about morality? Would that be you, mjeck, perhaps? Because there’s a whole lotta very ugly judgement eeking out of your posts, and it’s nice to know it’s squeaky clean, Downey-fresh ugly judgement.
Sadly for you, though, you’re going to need to say so long to the scripture you claim to have memorized, since I can say with absolute certainty it was recorded and compiled by the impure, as was the Catholic tradition. You wouldn’t want to be led astray from your holiness.
And mjeck, do you think you could take a tiny break from meanness, and define marriage as you see it? that would be awfully helpful–thanks!
Paul Brandon Rimmer,
I hope I was as offensive as possible, so you can know how it feels to read Stacy’s posts about homosexuality.
I find Christianity, a religion based on the ethics of a bronze age book highly offensive. A book that says homosexuality is bad, but slavery is good.
It’s crazy that someone lived the life she has, and still could have one judgmental bone in her body. Somehow becoming Catholic has given her that right.
And you all love to hear it. It’s crazy.
Elizabeth K,
Marriage? This is how i define it. If you all were born in a muslim nation, you’d have several wives but bacon would be illegal. And you’d find this perfectly divine.
JQ Tomanek,
Words like Stacy’s get homosexuals killed and beaten. She needs to leave this issue alone.
“And you all love to hear it. It’s crazy.”
I have nothing to do and won’t go outside until the idiot leaves my state.
Mjeck,
You’ve done what Stacy and others have only dreamed possible!
You’ve now got me to seriously question my commitment to gay rights… You’ve got me to doubt the cause!
If I’m really going to be committed to promoting gay rights, will I have to be an ass?
Honest question.
Mjeck, you wrote “I memorized 31 chapters of the bible, including the entire sermon on the mount.” and followed it with “I find Christianity, a religion based on the ethics of a bronze age book highly offensive.”
So are you saying that you memorized chapters of a book that you find highly offensive and that you are not a Christian? I guess you must of missed these from the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the mercyful; blessed are the pure of heart”. Just wondering, did you take a black marker the Sixth Commandment?
As for polygamy in the Muslim sect, it is often ‘forced or pre-arranged’ and the woman, young girl has no say, and if she does something that displeases him he has the power to beat or killer as he wishes, so guess you don’t have a problem with that. This pagan form of marriage is still practiced in some areas of Africa and within the Mormon sect by a few extreamist.
“We love God above all things when we have no affection for anything ‘THAT IS FORBIDDEN’. Then we have that purity of heart needed to see Him.” Blessed Maurice Tornay.
Stacy
“If you really understood love, you wouldn’t care about having the recognition of strangers.”
I think I understand love perfectly well. And I think you know I do. But please read again, I’ll repeat. LEGAL ROCOGNITION. Thats all. Not yours, not my dads, but the governments recognition, just like you, and all the benefits that come with it.
And about me being on a catholic persons blog? So? Have you a point on that?
Polygamy? Well that is a tough one, because yes it could be possible and I wonder on that. I mean really for me does it matter who or how many you marry. I do wonder what this would mean for the kids though. Mostly because again I do feel a two parent family is best and with multiple spouses you can’t be there all the time for any of them.
Father daughter marriage. Well we know that it can lead to birth defects, and we also know that the love between parents and children is different than romantic love. Nope should not be allowed.
Women marrying buildings? Men marrying cars? Really must we keep this up and keep comparing it to marriage between human beings? But I guess if you can get the building or the car to say yes then what they heck, go for it. But really know this is an ignorant comparison (not I am calling the comparison ignorant, not the person making it)
Sorority sisters declaring themselves married for tax breaks? Do you ask all heterosexuals who marry what their purpose for marrying is? Do you think all marriages are for love or procreation? If you have an issue with people marrying for reasons other than love then you should be fighting against divorce and not same sex marriage.
Paul Brandon Rimmer
Thank you for your support. I love my straight allies. Know that for all the Mjecks there are me’s. But also know that Mjeck is angry for good reason. I know it is hard to understand, but it gets tiresome being told day in and day out that what we feel is wrong. That how we live is wrong. At some point enough is enough, and anger rises.
Stacy says “Not only do they want to silence anyone who doesn’t approve, they want to harm them too” but where does she get this from? Does she not see the daily news posts about a homosexual beaten for their sexuality? Where is her outrage about that?
So please don’t change your opinion because of those of us who are angry.
Elizabeth, please understand that in my previous attempts to define what I think marriage is here and on another blog, it has been met with derision. Instead of a thoughtful exchange it is another opportunity for me to be told where and how I am wrong.
If you want though, to me marriage is about the love of two people who choose to be together for life. Seems that simple to me.
Alan,
Then why aren’t you happy with civil unions that give you all the same benefits?
“Mostly because again I do feel a two parent family is best and with multiple spouses you can’t be there all the time for any of them.”
Then you are a polygaphobe.
Richard,
Are you also condemning the Patriarchs in the old testament for the same polygamous acts?
I don’t judge Stacy for her past life. I judge her for being a pious religious spokesman. Jesus hung out with the sinners for good reason.
Val writes
“Alan,
You will never get the catharsis you seek by attempting to infect the Church with the abnormal and grave sin of homosexuality. NO ONE seeks to intrude upon the homosexual life style, save for your own good. You may not, however, attempt to scandalize the rest of society by exposing our children to the tragedy of active homosexuality.”
I seek not such catharsis. I am pretty damn good as I am. Could care less what your church believes or doesn’t. Not my chuch. And as it is not my church it has no business telling me how to live my life.
Tragedy of homosexuality? Care to broaden your definition of this?
“Carnal love is reserved for one man and one woman, married for life, to become co-creators with God of another human life. Every sexual act MUST be consummated in such a manner as to be open to the possible transmission of life. All acts, be they heterosexual, homosexual, or individual, which fall outside these norms are intrinsically morally wrong, and do grave offense to God, the actors and society. These are not my ideas, they are church teaching.”
Again, your church, not mine.
“I offer this direction in the genuine spirit of love and compassion. Take it or leave it, I would not presume to debate it. For further clarification, seek a priest. I wish you wellness and healing.”
Leaving it, because I really don’t see it from a point of love. Don’t need to talk to a priest either. I applaud them for taking the calling they have, but ask that you and they realize that not all should or are meant to choose the path they suggest.
I am still having a hard time figuring out how me being married to a man affects you at all. Please do tell.
Stacy, if it is all equal legally I am fine with civil union. If you want to keep marriage as a religious term and change the legal definition for all to civil union then fine. But the legal recogonitions must be the same.
Are you saying you have no problem with legal recognition of my relationship?
Maybe I am a polygaphobe. Will you now acknowledge homophobia?
Richard writes
“The gay person who lives a chaste life would not be refused the Sacraments of the Church.”
But the point remains to be if I don’t believe in your church or your god then why should I have to be chaste? The best thing I ever did in my life was marry my husband. Now I know you all have this idea of us, but none of you knows us, or really even cares to. You are blinded by our sex lives, and that is all you can see. Sad really.
“I don’t judge Stacy for her past life. I judge her for being a pious religious spokesman”
Now where did I put my box of scarlet letters?
“Marriage? This is how i define it. If you all were born in a muslim nation, you’d have several wives but bacon would be illegal. And you’d find this perfectly divine.”
I would have several wives in a Muslim nation? Muslims endorse LESBIAN POLYGAMY?????
You may want to look up “definition”. It’s under “D.” In the Dictionary.
Why are you so unwilling to provide a serious definition, mj?
Alan, what or which god or gods do you believe in since you not believe in God?
As for your sex lives, it does not blind me, I just do not approve of it, unlike our president who does, but that would not keep me from helping you if I saw you on the side of the road with a flat tire, the Good Samaritan syndrom.
And are you saying Jesus would not have hung out with you, mj? Would the whiff of holiness have kept Him away, perhaps? It makes me sad that you think so. Jesus hangs out with all sinners, true–because we’re all sinners, mj, even you. He did have special words to say for those who judged people, though–they’re in the Pater Noster. You may care to review it.
Truthfully, the straight world has a little more
to do than engaging in this subject. Best of
luck to you. I hope you find faith.
Marriage is defined by what is beneficial to a particular culture. When it is no longer beneficial to forbid black people to marry, they are given the right. When it is beneficial for marriages to be arranged (because women being defined as property), they are arranged. When society is governed by a religion, it is beneficial to define marriage by that standard.
Marriage and morality is defined by the culture and its need for survival.
You want Catholicism to survive, so you continue to fight for this Catholic idea of marriage. When this is no longer viable, Catholicism will “evolve”, like it has many times before.
Stacy and I can review the Pater Noster together. Or we can just agree that if she doesn’t judge homosexuals, and I won’t judge her. Or maybe she can just agree to only quote Jesus and his opinion on homosexuality.
Any of these solutions are good with me
Val, you wrote, “For the purpose of this very serious discussion, a subject so offensive to God that he would destroy entire cities over it… We are all discussing sacramental marriage.”
No, we’re not all discussing sacramental marriage, and that includes yourself as well. God did not “destroy entire cities” because of sacramental marriage. And we’re not discussing sodomic rape inflicted by heterosexual adulterers upon visitors, same-sex or opposite sex, to a city either. I don’t believe you think such a thing is sacramental marriage, and it’s not civil legal marriage in any U.S. state, not even in states with same-sex marriages, and it’s not legal in any U.S. state, even where adultery is legal.
And civil legal marriage is not a homosexual act, and no state requires a marriage license for homosexual acts. People can engage in homosexual acts day and night with or without a civil legal marriage license. Even persons who are married to persons of the opposite sex with families can engage in homosexual acts. No civil legal marriage license is required for homosexual acts.
And no civil marriage license in any state recognizes a sexual orientation or requires any sexual attraction to anyone. Civil marriage licenses do not require openness to procreation or ability to procreate or indissolubility of the marriage or any sexual act or even desire for such a thing. If the two people desire such things, or whatever, that’s their choice, and they may divorce if they don’t get what they want, but the state does not require them.
You allege that civil legal marriage is “a derivative of God’s plan for the procreation of the species”, but as civil legal marriage in fact includes same-sex marriages, not to mention the countless civil legal marriages between persons who are utterly incapable and/or utterly unwilling to procreate, plus divorce, then unless same-sex marriages and non-procreative marriages and divorce are “a derivative of God’s plan for the procreation of the species”, then civil legal marriage is not “a derivative of God’s plan for the procreation of the species”. The meaning of civil legal “marriage” is a derivative of many things, not the least are the many meanings of the English word “marriage”.
You write that “To interject any other meaning under these circumstances is to diminish the gravity of the discussion.” The many meanings of the English word “marriage” precede this discussion, your birth on this planet, and the United States of America. I do not “interject” them. They are meanings recognized by society, even if you choose to bury your head in the definition of “sacramental marriage.”
As to “you may be sending entirely the wrong message for faithful Christians to hear,” Christianity does not require that the English word “marriage” be legally restricted to a man and a woman or to any particular meaning. Whether it’s helpful or not is a matter of opinion.
That said, my neighbor who’s married to his same-sex partner is coming to help me out of the wheelchair to which I’ve been married, and so that we may all go traveling and enjoy this mother’s day weekend and many marriages together, children and all. May you too have a wonderful mother’s day!
OK , thank you, have a good weekend.
Mjeck to Stacy: “Or maybe she can just agree to only quote Jesus and his opinion on homosexuality.” We know that Jesus is not quoted in scripture on homosexuality, but Jesus is quoted in relation to the same Commandment – “Thy shalt not commit adultry” and His words are “Go and sin no more.”
Richard,
Is that quote from Jesus for Stacy or homosexuals? Because, that’s very clever to refuse marriage to homosexuals, then accuse them of adultery.
Jesus is God. God defined marriage. He is very clever.
Richard,
I don’t believe in any organized religions god. I beleive there may be a god out there, and that god may or may not have created things that to date cannot be answered as to their creation.
I believe things happen when they will happen, and there is nothing we can do about it.
I just don’t believe god handed down some moral code in a book that half is followed and half is not, but there seem to be no real guidelines for following.
And that is great that you would help me if you saw me stuck on the side of the road, I would do the same. That is being human.
Not sure why you should get to approve or disapprove of MY sex life. Can you explain why? And further can you explain why your disapproval should have any bearing on my life?
Val if the straight world really had more to do than engage in this subject then they should stop fighting against it.
But I agree, there are far more important things to waste time on.
Alan,
He’s saying there are better ways to fight it than to suck up time arguing with you on the internet. I agree. That’s one thing that is clearer and clearer to me, if someone has never wanted faith and accepted grace, they only argue from ignorance when they think they know what it is like. Jeff said something about that before, about loving the Church.
I have two saint quotes I keep in mind at times like this, two reasons I have to remind myself not to argue in vain.
Reason #1
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
Reason #2
“Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society.” -St. Francis of Assisi
Howard, Richard, Val, JQ, and Paul, Thank you! I appreciate your comments. Very much.
And ElizabethK, can I just say I love you sister!
Thank you too, Bethany and Heidi! Your comments make my day, seriously. You too, Peggy Sue.
All,
I hope you all have a nice weekend. I’m not online too much (well I try to control it) on the weekends, but there’s some good stuff coming next week.
An awesome book review and give away (bet you can’t guess who!), and a guest post by a lady I think you’ll appreciate hearing from, someone I saw trying to get a message out and being misunderstood. She’s got a powerful message, and has dedicated her life to it.
So Stacy, does this mean you will cease blogging about political issues and just stick with the religious posts?
Alan,
Nope.
figured that would be the case.
I will assume that your comment about our ignorance about faith and grace is referring to the catholic church’s definition of those words?
Yes, you are a bigot. If you can’t tolerate someone else’s marriage just because of your religious beliefs, it’s like being mad at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet. Marriage is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a HETEROSEXUAL PRIVILEGE.
Merriam-Webster Online defines “bigot” as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”.
Tyler, are you obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices?
I tolerate the opinions of same-sex “marriage” advocates, but they seem extremely intolerant of most people’s opinion — that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and should stay that way. So which side is the most bigoted?
What is the likelihood that we could persuade you to change to your mind, or purpose, by presenting convincing reason, arguments, or persuasion?
Gay marriage is not a ‘human right’: European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance
By Steve Doughty
30 April 2012
Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.
Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.
The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html
“Marriage is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a HETEROSEXUAL PRIVILEGE.”
Tyler, what country are you from and where does your supposed right come from?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…..”
How to Win the Marriage Debate
March 13, 2012
by Selwyn Duke -
The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court’s striking down of Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage. In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, “The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.”
Now, I’m not sure why the judges mention a “disfavored group,” as if singling out a “favored” one for unequal treatment would be okay. As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn’t offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem “disfavored.” Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as “stupid” Mr. Smith. Calling a group “disfavored” is similarly a subjective judgment. This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.
Speaking to bias, some may point out here that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the nation and that the two judges who ruled against Prop. 8 were appointed by Democrats. Yet the reality is that they’re hardly alone: virtually everyone — including conservatives — misses the 800-pound gorilla with the pink tutu and rainbow flag in the middle of the marriage debate.
The court’s reasoning is that a state cannot deny homosexuals the right to “marry” if that right has already been established for others. This certainly seems to accord with the 14th Amendment, which reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, by the judges’ lights, since Prop. 8 abridges for one group a privilege afforded everyone else, it is unconstitutional.
But what really is the central issue here? It isn’t whether marriage is a right or a privilege; it isn’t whether it is covered under the Constitution. It isn’t even whether or not homosexuals have a right to “marry.” The crux of the matter is this: what is this right or privilege?
If the court rules that there is a right to a certain thing, it must know what that thing is. Yet if the court accepted that the thing called “marriage” is the union between a man and woman, there would be no debate. The judges would simply state that, just like anyone else, homosexuals have a right to marry — to form that time-honored union between themselves and a member of the opposite sex.
Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage…..
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2012/03/how-to-win-the-marriage-debate/
And Howard, what are those rights?
And FYI my creator, my mom and my dad. It ends there.
I would ask the same question, because while homosexuals have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.
Alan, a 3 hour time diff.
I assume you are saying there is not such thing as God, then what does it matter to you?
Howard why do you continue to deflect questions rather than answer them?
So again I ask, what are the unalienable rights?
What is one of the major principle was this country founded on?
What is your point in saying if I don’t believe in god why does it matter to me?
Mjeck asks: “How can she have lived the life she has, then write what she wrote? It’s absurd.”
Yes, God is absurd: we are to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Only then will we be judged with mercy – justice – for we will have acknowledged that we cannot redeem ourselves. It seems to me that Stacy is waiting watchfully for the Bridegroom and is prepared to meet Him.
Alan, were you busy with your other blog watch answers. I’m still waking up so my response may be slow.
Deflect?
As usual you consider yourself the center of the universe. Read backwards and see that I was the one who asked a question and it still is not answered.
Howard, I read back, and keep missing a question that you asked me before I asked you what the unalienable rights are. Please ask again if I missed it.
It’s funny how you have made assumptions about me. Not sure how you have come to the conclusion I think I am the center of the universe. Should I be insulted by this comment? Complimented? Or should I just consider the source and ignore it? wwjd?
Alan, you are good, I have to give you credit for playing dumb very effectively.
Alright I’ll bite for only a little while because I have some work to do.
You decided to answer me in place of Tyler. So answer!
Howard, so much is made about us non catholics being rude, but I think you do rude quite well.
Again not sure how I am playing dumb, but whatever.
I will indulge even though you seem to still be avoiding answering the simple question posed to you. And who is playing dumb one wonders?
The question you asked Tyler was “Tyler, what country are you from and where does your supposed right come from?”
Well I am from the United States (Sorry I don’t know Tyler from the gay agenda meetings so I am not sure where he is from) and in the United States we are all given equal rights. So as far as I am concerned equal means equal, so me as a man marrying a man is my equal human right. Now yes it might mention “a creator” in the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn’t mention a specific creator by name.
However The Constitution which I admit I did not read the whole thing, but I did not see mention of a creator.
But yes the Declartion of Independence does mention the there is a creator and that all men are given the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My right to marry a man as a man is my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and it affects you in no way shape or form.
I hope this answers the question.
alanl64 wrote, “as far as I am concerned equal means equal, so me as a man marrying a man is my equal human right.”
Marriage is the union of husband and wife. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry.
I think you’d have to redefine marriage before declaring that there’s a right for a man to ‘marry’ a man.
alanl64 also wrote, “it affects you in no way shape or form.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dypMiXfWbY
“, but it doesn’t mention a specific creator by name.”
——–An interesting answer. You were a Catholic. You are part of the poorly catechized group that the Church keeps talking about. Remember back to very basic Christianity all the way back to the Jews before Jesus, and you will come up with only one God for all these centuries. We were founded as a Christian nation under the authority of God.
“So as far as I am concerned equal means equal, so me as a man marrying a man is my equal human right.”
“My right to marry a man as a man is my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and it affects you in no way shape or form.”
——Is this all? No restrictions on marriage at all?
“However The Constitution which I admit I did not read the whole thing, but I did not see mention of a creator.”
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
————No need to mention the reason for creating law in the law.
——–Can we simplify things to one point at a time and either atheist or homosexual?
Quickly Alan,
The DoI is law, just as the Constitution is.
Stacy, I just discovered your blog and added it to my list. It’s great to meet another strong, intelligent Catholic woman! And goodness, did you throw into the “Interwebs” a bomb with this post! My experience is very similar.
I believe in civil unions for gays. For those who say, “well, it differs from state to state,” I’d say: focus on making it equal, then. As a Christian woman, I have no right to expect a gay man or lesbian to live according to my religious doctrine. Laying aside everything in one’s life to take up the Cross of Jesus Christ is no small matter. It requires a re-examination of everything one believes in and the willingness to change their life according to God’s commandments.
So have your civil union. Have the state recognize your right to share your partner’s property and wealth and the ability to make decisions regarding the estate if the partner is incapacitated. Just stay away from marriage.
Marriage is not a state contract nor a federal one. It’s a religious one. The fact that this is still a concept foreign for gays tells me this: That gays are deliberately misunderstanding the true nature of marriage so they can further erode the institution.
Throughout history, marriage has existed within the construct of religion. It was the only way a man and a woman could be recognized as committed to one another. It required not only the blessing of the religious institution, but an agreement to the requirements of marriage. One of the requirements was that marriage would be the acceptable place to procreate and raise children.
No matter what has happened to our society over 2,000+ years, that was the purpose of marriage: to procreate and raise children. Because of this, by nature, same-sex unions will never be able to fulfill that requirement.
I already have heard the arguments about how the institution of marriage has been mocked by people like Kim Kardashian, and that there are many heterosexual couples who do not have children. Those arguments are meaningless because people like Kim Kardashian never really respected (or understood) the true purpose of marriage; and those who don’t have children are not automatically rejecting the purpose of marriage, either. Who knows why someone is childless? It could be they’re unable to have children. There could be other reasons but the point is: marriage was meant to be a safe place in which to bear and raise children.
Finally, here is what I find so ironic: Many gays have been known to show their hatred and disdain for religion and church. Many take pride in their “rebel” pose. If this is the case, then why would it matter so much to gain the church’s approval? Why isn’t a civil union enough?
Because it’s not about formalizing their commitment to their partner. It’s all about destroying the institution.
To those who continue to whine about this topic, or worse, attempt to bully people into giving in to their whims; you’ve already received your answer in the form of all the states that have rejected gay marriage. In the words you often fling at us “breeders:” Get over it. The majority of the country has voted against it (especially, North Carolina). Be happy with civil unions and leave the church alone.
Marriage is not a “right.” It is a religious vow.
Mary Rose wrote, “it’s not about formalizing their commitment to their partner.”
“Also, most gays are not interested in marriage. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, there have been only 5,000 among the state’s 130,000 gay men.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-marriage-letter-20120423,0,2538700.story
That’s 3.8%.
Mary Rose, good to read an enthusiastic Catholic.
I have to disagree though about civil unions. This sanctions a basic immoral act of our faith. We have contract law, wills and other potential remedies (new law maybe) for problems that homosexual couples may face regarding money matters and care. With all the effort going into co-opting marriage, it could be spent on these.
Howard,
Many different gods have been worshipped throughout time
Well Howard, if we are to follow unalienable rights, well then yes no restrictions. You certainly seem in favor of your restrictions, which infringe on my rights.
Your last two points, well frankly I have no idea what you are saying or trying to say.
Stacy
Quick point
Is it?
Mary Rose
You almost had me. I have no problem with civil unions for all, including the religious. But when you get benefits and rights that others are denied, well then it is not equal.
“Marriage is not a state contract nor a federal one. It’s a religious one.” Actually it is a legal contract in the state which you are married in. Are you married? Did you get a license?
“Finally, here is what I find so ironic: Many gays have been known to show their hatred and disdain for religion and church. Many take pride in their “rebel” pose. If this is the case, then why would it matter so much to gain the church’s approval? Why isn’t a civil union enough?”
How many gays do you know? On this one you have it wrong. We don’t want or care about church approval. Perhaps you should talk to people before coming to conclusions.
A civil union is not enough because it is not equal.
“Because it’s not about formalizing their commitment to their partner. It’s all about destroying the institution.”
Really it isn’t and it’s silly to think that. Most of us gays that want to get married (or have) hold it in very high regard
“To those who continue to whine about this topic, or worse, attempt to bully people into giving in to their whims; you’ve already received your answer in the form of all the states that have rejected gay marriage. In the words you often fling at us “breeders:” Get over it. The majority of the country has voted against it (especially, North Carolina). Be happy with civil unions and leave the church alone.”
Umm have you heard the religious whine? Constantly, so careful where you point the whining finger. Bully, umm yeah the religious got that in spades. Sorry you don’t see that.
The majority should never vote on the rights of a minority. That simple.
“Marriage is not a “right.” It is a religious vow.”
Actually it is both.
Alan wrote, “when you get benefits and rights that others are denied, well then it is not equal.”
Homosexual relationships aren’t equal to marriage. Marriage is the union of a husband and wife. That’s not an injustice. It’s just what marriage is. If married couples get benefits or rights, it is because they are married, and it makes sense to give those benefits or rights to married couples.
Sometimes different things are treated differently. That would be because they’re not equal, they’re different.
Alan wrote, “The majority should never vote on the rights of a minority.”
First, you would have to establish a right to homosexual so-called “marriage”. I don’t see a “right” to redefining marriage, a fundamental social structure that evolved naturally — and before there were any federal or state governments here to use to try to get that changed.
Incidentally, this “minority” isn’t defined by what they are — for example, of a particular race, national origin or gender (immutable characteristics). Homosexuals are defined by what they do. They aren’t entitled to special rights just because they copulate with members of the same sex any more than soccer players are entitled to the same right to use softball fields as softball players. There’s nothing wrong with “discriminating” against soccer players in this scenario.
Alan wrote, “The majority should never vote on the rights of a minority.”
I’ve heard this rhetoric (which presupposes a “right”) spewed by same-sex “marriage” advocates many times. Yet SSM advocates put redefining marriage on the ballot in Maine, for the majority to vote on the rights of maybe 2% of the population (clearly a minority).
I guess that since homosexuals are defined by what they do, unlike minorities that are defined by what they are (e.g., a particular race or national origin, immutable characteristics), maybe people that copulate with members of the same sex aren’t the same kind of minority we think of when considering tyranny of the majority.
Can the majority vote that soccer players don’t have the same right to use softball fields as softball players? Softball players are defined by what they do.
Can half the population (men) vote on the rights of the other half of the population (women), since women aren’t a minority, or are things more complicated than your statement?
Wonderful post, Stacy! Thank you so much for bearing your experiences to encourage the rest of us that are going through the same thing. I have experienced the berating that comes with expressing this view (from close family members even), amd the more vicious their comments, the more I know we must be defending something very precious that deserves our protection! Thank you and have a very lovely Mother’s Day!
The whole idea of berating people that believe that marriage is between a husband and wife, and should stay that way, is insane.
Homosexual special rights activists have found that declaring this belief hate, bigotry, homophobic, or anti-gay, is effective.
It is none of these things, although it does recognize that homosexual relationships are different. Marriage is precious and it’s important to people to preserve it’s unique and special nature, unadulterated.
It hasn’t been that long since nobody questioned whether marriage was between a man and a woman. Homosexual special rights advocates came along and decided that this should be changed. Society’s reaction was to reject the change, as the redefinition wasn’t an improvement.
The homosexual special rights advocates’ reaction to that was simply to soldier on, as if waging war — and, ultimately, a “civil rights” struggle.
Some people just want to give the baby his bottle now, and to be seen as a right-thinking, kind, compassionate, progressive, superior member of the cultural elite.
But usually your first reaction is the right one.
Adam, It seems like the “homosexual special rights activists” are just being used by some higher power to promote an agenda they aren’t even aware they are actually promoting — to destroy the institution of the family, which has the result of making everyone dependent on the government after a few generations.
Thanks for all these great links. You sure know your stuff!
It’s funny LMS as some people might view berating as telling people their actions are a sin, immoral or an abomination. But you go on feeling righteous.
Ignorance takes many forms. Keep that in mind.
Stacy, I just read your post and MANY of the comments readers have left you. I simply wanted to say “thank you” for your witness & may God bless you this day and always. One of my friends has had a lot of frustrations this year and another friend reminded her that when we approach and handle such frustrations and insults with grace, we lessen our time in purgatory.
I imagine the Lord has a special place waiting for you, especially after everything you’ve dealt with as others attempt to attack and insult you all because of Him…and you have certainly handled everything I’ve read with grace when many others would or could not. John 15:18-19
I love this post ~ may it receive wide readership!
“Your last two points, well frankly I have no idea what you are saying or trying to say.”
My very last point is; You can’t stop the rain with a tennis racquet.
Translation: Pick one rain drop and debate it until it dries up. We never get to the heart of anything going back and forth constantly changing the subject. It’s like playing “Jeopardy” on the internet. You are not defending your life style in this public forum because you are not presenting a complete defense on any one thing; just a retort. Stacy has the advantage because she can express an idea more deeply, the only way you can counter this is to do the same. You don’t have the space so you have to narrow your focus. The atheist thing has been debated already. You cannot argue effectively against anything that relies on God if your argument starts with; there is no God. A difference of world view. Probably an insurmountable difference.
Off to Mass now.
Happy Mother’s Day.
Stephanie, I have been contribution but was pre-occupied yesterday and only actively on line for a short time but did check on the conversation.
Howard, I would like to follow up on your last comments on Athiest, in a good way, well maybe for some but not all:
“If I believe God exists, and God in fact does exist, then I will gain infinite happiness. However, if I believe God exists, and God in fact does not exist, then I will have no payoff. If I do not believe God exists, and God in fact does exist, then I will gain infinite pain. However, if I believe God does not exist, and God in fact does not exist, then I will have no payoff. Thus, one has everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and one has everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God. On these grounds, one would be foolish not to believe.” ~ Pascal’s Wager
I also like Psalm 14:1.
One issue on the gay marriage is the LGBT’s who get hitched on one of the few states that allow gay marriage, then go to a state that does not recognize gay marriage through the individual state constitutions and then demand the state to recognize their union/marrriage. They will say we’re not pushing our beliefs on you, but by filing law suits against the states yelling discrimination, they are doing just that.
Then there is the issue of when gay couples get tired of each other and want a divorce, they will have trouble finding a state that has because there are no laws on the books for gay divorce. Many states do not even consider doing so, especially those which do not have same sex marriage in the Constitution/State laws as to acknowledge ‘gay divorce laws’ they would have to acknowledge ‘gay marriage’ which would have to a constitution voter approved amendment to the law.
Richard
“One issue on the gay marriage is the LGBT’s who get hitched on one of the few states that allow gay marriage, then go to a state that does not recognize gay marriage through the individual state constitutions and then demand the state to recognize their union/marriage.”
That’s ironic, since a federal appeals court panel just opined that DOMA violates the states’ rights to define marriage independently.
i identify myself as a gay young catholic man, and as much as i cant deny that im homosexual, i also cant deny the faith i profess, its sad how we are treated by people who clearly dont understand what we are going through, but its cool. all will be well in time.
3 Chesterton quotes I find appropriate:
“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”
“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
“Jesus promised his disciples three things—that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble.”
Those who acknowledge no limit to their own knowledge and love believe in God. Only they are confused and think they are Him. Its an identity crisis.
In that self identification as the Standard they become highly intolerent of any opposing views. If they say they are the most tolerent then woe betide those who dare disagree- in their eyes they should be smited and ridiculed if not trod into the dust. If one questions the validity of their love for all humankind then they must be smitten with the rod of iron and branded as the opressors of humanity and the rights of man. If for those I think that is the real root of the problem. People often do not look for unchanging/ transcendental Truth but now believe it can only be found in themselves and as such regard it as self evident. That is why they often become enrage when confronted or questioned. You are not questioning something they adhere to but what they regard as the very fount of existence and upon which all things were created- their opinion.
I find it very ironic that these champions of “humanity (who knows what they really mean by the word)” would ridicule and oppress in the name of freedom for “humanity” all people who have a different concept of the Truth and life. Very Very revealing the nature of the movement that inspires such contradicting passions. In the end they will end up persecting us Christians- just like they did in Roman times. Not to be cliche but history repeats itself. The ancient pagans such as Tacitus even claimed Christians “hated humanity.” Despite the fact that many Romans of his day engaged in sodomy, rape and paediphila, murder, wholesale slaughter in the arenas, etc with out the slightest concern for others. No it was the Christians who “hated mankind.”
So it was before and so it is again. They will slaughter and rape Christians for the “love of humanity.” Their creed is not bound by such scruples as a God who might not smile upon their actions. Since they think they are the sole arbiter of Truth (in all its forms) they approve of all they do. It is judge, jury and executioner.
For those who disagree prove it isn’t and will not be so. For those types tolerance is never enough. Approval must be given- even if forced. After awhile even approval will not be enough.
The suffering of a person with homosexual desires but does not act on them must be heroic. So God bless them all.
It seems though much of our world is being run by junior high or middle school kids. I want to do what I want to do now with no consequences seems to sum it all up. We would be much better off is we found some adults to run this crazy friday night dance and actually enforce some temporal consequences for our behavior.
The consequences of my sin (gluttony) is I am over weight and not healthy. Unless I mend my ways I will suffer physical and medical issues as a result but I will also suffer in my soul for failing to do what is right albeit not as tasty. Everyone has a sin to overcome. Mine is pretty minor compared to what some folks suffer with.
Forgot to mention happy mother’s day Staphanie.
Don’t be discouraged by the enraged attacks which lack any appeal to reason and are emotional charged. It is a standard Alinsky method. It demonstrates that the person is well versed and read in that method. Its intent is to demean and open the subject to ridicule by using peer pressure, etc. Such attacks are used psychologically isolate and discourage. There is absolutely no intent to engage upon an intellectual level- it does not seek truth or understanding on any level. Such operators will decry that that is not the case but just google Saul Alinsky. However, that is one reason they never actaully enage upon an intellectual level as that is not the point.
Sadly for such a malignant method it has proven very effective as humans are social creatures and often value the opinion of others over pusuit of truth. Its intent is to demean.
Here is a link to a good resource (from a cursory google search):
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Look at #5 under Tactics. See what I mean?
Having said that I don’t usually visit your blog but happened to come across it. Its a much needed voice in the wilderness. Might not be back but keep up the good work and God bless.
Mjeck said
[---
You want Catholicism to survive, so you continue to fight for this Catholic idea of marriage. When this is no longer viable, Catholicism will “evolve”, like it has many times before
---]
Actually you got it backwards. It is the culture that evolves, not the Truth found in the Church. If the culture does not reflect the truth, it will destroy itself as it has started to do with abortion and euthanasia, and will do so more rapidly with laws protecting disordered behavior. The Catholic Church built western civilization and what good that is in this culture came about through the influence of the Church. She has outlasted every other institution on the planet because of a Divine guarantee that will not be relinquished to the ideology of modern day sodomites. You may succeed in destroying the culture, but the Church will endure to speak the Truth.
well, this is the stuff that saddens me about marriage today: that it is disposable. that people marry and divorce, then before you know it, they are with someone else and maybe they marry again…OK, that’s the Hollywood version, but it is what we are saturated with. then the gay marriage issue which wants to say their marriage should be the same as the heterosexual marriage. so two things to speak of above that take away from real, traditional marriage. why WOULD young people marry today? culturally, it really seems to mean nothing. you can shack up and have kids without being married. men marry men/women marry women and it’t to be the same as traditional marriage. what’s so great about marriage now anyway? without the sacrament, it really does mean nothing in today’s american culture. that’s my opinion and it really is depressing.
You write as if the homosexual so-called “marriage” issue is already settled, yet 31 states have marriage protection amendments. Another is going to be voted on in Minnesota in November. Marriage has been on the ballot in 32 states, and in all 32 the People have voted to preserve it as being between a husband and wife, so it would be no shocker if Minnesota becomes the 32nd state with a defense of marriage amendment.
The Supreme Court won’t ignore this, and conservatives on the Court outnumber liberals 4-3 (although Kennedy’s something of a wild card).
If New Hampshire elects a Republican governor, the legislature there will undoubtedly vote on restoring marriage to its true definition.
In the six states where same-sex “marriage” has been imposed on the people, none has been passed by a vote of the People.
Don’t let the media’s bias con you. They recruit homosexuals to report on homosexual issues, who sometimes act as information resources for other reporters and editors, and review articles to adjust bias.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope Saint Felix III (d. 492)
This sort of sums up what the Church and faithful Catholics and other Christian faiths are doing in relation to this issue. The blood of many martyrs was shed because they would not bow down to idols or partake in pagan practices, and would not be suprised if some outspoken person on this issue is not shed, possible by the end of the year, but I pray I’m wrong.
Mary Rose,
Your position is the Ron Paul position, which is great for populism but not for morality. Below is well written article which clearly explains why your position is problematic. I hope that you read it.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/two-questions-about-marriage-and-the-civil-law/
For a while we had marriage equality. Any one man could wed any one woman who would have him and vice versa (because that’s what marriage is). Then states began to irrationally accord a special, until very recently unheard of, privileged status to a very small group of deviants who nonetheless have a very large presence in pop culture and STD statistics, thus upsetting the perfect marriage equality we had all enjoyed.
Dan wrote, “states began to irrationally accord a special, until very recently unheard of, privileged status to a very small group of deviants…”
Specifically, politicians — whose votes are for sale — and judges imposed same-sex “marriage” on the People of those states.
Stacy – Great post. Very honest and truthful. God Bless you for being a such a fine witness and instrument for the faith, and for standing in there against some incredibly hurtful comments from some of the readers. Pray that they may open their hearts and minds to the truth as well. “Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, please pray for the conversion of sinners. ” That means all of us ; )
Let us define terms:
Sex – male or female
Sexual intercourse- a male and female using their reproductive organs to produce offspring.
Foreplay – acts leading up to sexual intercourse
Masterbation- playing with one’s sexual organs for one’s own gratification.
Mutual masterbation – masterbation between two partners leading to, well, not much.
Same sex marriage – the perversion of the idea of marriage to include the recognition of persons of the same sex to practice mutual masterbation.
Katlego, if you accept Catholic teaching on homosexual acts then you are to be commended and defended. I am not sure who you are speaking of when you say, “…its sad how we are treated by people who clearly dont understand what we are going through”.
Would you give some examples please?
I don’t care one way or the other about gay marriage rights or “the gay lifestyle”, it’s a non-issue for me.
That said… If you take two live wires with “male” ends and put them together you get a spark and promptly there after a short, quite possibly a trip to the doctors office and you’re still in the dark…..
Stacey you are absolutely hilarious! bx
EXCELLENT article! You have gotten here because of love. It would be easier to remain silent on this issue, because you are correct the vitriol it brings up is tremendous. “All Hell broke loose” is a completely literal statement, that is exactly what is happening. The Enemy of souls wants the human race eliminated, and he is causing us to literally stop reproducing. And our culture is buying it hook, line and sinker.
So while our our collective humanity is being wiped out, individual souls are being destroyed by way of the destruction of families. We don’t even use words like “purity” and “chastity” these days, yet these are the building blocks of a healthy life, physically and spiritually.
It’s difficult out there, but this is what Christ died for, after all. And He continues to bring souls to Him, through our willingness to be obedient to Him. You are awesome in your love and compassion – I am with you sister, you are not alone. We are the hands that rock the cradles, and through us Jesus Christ will rule the world. By loving every individual soul, no matter how lost.
God bless you! Keep spreading the love! PRAY! FAST! SPEAK OUT!
PS I like the little squiggly picture of me. That is EXACTLY what I look like right now!
Great post again Stacy! you seem to attract meanies to your blog…you must be doing something right…I don’t think I mentioned this before on your blog but welcome home to the Catholic Church…you carry your cross with grace, some people on this blog think you are being judgemental but you are just following the Spiritual Works of Mercy that the churches teaches, two of which are (1) to instruct the ignorant (2) to admonish sinners.
katlego – I’m not quite sure what you mean by “how we are treated by people who clearly dont understand what we are going through”, if you are just referring to gay marriage well you should know church teaching on the sacrament of marriage and base on the new testament, I think its pretty clear.
What you are going through is what we all go through, we all have a cross to bear, I don’t think the porn or the abortion industry would be in business for the most part if self professed christians were not a big part of supporting these industries, so many christians are dealing with sins also, but the first thing to do is acknowlege the sin and to accept Gods grace through the sacraments to combat it, true love does not mean you accept someones sin just because they may be related to you or they are a close friend, I have niece that I help raise since she was a baby, I’m the father in her life, shes now 26yrs old and living with her boyfriend in mortal sin, I’ve told her many times shes living in mortal sin, not to judge her but out of deep love for her and the desire for her salvation, if I really did not love her I guess I would do what other people do, accept things as they are because “everyone” is doing it.
Many of us have a past. I have been a mortal sinner and had I died at a certain age, heaven would not have been my resting place.
We are all in need of God’s mercy as we well know.
Our Lord told the woman to “Go and sin NO more”. Whatever sin we have been addicted or attached to is something we need to be freed from. This includes sodomy for it enslaves a soul. Many call it “freedom” but it is license when lusts and pleasures dominate who we are. Freedom is to be able to do what we should. And we should obey God’s laws or the natural law at least. Therein we find happiness.
The indoctrinating of children and others into deviant or promiscuous lifestyles is a very terrible thing and we are letting it happen. And it will bring us down as our society and the family unit are torn asunder.
We are drowning in filth and there will be consequences.
Tracy,
Very gutsy of you to post this, knowing the reaction Truth provokes. Anyone following this thread is witnessing spiritual war. The reaction from the adversary is predictable and right out of his play book. Your humility and patience are a great witness as well as a shield. God bless you and yours. You and your family are in this cradle Catholic’s prayers.
Best,
Dust
Thank you all for your comments! I appreciate all of them, and I appreciate the discussion.
I have an avatar of my own. Not so sure I like the one your blog assigns. A moonbat?
Haha, Dust, yes, they are auto-generated by Gravatar. If you go to http://www.gravatar.com you can load your own image. I can fix the monster image though, will just take them off. They are a bit disturbing aren’t they?
There, fixed. Cartoon monsters are gone!
Thanks for the unnecessary avatar adjustment! Let’s see if it worked. Best-
What a fascinating account of your “evolution” on this issue!
Mine was similar, although (while I didn’t act upon it to the extent I might have) I actively thought there was no good argument against same-sex “marriage” and adoption (and that anyone who opposed it was a “homophobe”) and every good argument in favor of it. In fact, when I returned to the Catholic Church, my own evolution went something like this:
“The Church will change, but I won’t” stage: I knew that the Church had changed on the geocentric model of the solar system, I thought that this was in the same category as something that the Church simply needed to realize they were mistaken on and would correct it once they did. I still assumed I was right and was determined never to change my mind, lest I become a “homophobe”.
“Wait…I’M the one who’s wrong?” stage: As I came to learn what marriage actually was, and was meant to be, I realized that there WERE good arguments against same-sex “marriage” that I just wasn’t seeing. Moreover, I realized that this was doctrinal, and so not subject to change, unlike any scientific model.
“The guilty” stage: I now realized that I had to feel the opposite of how I used to feel when it came to “gay rights” issues when I found out about them in the media, and this made me feel guilty. Even though I knew that I could no longer accept homosexual behaviors as not sinful, or same-sex “marriage” as anything substantial, or adoption by same-sex couples as okay, I still felt guilty, as though betraying my gay friends (I have had some).
“My faith is being attacked” stage: At this point I felt less guilty as I realized the true implications of things–if same-sex “marriage” becomes officially recognized, then anyone who refuses to perform or recognize them is going to be “punished” by the law, and I didn’t want to see that happening.
“Why did I ever think differently?” stage: At this point I became so comfortable with the arguments for preserving marriage as it is that I no longer felt guilty. I was still no “homophobe”, I just understood things better now than I had before, and realized that I hadn’t been thinking clearly on the entire issue before.
But bless you for being so brave, and God be with you in everything you do! And bless your family!
Not sure why you should get to approve or disapprove of MY sex life. Can you explain why?
Sure – because you asked for it. You are not owed my approval, and I don’t have to give it.
c matt
nobody asked for your approval.
There. And a hat-tip to St Michael for favors rendered. Best-
Not over yet Dust.
Check out this website for the best argument for traditional marriage. I heard it this morning on Teresa Tomeo’s pgm.
Stay through the video intro for the song. You will love it!
http://www.colleennixon.com/
Thank you for this article. I’m a relatively young person raised to believe I had to approve of my parents’–yes, both my mother’s and father’s–same-sex relationships. As a wounded girl longing to know Jesus’ love for me, this pressure was excruciating. I don’t yet have the security in Him that you do to blog about this at length, so thank you for speaking for those of us who have long been silenced. Thanks to people like you, we’re learning how to speak.
We shouldn’t do everything our parents do, no matter how natural it might seem to follow their examples most of the time. Nobody can be a perfect role model. I hope your choices lead you to a happy, healthy and fulfilling life — and that your time on this planet helps others do the same.
I see homosexuality as a separate issue from same-sex “marriage”, and only opine on what relates to the latter (e.g., used to justify it).
As an agnostic, I’m not going to tell you what your sexual preference should be at any one time.
I hope that when you feel yourself under excruciating pressure, the Golden Rule (and your friends and loved ones) provide you with some guidance.
Terrible post is terrible. This isn’t an evolution. It’s simple a microcosm of all that is wrong and frankly, immoral about Christians and Christianity.
“his whole message in society seemed to be that adults can do whatever they want, that they could follow any desire and frown at anyone who criticized them.”-Your first mistake. Another sad reiteration of the Christian insanity that is the accusation against “the world.” There are what now? About 7 BILLION people in the world. How many have you met? And what society are you on? The society I am in demands responsibilities. Responsibilities to my family, my friends, my job, my fellow citizens, my child and so on and so forth. Maybe the problem isn’t “society.” it’s a select cutout of people within societies. But no, instead what does this Christian do. She props up a poor strawman to perpetuate bigotry.
Imposing? Stage and next stage-Myopia at it’s finest. Of COURSE it’s imposing? This is a fine fine example of the solipsism of the privileged position. YOU don’t have to deal with hospital issues, issues of inheritance, issues of lifetime commitments sanctioned by the state. THEY do. But it’s not about their suffering is it? No, it’s about YOU be called names or how they characterize YOUR position.A few generations ago it’d be “Gee I don’t know why them there black and brown folks are so upset?” Search the internet for every single case of gay teens committing suicide due to bullying. It’s them I think about, it’s the elderly gay couples who have shown true commitment over the years. When it would have been easy for them to hide and separate. What do you do? You wonder gee golly gosh why are they so upset and swirl around in your social bubble and not think of what others do. Even your own Jesus said do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. You are the flimsy hypocrisy propping up Vegas Elvis weddings while snidely calling it all “sanctity.”
I’m sure there are good things about you. But in this case. You are so selfish, such a terrible citizen, so solipsistic and privileged it’s sad. And that is ultimately what it is, sad. Because of the kids out there hurt by people not too different than you. The couples hurt by people not too different than you.
Thirteen years ago I took an oath as a soon to be Marine to uphold the Constitution, to protect it from enemies foreign and domestic. Within that I take it in great seriousness to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and the hope of a more perfect Union. It just saddens me that it means protecting LGBT citizens against their own countrymen and women who would deny them their rights and make them second class citizens.
Somewhere amongst all of your presumptuous personal attacks (do you know Stacy?), you may want to substantiate something — anything. You allege that Stacy is “selfish, a terrible citizen, solipsistic and privileged” — and paint yourself as a responsible and empathetic Marine that “upholds the ideals of the Constitution and the hope of a more perfect Union” while “protecting LGBT citizens.”
Somewhere in between leaping buildings in a single bound, and killing and killing fast, consider that laws can deal with hospital and inheritance issues without redefining marriage (for all of us). My state has them.
I think dealing with lifetime commitments sanctioned by the state, issues — without considering the issues of children — would be a mistake, “because of the kids out there hurt by people not too different than you.” To ignore the best interests of the children, who might like to be raised by both their (married) mothers and fathers, would be solipsistic.
By the way, did you consider Stacy’s feelings when you wrote this? Where did Stacy “prop up Vegas Elvis weddings while snidely calling it all ‘sanctity’,” or did you just “prop up a poor strawman to perpetuate bigotry” against Christians?
CamerW said, “Your first mistake. Another sad reiteration of the Christian insanity that is the accusation against “the world.” There are what now? About 7 BILLION people in the world. How many have you met? And what society are you on? The society I am in demands responsibilities. Responsibilities to my family, my friends, my job, my fellow citizens, my child and so on and so forth. Maybe the problem isn’t “society.” it’s a select cutout of people within societies..”
Marines live a life that is rigorously prescribed. Yes, I was in the military. You are also in a very small version of the world. Many of your responsibilities are demanded by your superiors and enforced by them. In this blog the essay recognizes a permissiveness in our culture that has taken place over generations. The generalizing of your responsibilities is no more accurate than reacting to the destructive changes in our society, a society that has de-evolved.
The “rights” of homosexuals that you speak of are often just hyperbole. There is much anger and accusation in your response, I would remind you that other people have also experienced the hardship of life and don’t react the same way.
Seriously CamerW, You and everyone else who wrote hateful things only demonstrate the point I made in the post. It’s almost funny that you don’t realize that enough to control your virtual tongue.
And Michelle, Thank YOU!
Thank you too Howard, I LIKE your icon, and Dust’s icon too.
For those who do not know, my icon is a version of the “Monogram of Christ” which is part of the collection of the Museo Pio Cristiano, Vatican.
In the monogram, Chi (χ) and Rho (ρ) are the first two letters (ΧΡ) of “Christ” in Greek ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. (Christos).
The Labarum (Greek: λάβαρον / láboron) was a Christian imperial standard incorporating the sacred “Chi-Rho”. It was used by Saint Constantine the Great and I use it to remind me that without the protection of government, Christians throughout history have suffered incredible persecution.
The Stacy Method
Step 1: Put negative thoughts on a blog
Step 2: Receive blowback of negative thoughts
Step 3: “Help! I’m being oppressed!”
Mjeck, I’m not being oppressed. I don’t think you know what that word means!
Your hateful comments don’t oppress anyone, they just wake people up. The truth is, you probably don’t really enjoy writing stuff like that anyway. You don’t have to, ya know.
There’s a better way.
1. It’s the internet. If you post stuff expect responses that disagree with you.
2. You’re simply proving my point. Someone called you privileged, solipsistic, selfish and trying to make other citizens second class. You’re response is “Oh that’s mean.” I’ll repeat what I said. I care more about those gay kids out there and others hurt by these ideas than someone who is the above.
“In this blog the essay recognizes a permissiveness in our culture that has taken place over generations. The generalizing of your responsibilities is no more accurate than reacting to the destructive changes in our society, a society that has de-evolved.”
You’re doing nothing but parroting what the blogger is saying Howard. It’s nothing more than the reiteration of “Oh look at me, my “values” are so much better than everyone else. Here let me stereotype huge swaths of individuals I’ve not one clue about.” Then hide behind words like “society” and “the world.” as is so often found in speeches by certain Christians.
“The “rights” of homosexuals that you speak of are often just hyperbole. There is much anger and accusation in your response, I would remind you that other people have also experienced the hardship of life and don’t react the same way.”
Well you heard it here folks. Rights are hyperbole. I repeat what I said about the blogger. You’re myopic, solipsistic and privileged. Spoiled Brats for Jesus.
Re: “myopic, solipsistic and privileged. Spoiled Brats”?
To decide which side in this discussion is hateful and bigoted, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And I agree Mjeck. It’s little more than the typical tired American Christian cry of “Stop being intolerant of my intolerance!”
Cameron,
Could you please explain how defending marriage as one man and one woman is hurting kids?
Thanks!
CameronW, you read what you want to hear.
“You’re doing nothing but parroting what the blogger is saying ..”
There are only so many positions a person can take in the homosexual debate. Some of us are going to agree with each other. It is not any kind of real argument to make up things like “parroting”, it’s just an attempt to insult.
“Well you heard it here folks. Rights are hyperbole.”
You read what you want to hear. You left out the word “often”.
I read what you said very carefully and responded. I am afraid you are just picking a fight.
For anyone still around on this thread, I came across this story yesterday.
A “gay” man, an artist and photographer, wants children.
He uses IVF and a surrogate mother.
He has twin daughters.
He hires distant relatives, a man and a woman, to be his nannies and take care of the daughters he just had to have!
When the girls are nearly age 2, he takes erotic pictures of himself with them in the bath tub all together, Dad and the girls.
The couple who cares for the children allege rape.
The state puts them in the custody of the married couple.
The man spends a night in jail.
The state uses a rape kit to decide nothing happened to the girls.
The charges are dropped.
After six months, the girls are returned.
The man is considering filing charges against the couple.
And the victims are…
…everyone but the children.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/paul-rusconi-malibu-artist_n_1516299.html?ref=mostpopular
???
Catching up on the discussion and while strolling toward something Mjeck wrote a few days ago jump out at me: “Marriage is defined by what is beneficial to a particular culture.” In the middle ages and before many marriages were used to form alliances between different countries and to bring heirs to the throne to life. In all cultures procreation is what is most benefitial to any culture, though we will find in some countries strict restrictions being put on the people as to how many children they can, are allowed to have.
I want to go back and get one of those icons also as I miss my monster, thought it was cute.
As for some of the harsh words being thrown out: ““The immoral, who boast of their impurities, and can scarcely utter a word which does not savor of obscenity, desire that all should act and speak as they do; and those who do not imitate their conduct, they regard as mean, clownish, and intractable as men without honor and education.” ~ Saint Alphonsus Liguori
Stacy, what about that story bothers you?
Are the pictures really erotic, or show a loving father?
Are you upset the kids were ripped out of their home on what appear to be false accusations?
Sadly yes the children are victims….but of whom?
And this has what to do with gay marriage?
oh and should we go to the news to find articles of married heterosexual parents who (actually) abuse their children. Guess what they are out there, and lots of them.
CamerW, I’m just wondering, are you the pot or are you the kettle?
The reason I ask is because you seem to be willing to lay down your life for the “rights” of others. Would you be so willing to do the same for a heroin addict who needs shoot up to survive day to day? Will stand up for stand up for the child molester who has been “this way” his whole life and can’t help his sexual urges? Will you protect the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to gather peacefully in demonstration or black panthers demands for a bounty on an overzealous neighborhood watchman? Are you going to side with the ones that abuse the First Amendment (a true and very real right BTW) to weaken and undermine our way of life, gay or not? How far are you willing to go to defend the deviant actions people because it’s their “right”?
Will you still be willing to lay your life on the line when it comes to providing defense to the religious masses that make up a large portion of our population and their right to practice their faiths and religious practices?
People should learn the difference between what’s a “Right” and just being free to do something.
“People should learn the difference between what’s a “Right” and just being free to do something.”
Hear, hear! Bravo!
Example.
I’m a chemist, I want to be FREE!
I can:
(1) Go into the lab and toss anything I want together – you know, FREELY – and have all kinds of fun seeing what happens.
(2) Respect the discipline, learn the rules, practice the rules and grow in knowledge and discovery within those legitimate boundaries.
With (1) I will fail, waste time, waste resources, possibly blow the place up. With (2) I could be successful, learn something, make a contribution to society.
Which one makes me more free?
It’s one thing to keep the kids clean, but get tub and take pictures…. That ain’t right at all…
Stacy, I don’t know how you did it. In inorganic chemistry I could never get an experiment to come out even near true or close to the same, no matter how many times it ran it or how accurately I measured.
My first comment on this thread was going to be, now you’ve done it. But I changed my mind.
Thanks Stacy. Enjoy your freedom!
Stacy,
The greatest discoveries were by accident, by not following the rules, by abandoning the established discipline. If you receive comfort by following the rules, there is nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. But not everyone wants to live life that way. Some people will plan their vacation for weeks, while others show up with a tooth brush and bathing suit and make it an adventure. That does not make the later an immoral person.
If you were born in the 1st century and watched all the Christians abandon the status quo of the Roman Empire; abandon all earthly goods and run out into the desert, then perhaps you would have the same reaction as Saul and to have them stoned for their immorality.
BTW, the computer you’re writing on would not be here without the invention of Alan Turing. A homosexual. A homosexual that was chemically castrated; which in turn ended his career as a genius.
I would love to read a follow up post with regards to the Golden Rule and this Gay Marriage debate. Could you be standing in the way of someone’s spiritual growth? If there is a better way, as you say, then show me and I will follow.
Take care,
Matt
Own up to your statement Howard. You called civil rights hyperbole. Straight up. Be a man and own up to it.
Andrew-as the saying goes. What does that have to do with you beating your wife?
“Own up to your statement Howard. You called civil rights hyperbole. Straight up. Be a man and own up to it.”
CameronW, I haven’t heard this kind bravado in years. You have given me a good laugh for the day. You wouldn’t punch out a senior citizen would you? I’ll buy the next round.
Matt,
No, a serendipitous discovery was still made, understood and tested within the legitimate boundaries of the discipline. Following the rules is necessary, within certain boundaries. Even setting out on a vacation with a toothbrush and bathing suit is not complete reckless abandon of all codes of conduct.
With morality, there are rules too, legitimate, natural boundaries that must be respected if society is to progress.
Yes, BTW, it is also a fact that modern science was born as a discipline unto itself in the Christian West. You can’t argue with that, it was. The ascendancy of the Catholic Church was also the most liberating event in human history. Christ was crucified, they did that a lot back then. Even the freest countries today still kill the smallest and most defenseless among us if they aren’t wanted and kill criminals when they could be incarcerated.
The Golden Rule post is this one. Did you even read it? I did show you the better way. I, and many people like me, did not start this. We were leaving you alone. Goodness, Matt, even now between us, you are the one pursuing me. I’m not seeking you out, I’m defending my beliefs, not fighting with individuals.
Honest debate – I don’t mind, but anyone who knows anything about debate knows that the one who resorts to ad hominem is the one who admits defeat because he knows he ran out of any meaningful ideas.
You want spiritual growth? The first step is admitting there’s something greater than yourself.
CamerW: there is no need to sully your uniform by such comments. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have had equal protection under the law, that is, they could each marry someone of the opposite sex. Understandably, homosexuals may choose not to do so. However, neither homosexuals NOR heterosexuals had the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Howard,
You get a cookie. An oatmeal cookie!
CameronW,
No cookies for you.
Matt: Turing consented to his treatment. However, at this point, Turing is in the hands of the Living God.
As a Catholic myself, I appreciate your willingness to share what has clearly been a deeply personal journey for you. I could not disagree more with your views on LGBTQ rights, and I will continue to advocate for change within and outside of the Church. And while I am saddened by your post’s content, as a “progressive” Catholic, I really want to thank you for being so open and allowing disagreeing posts onto your blog. The conversation here has been good for me to read, and your willingness to hear all sides (and allow the posts to remain posted) bespeaks a lot of charity on your part. Many people on both sides are unwilling to allow for dialogue, so thank you for your courage and generosity. It really means a lot.
CamronW, I am unfamiliar with that saying.
Have you stopped having gay sex yet?
Stacy,
This is The Stacy Method again
1. Write that homosexuals are immoral and unhealthy
2. Get called a bigot,
3. “I’m being attacked for my personal beliefs!”
If you want to be left alone, why write about something you know will give you attention?
Carrying a big cross and whacking anyone with it who isn’t following your rules is standing in the way of someone’s spiritual growth.
CameronW, I haven’t heard this kind bravado in years. You have given me a good laugh for the day. You wouldn’t punch out a senior citizen would you? I’ll buy the next round.
Grats. You’re also pathetic, and if Christian, in violation of your own creed. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If their rights are hyperbole, then so are yours. So you wouldn’t mind us taking them would you?
CamronW, I am unfamiliar with that saying.
Of course you are Andrew, because you’re pretty ignorant. They hide this information from you…in books.
: there is no need to sully your uniform by such comments. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have had equal protection under the law, that is, they could each marry someone of the opposite sex. Understandably, homosexuals may choose not to do so. However, neither homosexuals NOR heterosexuals had the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Actually they do have the right to marry someone of the same sex. And your argument is terrible. Flash back in time when interracial marriage was the Christian screed of the day. “Hurp derp they could each marry someone of the same race.” Thing you might not realize is. You guys already lost. It’s all down to a matter of WHEN not IF. The younger generations overwhelmingly support gay marriage. So when you’re in your twilight years. Well you can whine and cry about “teh geyz” having national marriage until you die. Harsh sure. But still true. Then the rest of us can get on with forming “..a more perfect Union.” Scum like you need not apply.
Flash back in time when interracial marriage was the Christian screed of the day. “Hurp derp they could each marry someone of the same race.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100137861/it-is-moronic-to-compare-opposition-to-gay-marriage-with-opposition-to-interracial-marriage/
You guys already lost. It’s all down to a matter of WHEN not IF.
Not so fast on gay marriage
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/opinion/la-le-0215-wednesday-20120215
The younger generations overwhelmingly support gay marriage.
Younger generations get older, more experienced, and wiser. As the spin goes, people get exposed to homosexual relationships and become more accepting of redefining marriage. I think they will become less accepting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q357cCcTYf8
Laura, so good to read someone who disagrees and doesn’t sling a verbal arrow at your chest.
Much has been said here about rights. Rights are something that are protected or guaranteed by a power. No God, no rights by divine fiat. No government law, no right given. Sometimes we think we have a right and a court says, no. In this debate and else ware I have heard human rights, gay rights, LGBT rights, civil rights and just plain rights. I do think there is often a presumption of a right, but it is talked about as if the right actually exists and has been affirmed.
I am curious if in your activism how you handle the Church’s non-negotiable positions or if they come into play at all with your views.
CameronW: I assume, then, you are not active duty nor a veteran as you implied earlier: brothers-at-arms do not insult each other or their predecessors. Your comments, likely unintentional, make a good argument that citizenship should be contingent on service and education. May God, in His mercy, keep you.
Mjeck wrote: “A homosexual that was chemically castrated; which in turn ended his career as a genius.” Are you saying that his brain was chemically destroyed??? Ouch!
Also did a quick search and found that Konrad Zuse was the inventor of the first freely programmable computer, and Douglas Engelbart invented point and click computing with the computer mouse windows etc.
Grace Hopper, an American woman, invented in 1952 the very first compiler of all times, a program which translates a programming language so that it can be understood by computers. It was a sensational breakthrough which opened doors to automatic programming and thus directly to contemporary personal computers (PCs).
On Alan Turing, British mathematician and logician, who made major contributions to mathematics, cryptanalysis, logic, philosophy, and biology and to the new areas later named computer science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and artificial life. so not really the inventor of the computer but did have a hand in its development.
CameronW – the verdict is still out as to whether or not the younger generation is more supportive of same-sex marriage, guess it all depened on which poll you look at, and know just the way polls go, even in the way questions are phrased can make a person say one thing when it is not what they meant to say. But us gray hair ole people will continue to speak out on this issue.
Howard, thank you for the link to the video, I liked it.
Name wrote that some of us were “Spoiled Brats for Jesus.” Amen, I am proud to be one of them spoiled brats.
guess it all depends on which poll you look at, and know just the way polls go, even in the way questions are phrased
If national polls show support for gay marriage, why does it keep losing in state votes?
The polling on gay marriage is off, as even Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling admitted on Twitter the night the people of North Carolina rejected gay marriage 61 to 39 percent:
“Hate to say it, but I don’t believe polls showing majority support for gay marriage nationally. Any time there’s a vote it doesn’t back it up.”
http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Screen-shot-2012-05-08-at-10.59.01-PM.png
“Grace Hopper, an American woman”
As I remember Grace was a U.S. Naval officer.
Howard, you are right: Rear Admiral Grace Hopper (9 December 1906 – 1 January 1992) was a U.S. Naval officer, and an early computer programmer. She was the developer of the first compiler for a computer programming language; at the end of her service she was the oldest serving officer in the United States Navy.
Not to change the topic, but I also don’t believe the people that say “gay marriage” is all about human rights and equal protection under the law. Why? Because I have never met a single supporter of “gay marriage” who also supported the right to life for unborn children.
It’s not about rights. It’s all about adult desires and entitlements. It’s not about children at all. And societies that don’t care for their young, fail.
Sorry Stacy, had a senior moment.
CamronW, Well I had a nice big and humorous even, post I was going pop on you, but one mis-stroke of a laptop key sent it into oblivion. You have no idea how pissed off I am about that!
Ignorant?… no, I’m not ignorant. I can read books and I was fortunate enough to be born in America where I learned as far back as in high school to recognize a loaded question when I see it. Even though I sucked at philosophy and debate 101 I had a teacher who tried his best to make sure his students understood the very basics of arguing and Western philosophy, enough to get by with. He taught us how not to chase after red hearings and loaded questions and that the best way to answer a loaded question is to answer it with an equally loaded question. the rest I leaned from… of all things, books. So, again I ask you; have you stopped having gay sex yet?
I doubt you have given any serious contemplation to the Constitution or the the Philosophy of Freedom and its consequences. If you have, you would by now have leaned that freedom is not free and I don’t mean that by the way of fallen American soldiers.
And just for the record, your “presumption” that I beat my wife is false. You have committed one of the most rudimentary logical fallacies that exist.
For some reason after rereading your post(s) I have a sneaking suspicion you didn’t complete basic training.
Mrs. Trasancos? May I have Camronw’s cookie? Please!?
We get it, Stacy. Gay people are icky
Haha. Yes, Andrew, cookies. Whatever comment got lost in cyberspace couldn’t have been better than the one you published.
Mjeck, for crying out loud. Did you even read what I wrote up top? Particularly the part about still having friendly acquaintances, with respect and trust?
Mjeck, for crying out loud. Did you even read what I wrote up top?
It doesn’t matter what you write. When debating redefining marriage, you will be called a hater, bigot, homophobe and anti-gay — or your beliefs will he called hate, bigotry, homophobic and anti-gay.
Stacy,
You may be surprised to learn that I have a lot of respect for your accomplishments and intelligence. When you write about Church history, doctrine and art, I really enjoy what you have to say
Thank you Mjeck. I will keep that in mind and focus more on that. I appreciate it.
Andrew, I use MS Word for long posts then copy to the box.
Stacy the cookie Nazi!
so I will ask what I fear some will see as a loaded question, perhaps if I state my intent that it indeed not intended to be loaded it will get answered.
Is marriage a right or a privilege?
Is redefining marriage a right?
and Stacy, in all fairness I don’t think you really know too many folks who are for gay rights.
But please be comforted to know that I know a beautiful young lady who is pro life and pro gay rights. She is 17, about to graduate high school and is one amazing opinionated kid. I could not be more proud of her, even when I disagree with her. So where there is one I am sure there are more.
Whatever Alan, that made soooo much sense.
Howard, that is good advice, even for not so long posts I copy the text before clicking anything (learned the hard way).
Stacy, which part made soooo much sense?
Alan, if you don’t go off on tangents with simplistic retorts I will discuss this with you, otherwise forget it.
A right is “an entitlement to something”. An entitlement is “An individual’s right to receive a value or benefit provided by law.”
Marriage itself is defined by God and is a sacrament administered by his ordained ministers.
If you are talking about civil marriage (which did not become widespread in western civilizaton until the reformation), it is controlled by voting and not a right until put into law. If you argue that some other law or moral premise describes marriage indirectly or allows marriage as it is now defined (I am assuming arguing the civil rights act) and you wish to confirm it more clearly as a right, then you may have to have your opinion confirmed by a court or a new law made. Merely to say marriage itself is given to some therefore I have a right to it, ignores the requirements that may be attached – gender, age, relationship, geography, fees, waiting periods, permissions, medical exams, witnesses, etc.
But you CANNOT defend a questionable position with some vague reference to the golden rule or the like or arrogantly declaring that it is a right.
Howard, I have made it abundantly clear I am discussing legal civil marriage. So God plays no part in it. But I appreciate your response and strangely might agree with what you say.
So I have the right to marry another man in Massachusetts.
Alan, “strangely” is at least something. How about going further.
To use the term “marriage” in this case is co-opting a long standing tradition that insults those who have practiced it. It dilutes the meaning of institution. Procreation is removed and personal satisfaction is substituted.
I have no problem with the disappearance of the sodomy laws and recognize God’s gift of free will. But I will not support any attempt to publically legitimize homosexual sex.
Please read the following carefully.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. – George Washington’s farewell address
“Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They’re Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement”
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
Howard, you probably saw this one too: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-woman-marries-building-protest-demolition-224250710.html
I appreciate that she took a stand, but you don’t marry buildings to save them. This is what happens when marriage can mean anything.
Woman Plans to “Marry” a Neighborhood
Remember the Seattle crackpot who married a building? Now she claims to be engaged to a neighborhood:
I knew it. You let a girl marry a warehouse, and next thing you know, she’s a damn polygamist.
At least this isn’t being called marriage yet, but it is being called monogamy and intimacy.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/02/10/man-loves-his-car-has-sexual-relationship-vehicle
This is being called “self-marriage”.
http://mrctv.org/videos/woman-marries-herself
Stacy, it’s déjà vu all over again. The 1960s experience was a rebellion against definitions of behavior, especially if it involved your parents or the law. But, there was a sense of experimentation and novelty in it all – youthful exuberance. Today it has become serious and threatening.
Howard:
“To use the term “marriage” in this case is co-opting a long standing tradition that insults those who have practiced it. It dilutes the meaning of institution. Procreation is removed and personal satisfaction is substituted.”
I don’t see how anyone can be insulted by same sex marriage. That is just silliness. And it dilutes nothing, you clearly have not read anything I have written, but by homosexuals being in committed relationships or marriages should make marriage stronger. See we want that form of legal commitment.
Procreation has never been a necessary component of marriage. One can procreate without marriage (look to nature for examples) and one can be married with no intention or ability to procreate.
And well I think I understand what you mean by personal satisfation, but again think you are wrong. My husbands is now so much more important that anything I want for me. My first thoughts are of him, and his are of me. Call that personal satisfaction if you want, but you could not be further from the truth.
How many times have you been married Howard? I mean we know many fighting the fight against gay marriage have been married more than once (and I am sure Stacy is not the only one here) so really how can you say they have not insulted and diluted marriage?
“I have no problem with the disappearance of the sodomy laws and recognize God’s gift of free will.”
I am so glad.
“But I will not support any attempt to publically legitimize homosexual sex.”
That is fine by me. I will not support any attempt to publically legitimize any one religions belief and desire to conform society to their desires.
And that is where the issue of rights comes in. It is well within my rights to expect that I indeed have the right to be married to whom I choose.
As far as beastiality, marrying cars or buildings, well all I can say is if you can get them to sign the contract go for it. It’s silly to compare.
Do you think catholics are the same as muslims?
Alan wrote, “by homosexuals being in committed relationships or marriages should make marriage stronger.”
What you overlook is that marriage would have to be redefined, as a genderless institution, in order for same-sex “marriage” to be possible.
I think this would sully and tarnish the idea and ideal of marriage.
Marriage leads to family, and often to children being raised by their married mother and father. SSM can only lead to at most one of the adults being the biological parent of the children, and always results in the children being deprived of a mother or a father, just because this is the way the adults want it! Fathers don’t mother and mothers don’t father. They parent differently. Children do best when raised by their married mother and father, and this is what they want. This is in their best interests. One side in this debate limits its interests in this aspect of the debate to trying to pick these truisms apart, when the issue raised by our side, or find exceptions that really don’t invalidate the rule.
Finally, if marriage can be redefined as including a man ‘marrying’ a man, then it can also be redefined as a woman marrying two men, or more.
alanl64 asked, “Do you think catholics are the same as muslims?”
Islam opposes same-sex marriage. Here’s why:
Marriage in Islam
by Rida Fozi
May 23, 2012
While Islam opposes same-sex marriage, its opposition to it and to President Obama’s stance is not a matter of hate or bigotry but a matter of principle.
God Almighty states in the Quran on the creation of Adam and Eve, “It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her in love” (Chapter 7, Al-Araf: Verse 189)….
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5464
Thanks for the cookie Stacy!
Thanks for the tip Howard!
I wonder how the building feels about being blissfully wed to a moron?
Alan, I can only address one point at a time.
“Procreation has never been a necessary component of marriage. One can procreate without marriage (look to nature for examples) and one can be married with no intention or ability to procreate.”
You are trying to refute traditional marriage which has been defined by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years and was instituted by our founding fathers in the marriage laws.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which “is on the side of life” teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
As a side note. I was married for 36 years before she died, my first and only wife. I qualify to speak about marriage.
Howard,
36 years! That is nice, yes, you sure do qualify to speak about marriage. Alan, well, Alan’s got about as much propriety as my 5 year old has in her pinky. Sorry. Thanks for the quote from Catechism, “springs from the heart of mutual giving.” Beautiful. Marriage is instituted by God, not man, a true and proper Sacrament.
Oh Stacy, you really are mature aren’t you. Do you think at any time you will mature? You don’t like me, we get that. Sorry two divorces shows you have no respect for the sanctity of marriage.
Howard. That is pretty great on the 36 years, and I am sorry that you wife died. I know that is hard.
I hope to someday say have been married for 36 years.
But again our society is not the catholic church. Times change, societies change. Change is good. Like it would be a good change it Stacy grew up and acted like a mature adult. I have no doubt her 5 year old is more mature than Stacy. Seems pretty freaking evident.
Now Stacy will either threaten to ban me or she will just do it. Either way matters not.
Alan, I thank you for your response and will consider it to be one of the most sincere compliments I have ever recieved.
Alan said, “But again our society is not the catholic church. Times change, societies change. Change is good.”
Understand the issue at hand. Our society is founded on the morality defined by Christianity. Arguably imperfectly founded, like an older child is to a parent. It was never intended to BE the Church, that would make it similar to Sharia law. Instead our founders have said in the Declaration of Independence, “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..” after telling us that the reason for this country at all is to secure the rights that God intended for us – marriage being one. They were not enumerated or intended to be interpreted as you wish.
The issue is procreation as a central reason for marriage. I condense some thought from a great leader here.
“No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good”.
To redefine marriage in this way only serves to remove procreation as an important feature of being human and leaves open the redefinition to any purpose for the active mind and the powerful. Power owes no allegiance to you as an individual unless you hold it to a standard that cannot be disputed. Your self interest will not be a defense. Change is only good if it is good change, and if it lasts.
Picking up on what Alan said, “But again our society is not the catholic church. Times change, societies change. Change is good.” Was the moral change of the Roman Empire or Greek Empire good – no – the spread and acceptance of homosexuality was a part of the fall of each of those empires, even Saint Augustine makes references to it in his writing “City of God”.
I read a article this morning it deals with what this conversation is about.
The So-Called ‘Science’ Behind ‘Gay’ Marriage:
“No matter how many times persons of the same sex engage in sexual activity, there will never be any offspring. If everybody only engaged in homosexual sex, within 100 years the human race would be extinct. This is a mathematical, scientific, and medical fact. Bigotry has nothing to do with opposition to homosexual behavior.”
http://godfatherpolitics.com/5230/the-so-called-science-behind-gay-marriage/
you might have to copy and paste as could not get it to show being a direct link.
Regarding my post about Colleen Nixon and her song, I got this email a while ago. Thanks to those who may have contributed towards helping someone with a beautiful voice create music that is uplifting.
“well, you out did yourself! the past 24 hours have been somethan else for me, and i straight up CAN’T BELIEVE I’m 90% of the way to my goal and currently at $22,607!
is it april fools? someone pinch me and wake me from this dream!
on tuesday we had raised $15, 905. on wednesday it was at $17,685 and yesterday around noon it was at $20,140. i posted on facebook that if i get to $21,500 before midnight, i would record a video song for backers only.
i wish i would have known what a little dangle of a carrot could do! my oh my.
when i went to sleep a little after midnight, it was at $22,427! (yes, a thousand a day keeps NOT recording away!)
thank you! thank you! thank you! i’m so overwhelmed and SO grateful for everyone who re-posted on facebook and tweeted out yesterday. (there were a lot of ya’ll!) with every “new backer” e-mail i’ve gotten, i literally have said “thank you, the backers beautiful name!”; “i love you, the bakers beautiful name!”; “you’re the BEST, the backers beautiful name! ” what a difference you have made in my life!
again, we are only 10% away from this project DEFINITELY happening. we can’t give up now…only one week left!
love.love.love,
cnix”
I admire your evolution, and your well-written essay. I too went through an evolution, but mine didn’t take long.
I’d had homosexual friends on three continents.
However, all my life I’d known that marriage was the union of a husband and wife. I learned that the Proposition 8 vote was going to be close. I’d already realized that the proposed redefinition wasn’t an improvement. I thought about it a little and — having a kid — realized that the issue had to do with what kind of a world the children grew up in. I realized that this issue was very important to me. In answer to a same-sex “marriage” argument, the kind of world my kid grows up in affects me personally. I think part of my decision was influenced by the homosexual relationships I’d observed. One friend of mine lamented that “it’s all about the screwing.” Marriage is quite different, and is usually all about the family and the children.
I got on the Protect Marriage – Yes on 8 email list, called them, and found where I could participate in the campaign. Throughout the campaign, the No on 8 side was describing our position as “hate” (“No H8″). They were stealing our signs like mad, assaulting us on street corner demonstrations, and vilifying us in the incredibly biased media.
We won! Over eight million rejected the notion that they were “hateful bigots” and voted to overrule four (out of seven) “supreme” judges that had overruled us, and imposed SSM on California. (It was the SECOND time we’d voted that marriage was the union of a man and a woman.)
Then a single homosexual judge in San Francisco overruled all eight million of us, declaring that the only reason we could possibly have had for voting to protect marriage was because of animosity toward homosexuals (something I had none of). Then he announced that he’d been in a ten-year committed relationship with another man (and, therefore, had something to gain from his ruling. They could marry).
Now that we’ve voted in 32 (out of 32) states that the proposed redefinition isn’t an improvement, why do we have to keep fighting homosexual special rights advocates that hate us and want to shove their redefinition down our throats — and why do judges keep overruling our democracy?
I’m not a person of faith.
Wow, that is quite a story, and a lot of work you’ve done Mr. Stevens. As I read it, I knew how it was going to end, but it was chilling all the same the way you just laid it out like that. I have tried and tried to understand why they speak of hate so much and try to cower people, and all I come up with is tyranny.
But that sounds so — uncivil.
It’s not over, and I really, really appreciate meeting good people like you in cyberspace. We have to stick together. And like you, the thing that really gets me, is that I do have friends who identify as homosexual, but there is trust and respect between us. They know where I stand.
Thank you, and it’s nice to *meet* you.
Hmm, I think you are saying either that measures passed by direct referendum are not subject to constitutional review by the judiciary or you are saying that the number of judges reviewing the law must exceed the number of voters who passed it. Either way, a very scholarly analysis.
I wonder what you think of the 48% of the voters who opposed Prop 8? Granted 48% is not a majority, but do you think that all those people want to destroy marriage and don’t care about the world in which their kids grow up? If it is wrong to smear all pro-8 voters as haters, let’s not smear the 48% of the CA electorate who opposed Prop 8 as uncaring of marriage and family.
It’s a pleasure to *meet* you too, Ms. Trasancos.
I have no trouble understanding why same-sex “marriage” advocates speak of hate so much and try to cower people.
They do it because it works.
As they taught in the Museum of Tolerance, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
SSM advocates have people to the point that they’re afraid to publicly express their opinion, for fear that homosexual “marriage” advocates will express the usual outrage and go after their livelihood! Declaring people “hateful bigots” makes attacking them more palatable.
People don’t want to be “homophobic” “haters”, or even to be seen that way.
People won’t tell live pollsters that call them that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and should stay that way. Then “gay marriage” advocates declare that polls indicate that most people believe otherwise.
In North Carolina, the last poll before the election stated that 55% of the voters were going to vote for the marriage amendment. 61.04% did. If most people believe that a man should be able to “marry” a man, why have the People in 32 out of 32 states voted otherwise?
I would like to share an eye-opener with you.
The media is incredibly biased in favor of redefining marriage. Read William Glaberson’s, , The New York Times, September 10, 1993.
In his article, he reveals that:
* Mainstream news organizations recruit homosexuals at National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association conventions.
* Gay and lesbian journalists report on homosexual issues. They function as information resources for other editors and reporters when they’re not.
* Homosexual journalists review articles for the purpose of bias adjustment.
When it’s homosexual jounalists reporting on homosexual so-called “marriage”, naturally their articles will be biased. Their spin (e.g., “marriage equality,” “ban”, “anti-gay marriage,” “foes”) and editorializing gets included in the reporting! The headlines, bylines — and especially the images — are even more biased than the reporting.
Feel free to email me if there’s something you want to do to stick together.
“why do we have to keep fighting homosexual special rights advocates that hate us and want to shove their redefinition down our throats — and why do judges keep overruling our democracy?
I’m not a person of faith.”
Not to create an advertisement for faith, but, faith does give a person an answer and a hope. To try and use language that does not bring up an image of a bible toting preacher, we learn to understand deeply the ways in which WE use deceit and power for our own ends; which give us insight to others. We also learn the origins of evil and wrongdoing from the beginning of time, and, how it all turns out at the end of time. There is great understanding and encouragement in this knowledge, if believed can override despair of many problems.
Adam Eve Stevens, I appreicate you bringing up how Prop 8 was voted on twice in Cal, passed twice only to have a gay judge over-rule the voice of the people. In each state where marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman, either by the states elected officials or by the voice of the people in the voter box, it has come under attack as being unconstitutional and a attack against gay people. It happened again today in ILL: “CHICAGO (AP) – More than two dozen gay and lesbian couples filed lawsuits Wednesday arguing that it’s unconstitutional for Illinois to deny them the right to marry, a move advocates hope will lead to legalized same-sex marriage in the state.
The two lawsuits – backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the New York-based gay advocacy group Lambda Legal – include couples from the Chicago area, Bloomington and Marion. Both challenge a state law that defines marriage as between a man and woman, arguing that the Illinois Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry under due process and equality clauses.”
http://www.14news.com/story/18651749/aclu-lawsuit-to-challenge-ill-gay-marriage-ban
ILL does have a ‘same sex union’ law but this is not good enough for them, they want more. Of course now they gay communities are going to be pushing even harder than before since Obama came on board with his open support of gay marriage.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for expressing your appreciation.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal probably chose Illinois to bring its case because it had civil unions.
Two state supreme courts (California and Connecticut) have ruled that passing civil unions is evidence of bias and discrimination against homosexuals — the rationale for striking down marriage laws and imposing same-sex “marriage”. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit recently agreed, in a split decision.
People try to do something nice for homosexual couples (providing them with legal protections), or compromising with them, and wind up creating a big, legal Achilles heal.
Civil unions have become a terribly slippery slope, legally.
North Carolina just got ride of civil unions, when it passed its defense of marriage amendment.
Richard,
The way “our robed masters” have been trying to overrule the People, and impose same-sex “marriage” on California, is interesting.
When the California ‘supreme’ justices overruled our first (61.4% to 38%) vote on marriage, Proposition 8 was already on the ballot. Nevertheless, the ‘supremes’ refused to stay their ruling pending the Prop 8 vote. So, in between the California supremes’ (4-3) vote, and the People’s Proposition 8 vote, SSM was legal in California — due to judicial fiat.
After having sued and failed to get Prop 8 overturned by the California ‘supreme’ justices, homosexual “marriage” advocates sued in federal court in San Francisco. The homosexual judge in that case ruled that since homosexual so-called “marriage” was legal, at the time the voters passed Prop 8, the People took away a right that homosexuals already had — and that we couldn’t do that without good reason, which he said we didn’t have (knowing why we voted for it, being a mind-reader).
But it was the ‘supreme’ judges that had made “gay marriage” legal in the first place (by refusing to stay their ruling)!
Amending ‘our’ Constitution was the only way we could overrule the ‘supremes’. But because of the supremes’ refusal to stay their ruling — according to the federal courts, we couldn’t.
If the federal courts’ rulings are upheld, the California ‘supremes’ will have imposed SSM on Californians, simply by refusing to stay their ruling.
Are judges really so “superior”?
This post makes no sense. You don’t say that you began as a same-sex marriage supporter and the incident which supposedly helped you “evolve” was a blog post that did not concern gay marriage. You posted about how dreadful it was for you to see gay people in public spaces and how good, decent people like you couldn’t even go outdoors anymore. The harsh comments you received in turn did not discuss gay marriage. What any of this has to do with gay marriage is beyond me.
Last point: your depiction of your friendships with gay people (I’ll leave out the insulting scare quotes) only demonstrates that you were never truly respectful of them. True friends don’t mindlessly praise one another. They listen to and support one another. Why you seem to think that this is not possible with gay friends, and why you think that your genuine gay friends need to be equated with the anonymous internet commenters who attacked you last year, is similarly beyond me.
Dave,
No, I never really did actively support “gay” marriage, I just didn’t really care one way or the other, like a lot of lukewarm people who haven’t really thought about the issue much.
I just pulled this off the wire service: Federal court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, saying it denies federal benefits to married gay couples. The law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Here is another example of a judge over ruling a law passed by the majority of both houses of congress and signed into law by the president at that time (Clinton). This is what our current president has been pushing for, have a feeling this will end up in the supreme court also.
If this ruling’s upheld, same-sex couples will be able to travel to one of the six states that perform same-sex “marriages”, return to their home states, and force their states to recognize their “marriages” (presumably by suing).
Video: Derek McCoy of the Maryland Marriage Alliance Announces They Have Double the Needed Signatures
I did not read all the comments, so if I missed something, please let me know.
From my understanding, Stacy, you and some of the others here object to gay marriages, but not civil unions.
Since I am only concerned about the rights of gays and their families, I don’t care what banner those rights fly under…as long as they have them.
What I have noticed, however, is that many laws and amendments prohibit civil unions as well as marriage for gays. The latest one that comes to mind is the North Carolina amendment.
So, if those against gay marriage were only concerned about the word “marriage” not being used to describe homosexual unions…why are so many laws/amaendments denying gays the right enter a civil union? I know this may not apply directly to you Stacy, but this is why many on your side get called bigots and such. Because it seems the goal is to deprive others of their rights rather than preserving your own rights.
ChrisCintheD, here is something you may have missed:
Also, judging by your passive voice statement, “this is why many on your side get called bigots,” I think you may have missed this too:
Doesn’t your post imply that 61% of North Carolinians are bigots?
Do you believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.
Adam,
Were all of the NC voters aware they were not only voting against gay “marriage”, but also against gay couples having the right to a civil union? If so, then yes, I am calling them bigots.
The truth isn’t always pretty. Given this history of this country, I do not find it surprising that so many would be bigoted and would come out in such large numbers to deny a group their right to adopt a mate’s child, to visit them in the hospital, put them on their insurance, etc.
One thing I’ve never understood is how allowing gays to enter a civil union somehow diminishes the meaning of my marriage, or any other hetrosexual’s marriage? How does it change how much you love your spouse? Your children? Even more, gays will not be allowed to marry in the RCC or any other church that does not agree with gay marriage. What are you really fighting?
Were all of the NC voters aware they were not only voting against gay “marriage”, but also against gay couples having the right to a civil union?
Opponents of the measure brought this issue out in the campaign. It was also in the news there. Same-sex “marriage” was already illegal.
If so, then yes, I am calling them bigots.
That doesn’t mean they’re bigots. That’s just name-calling. Declaring 61% of the population bigots is a stretch.
They may have realized that homosexual couples aren’t married to one another and, therefore, aren’t entitled to whatever benefits may have been extended to married couples.
Or maybe they didn’t want to leave a legal window of opportunity for the ACLU and Lambda Legal to charge through to get judges to impose same-sex “marriage” on North Carolinians by judicial fiat.
Maybe they just didn’t want to confer a special status to homosexual couples, as if they should have special “rights” just because they copulate with members of the same sex.
deny a group their right to adopt a mate’s child,
Mate? They’re not married. They’re the same sex, so they can’t mate.
to visit them in the hospital, put them on their insurance
These rights can be given them by law without creating civil unions.
What are you really fighting?
I’m not fighting anything. I’m discussing redefining marriage. The fight in my state is in the courts and “our robed masters” will not hesitate to decide whether we had the right to amend our constitution to define marriage, believing that “superior” judges are the proper people to decide that.
If someone lies, they are a liar. If someone holds a bigoted view, they are a bigot. If a person would deny the rights of others based on race, creed, gender or sexual orientation; then they are a bigot. Pointing out the truth is not name calling.
It is not a stretch that 61% of the people that voted in NC are bigoted. Not too long ago, most people were against whites marrying non-whites. Half of my heritage is a mere four generations out of American slavery and only one generation out of Jim Crow. As I mentioned before, with America’s history, rampant fear and/or hatred does not surprise me. Makes me sad, sure. Surprises me, no.
They may have realized that homosexual couples aren’t married to one another and, therefore, aren’t entitled to whatever benefits may have been extended to married couples.<<
So, couples in civil unions do not deserve the same rights as those married? Should civil unions exist for no one?
Or maybe they didn’t want to leave a legal window of opportunity for the ACLU and Lambda Legal to charge through to get judges to impose same-sex “marriage” on North Carolinians by judicial fiat.<<
So, they would deny homosexual the right to a civil union because they don't want to term "marriage" to be used for anything other than a man-woman relationship? Still a bigoted view.
These rights (hospital visitation, etc) can be given them by law without creating civil unions.<<
Not effectively. These rights can still be denied. This is a major concern for homosexual couples.
The definition of marriage has evolved since its invention. The United States is not a theocracy. The religious definition of marriage does not have to be the only definition in the eyes of the law.
If someone holds a bigoted view, they are a bigot. If a person would deny the rights of others based on [...] sexual orientation; then they are a bigot.
It is not a stretch that 61% of the people that voted in NC are bigoted.
they don’t want [the] term “marriage” to be used for anything other than a man-woman relationship? Still a bigoted view.
Now that you have declared the view that marriage is a man-woman relationship, and should stay that way, bigoted — and 61% of North Carolinians, bigots — I’m wondering about the other 39%.
Merriam-Webster online defines a “bigot” as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”.
Is it possible any of the 39% that voted against the marriage protection amendment are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices?
If only 5-6 out of the 39 percents are, then two-thirds of North Carolinians are bigots, like Archie Bunker?
Could bigotry have prevented any of the 39% from even considering marriage supporters’ arguments?
Is it possible that any of the 39% perversely adhered to their opinions, purposes, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion?
I “don’t want [the] term ‘marriage’ to be used for anything other than a man-woman relationship.” You wrote that this is “a bigoted view” and that “if someone holds a bigoted view, they are a bigot.”
Am I a bigot?
I “don’t want [the] term ‘marriage’ to be used for anything other than a man-woman relationship.” You wrote that this is “a bigoted view” and that “if someone holds a bigoted view, they are a bigot.”
Am I a bigot?>>>
This is what I wrote:
“So, they would deny homosexual the right to a civil union because they don’t want to term “marriage” to be used for anything other than a man-woman relationship? Still a bigoted view.”
If you would deny homosexuals the right to a civil union because you do not want the term “marriage” to be used for anything other than a man-woman relationship, then yes, you are a bigot.
When I asked “What are you fighing”, you said that you were not fighting anything, just discussing the redefinition of marriage. That led me to believe you were *not* actively trying to deny homosexuals their rights based on your religous views. Was my assumption incorrect?
Chris,
Here’s where that argument usually goes.
I ask you to define marriage.
You define it.
I ask you if you support something outside your definition.
You say no.
Then, that makes you a bigot too.
You have to go a little deeper and try to understand the reasons. There are valid, natural, time-proven reasons for marriage to be upheld in society as man and woman. If you support changing that, then what are the limits? We literally have people marrying buildings, marrying themselves. Polygamy?
Where does this “the right to a civil union,” that you postulate exists, come from?
Before declaring that homosexuals are “denied” a “right” to something, you must first establish that this “right” exists — not just state it does.
Civil unions are relatively new. Were homosexuals denied a right to them before they were invented?
Are homosexual couples entitled to whatever benefits and rights that married couples have?
The religious definition of marriage does not have to be the only definition in the eyes of the law.
You think there can be more than one legal definition of marriage?
That led me to believe you were *not* actively trying to deny homosexuals their rights based on your religous views. Was my assumption incorrect?
I don’t know what “rights” you’re referring to, but I’m agnostic. My support for preserving the traditional understanding of what marriage is has nothing to do with “religious views.”
Stacy,
I have no problem if you don’t want to call it marriage, or feel it is not marriage. I am not trying, nor do I want to, change the RCC, Islam, etc. I’m not going to usher a gay couple to the front of the isle during mass and demand the pastor join the pair in matrimony. I have a problem if you interfere with the right of two consenting adults to enter a legal union (and the rights that go with it). Because we are not a theocracy, your religion does not equal what is and should be law. We are a democratic republic, so you have the right to voice your opinions and concerns. And if you can manage it, have the laws reflect your views. I have that same right. Pretty neat, actually.
So, what is the justification for denying the right for gays enter a civil union and the rights that go with it, from a legal standpoint?
What would be the legal justification for a person entering a civil union with a building? You can’t visit a building in the hospital if it is dying nor it you. You can’t have power of attorney over a building… You can’t be its next kin… You can’t adopt a building’s child (or would it be an annex?)… You can’t collect the building’s SS…
What would be the legal justification for a person entering a civil union with themselves?
In theory, I have no issue with polygamy. There is, however, a stronger case against the legal recognition of a polygamous marriage . Which of the spouses will collect benefits? Which one can take out life insurance? Which one is next of kin the the case of a medical emergency? Is it the first spouse? The favorite spouse? These are legitimate concerns.
Adam,
Adults have the right to marry another consenting adult. Where does this right come from? That is a very good question. According to the UN, it is a fundamental right. Our Constitution does not outline a clear “right” to marriage for anyone, gay or straight. The SC has upheld that the right to marriage is covered under the right to privacy, also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Because it is not explicitly mentioned, there is much that can be left to interpretation. And that’s essentially why we’re here talking about it.
I’m having a hard time finding where the other consenting adult *has* to be a member of the opposite sex, from a legal standpoint.
I know even though the US is not a theocracy (as I like to point out), religion and marriage are deeply intertwined. So, I have no problem advocating for civil unions as opposed to same-sex “marriage”.
Yes, civil unions are relatively new. So are interracial marriages; they’ve only been legal for about fifty years. It’s only been forty years or so that illegitimate children have had the right to inherit from their parents.
What’s your point, exactly? That things change?
Or, are you trying to say that nothing should change? Ever? If you don’t agree with the change?
Stacy, can you please delete my previous post? I was trying to format the post and it got all messed up.
Adam,
I was trying to say that the legal definition of marriage does not have to be the religion definition. Sorry if my wording was awkward.
I also missed that you were agnostic. The “traditional” view of marriage usually translates to the “religious” view. My fault for assuming.
I see that you did explain your beliefs in a prior post, so I will read it and get back with you.
I am referring to the right to a civil union.
I’ve asked you before, but I’ll ask you again.
Where does this supposed “right to a civil union” come from? So far, I’ve only seen you writing again and again that it exists.
we are not a theocracy, your religion does not equal what is and should be law.
the legal definition of marriage does not have to be the religion definition.
It looks like you are trying to claim that the common understanding of what marriage is, is “the religion definition.” It looks akin to a claim that the religious are trying to force their religions on everybody.
The un”translated” understanding of what marriage is, existed before there were states to have laws that naturally incorporated that basic, common knowledge concept into state laws.
Until recently, nobody was questioning whether a man could “marry” a man — and that general understanding was shared by atheists and agnostics. Therefore, it is quite natural that the concept of a man “marrying” a man wouldn’t be found in the laws. So a legal definition exists.
The religious may say that what they believe marriage is, comes from the Bible — but that doesn’t make the traditional definition, “the religious definition,” because all of society accepted the common understanding of what marriage was, even atheists and agnostics.
My belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman isn’t based on scripture, and isn’t “translated” into “the religious view.”
It’s just a view I’ve had my whole life. I choose not to change it, because I don’t believe that the redefinition — that homosexual special rights advocates are trying to force on society through litigation, judicial fiat, and bribing politicians — would be an improvement.
If you’re trying to say that Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are trying to force their religion on everybody, then just say it. However, they’re not the ones trying to change marriage.
Homosexuals are trying to use government to push a new moral norm. Americans with more traditional values are objecting, and SSM advocates are attacking them mercilessly — because they can do it without facing them.
Matthew Franck points out that since Obama says his faith inspired him to change his views on marriage, then all people of faith are not “imposing their religion” when they act to protect marriage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-gay-marriage-is-obama-imposing-his-religion/2012/05/15/gIQAuuPPSU_blog.html
Civil unions give homosexual couples the legal rights and benefits of married couples (which are largely neither profound nor extensive). Declaring a “right” to civil unions, therefore, is stating that homosexual couples have a right to obtain the same rights/benefits that married couples have.
Why? They’re not married.
Men and women are uniquely different from one another. “La différence” often leads to children. It is out of these natural realities that marriage has arisen, a concept that’s as old as the hills.
“La différence” is inextricably intertwined with marriage, quite naturally. Homosexuals demand “access” to marriage, yet it is the very essence of what marriage is, that makes this demand for “access” ludicrous.
Nothing called “homosexual marriage” can be equal to marriage. “Marriage equality” assumes that when a homosexual wants to “marry” another homosexual that this is equal to the marital union of a man and a woman. But this glosses over the very nature of marriage. The two will never be equal. They can’t be.
SSM was born of a desire of homosexual couples to have the same rights as married couples. The desire is willfully blind to the nature of marriage, and why it is a union of a man and a woman. The existence of this special promise and ceremony doesn’t exist thanks to Government, yet homosexuals are trying to use their power over Government — as a special interest group — to get Government to change an aspect of our culture that Government didn’t create, and has no business changing.
Homosexuals may live together and, in many states, adopt children. In all of these families, the children are deprived of at least one of their parents, because that is the way the adults want it.
Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families
I said: I am referring to the right to a civil union.
You said: I’ve asked you before, but I’ll ask you again.
Where does this supposed “right to a civil union” come from? So far, I’ve only seen you writing again and again that it exists.
My response: We are having a discussion over the internet. All either of us can do is write if X exists (or does not exist) using examples of law, doctrine, historical reference, etc. If these examples are not acceptable to you, please outline why they are not acceptable to you and we can move forward.
You’ve brought up several social arguments as to why SSCU/SSM should not be allowed, but again, what are some legal reasons why it should not be allowed?
Do you have the same aversion to divorce as you do SSM? Hetrosexual civil unions? IVF? Sperm/egg donation?
I ask because you state one of your concerns is that a child would be deprived of a two-parent home because “that’s how they want it” in a SSCU/SSM.
This reason alone is not a strong agrument against SSCU/SSM, since it is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law for hetrosexuals to make decisions that will deprive a child of a parent. Hetrosexuals can legally divorce for almost any reason. Hetrosexuals can re-marry. Hetrosexuals can have children outside the confines of a marriage.
How does it make *legal* sense to deny a SS couple the opportunity to enter a union on the basis that it will deprive the child of both parents living in the same house, when it is not a consideration in determining the legality of divorce, hetrosexual civil unions, re-marriage, etc?
You’ve said that you do not feel SSCU/SSM would be an improvement in the definition of marriage. That’s fine and dandy. The question is, why should that translate into law?
Your suggestion that I should make a legal argument opposing civil unions or SSM overlooks the fact that life and society are more than just a collection of legalisms and legal arguments. Also, since you are the one advocating
legalsocietal change, it’s incumbent upon you to argue why we should change things.You ask, “why should that translate into law?” That makes me wonder. Are you suggesting that marriages shouldn’t be recognized in the law?
When comparing married couples with same-sex couples, we find that — with same-sex couples that have children — the children are always deprived of at least a father or a mother, just because that is the way the adults want it. While that may occur in marriages, it is an essential aspect of same-sex families. Same-sex couples aren’t the same as married couples. They’re not “equal”, so there’s no reason to assume that laws that recognize marriage (the union of a man and a woman) need to be changed (to make same-sex couples seem equal) — or to give same-sex couples an equal access to marriage (the union of a husband and wife, an opportunity homosexuals have, but just don’t want).
Studies suggest that same-sex couples shouldn’t even be allowed to adopt children.
You never answered my question.
The closest you come is asking me why they should be “denied” the “opportunity”. I’m asking why they should be given the legal rights or benefits of marriage if they’re not married.
Ignoring the association between marriage and children, to ignore the effects of same-sex parenting (and the differences produced), seems kind of sociopathic to me when you think about it.
To put my position simply, I see no reason to disciminate against gays.
To OK unions for hetrosexuals and deny them for homosexuals for no other reason than that they are homosexuals is discrimination.
A union between hetrosexuals and homosexuals may be different, but that’s not to mean they cannot be legally equal. If children were the only expectation of a legal union, I’d be more inclined to agree with your analysis. However, there is no promise that every gay couple will have, will want or will try to have children. The same goes for hetrosexual couples.
Should sterile couples be denied the right to marry? Their marriage would not be the same as other hetrosexual marriages. In order to have children, either the egg or sperm of another person would have to come from another person. The child would be deprived their biological parent because, heck, that’s what the parents wanted. How sick is that? How inconsiderate of the child is that? Or, is it not sick and inconsiderate because the couple is hetrosexual?
Most children born today are born out of wedlock. And just as you’ve said some studies have shown gay households are not the best enviroment for chidren, studies have shown one-parent households to be even worse for children.
Many more children are afflicted by single-parent homes than will ever be afflicted by gay-parent homes. Is your concern for children inconsistent? Or, is it easier to speak against gay unions (civil or marriage) than it is to take on the dominant attitude of society; that you do not need to wait for marriage to have sex, and certainly you don’t need to be married to raise a child? This attitude is more damaging to the traditional concept of marriage than gay marriage ever will. Or, do you not feel that is the case?
To put my position simply,
Is a “position” more fixed than just a current opinion? I was just wondering, because of the way you rationalized calling marriage supporters, “bigots”.
I see no reason to disciminate against gays.
I see no reason
homosexualspeople that have sex with members of the same gender should have special protection from discrimination — since, in the words of Wednesday’s Southern Baptists’ resolution, they lack the “distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections.”To OK unions for hetrosexuals and deny them for homosexuals for no other reason than that they are homosexuals is discrimination.
Since when aren’t unions OK for homosexuals?
Are you claiming that same-sex couples are “denied” the right to
marriagethe union of a man and a woman?Is discrimination necessarily bad? Don’t we all discriminate all the time?
Is it wrong to “discriminate” against soccer players when giving access to softball fields? Soccer players are defined by what they do, not by what they are. The difference between them and softball players is extremely relevant because of the nature of softball fields.
A union between hetrosexuals and homosexuals may be different, but that’s not to mean they cannot be legally equal.
I don’t know why we would want to make different things legally equal, if they’re radically different in an essential way — but that’s not what’s going on here.
The issue is whether we want to replace marriage with genderless marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kRhS-Hrnc
Redefining marriage won’t fix the problems you cite. I don’t think the existence of exceptions invalidates the rule — and I don’t think problems justify worsening the status quo.
Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.
Single-parent homes are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.
Long post ahead…
Interesting question about position vs opinion. Is being against discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicithy and sexual orientation (as I pointed out in one of my earlier posts) a mere opinion? A way of life? A position? A value? It’s probably all of the above.
SSC are being kept from forming legal unions with their partners because they are SS. Hetrosexual couples are not being kept from forming legal unions with their partners. All forms of discrimination may not be wrong, but discrimination based on sexual orientation is. I believe I said this before.
I read one of your other posts where you discussed when you started caring about the definition of marriage. I guess I’ll explain how my views on marriage were shaped.
Quite frankly, I’ve found that most people, regardless of their sexual orientation, care mostly about the physical aspects of their relationship. I grew up in a world where “friends with benifits” and casual sex was normal. I grew up in a generation were little-to-no value was placed on the institution of marriage. As a young Catholic, I was told you had to be married to have sex. But, everyone around me proved that one false. Then, I was told that marriage was sarcred. All the rampant infidelity I witnessed did not support that. I was told marriage was from death to you part. Well, a 50% divorce rate blew that theory out of the water.
So, I was left asking…what was marriage but a piece of paper? Was marriage really meaningless? If not, what was its meaning? What made a marriage a marriage? What was most important about marriage?
Marriage was dedicated commitment. Marriage was fidelity. Marriage was trust. Marriage was cooperation. Marriage was love. Marriage was devotion. I never defined marriage by the gender of the participants, but by the actions of those participants. You don’t need to be a certain gender to be committed, to be faithful, to trust, to love or to cooperate.
Of course, later the legal considerations came in. I remember my maternal grandmother being outraged that couples could enter a domestic partnership. A church marriage was the only form of marriage in her mind and someone not willing to stand before God to get married should not have been allowed any of the legal benifits that came with it. I was still young, so I asked, “What legal benifits?” I was explained the tax breaks, adoption rights, end-of-life rights/treatment/next-of-kin, inheritance rights, etc.
The more I thought about it, the more I thought there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Was it different than previous notions? Yes. But, were they a family? Were they a household? Yes and yes. Were they committed? Yes. Then, what was the justification to deny legal benifits to couples that opted for a domestic partnership? I could find none.
So, you can say hetrosexuals shaped my concept of marriage/CU in general and gay marriage/CU in specific. Hetrosexuals showed me that the concept of “marriage” was maliable and changed with the times it was in. My studies on the history of marriage solidified that view. Some changes were good. Some changes were not. But, it changed just the same.
To be honest, I don’t know if the change we are discussing would be good or bad. I’m pretty sure some people did not think it was ok to let illegitimate children inherit from their parents. I’m certain some people were unsure if it was ok to let people from different races marry. I’m sure some people weren’t sure if it was ok to outlaw marital rape. Or divorce.
On a personal level, I want everyone to enter a marriage valuing what I value about marriage. But it does not have to be a legal requisite.
I will conclude the discussion with that, because we are getting to the point where we are both repeating ourselves. You will not sway my position and I will not sway yours, but it has been nice having a discussion with someone that uses something other than a holy book to defend their position.
Take care.
SSC are being kept from forming legal unions with their partners because they are SS.
Same-sex couples are being kept from marriage because marriage is between a husband and wife, and same-sex couples aren’t a man and a woman.
Same-sex couples don’t get the benefits of being married because they’re not married, just like opposite sex couples that aren’t married!
Men are being kept from women’s bathrooms, because they’re not women. The essence of a women’s bathroom is that it’s uniquely for women, and there are good reasons for that. Is discrimination based on gender wrong?
discrimination based on sexual orientation is [wrong].
Do you disagree with the Baptists’ resolution, that homosexuals lack the “distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections”?
“Sexual orientation” — formerly called, “sexual preference” — is a choice.
Homosexual special rights advocates sure do rely on a lot of carefully chosen words to redefine truth.
Who you have sex with is a choice.
Is it wrong to discriminate against African-Americans when casting actors to play Klansmen? Is it wrong to discriminate on the basis of national origin, when hiring waiters for a Mexican restaurant?
Marriage was dedicated commitment. Marriage was fidelity. Marriage was trust. Marriage was cooperation. Marriage was love. Marriage was devotion.
These are conveniently all things that can include same-sex couples, but one of the most essential aspects is that the couples be opposite sex. Eliminate that, and the polygamists will ask, “since government can redefine marriage, why only ‘couples’?”
Cooperation is cooperation. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
I never defined marriage by the gender of the participants
I grew up in a world in which everybody knew what marriage was, and nobody needed a definition.
You must have grown up very recently, since it wasn’t until about a decade ago that the idea that a man could marry a man was even considered. I grew up in a world in which nobody even considered that.
You don’t need to be a certain gender to be committed, to be faithful, to trust, to love or to cooperate.
You don’t need to be married either.
the tax breaks, adoption rights, end-of-life rights/treatment/next-of-kin, inheritance rights, etc.
All things that can and have been addressed in the law without redefining marriage, as the politicians did in my state. “Tax breaks”? Have you ever heard of the “marriage penalty”?
The more I thought about it, the more I thought there was absolutely nothing wrong with it.
After having read about several studies, and extensively about the Regnerus study, I feel more convinced than ever that my original impression was right. Homosexuals shouldn’t be adopting children.
Then, what was the justification to deny legal benifits to couples that opted for a domestic partnership?
What is the justification for giving the legal benefits of marriage to people that aren’t married? (Rich homosexuals contribute to political campaigns?)
Hetrosexuals showed me that the concept of “marriage” was maliable and changed with the times it was in.
But it isn’t. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. No homosexual relationships have ever been considered marriages.
Unfortunately for polygamists, we don’t consider the marital status qualification malleable either.
it has been nice having a discussion with someone that uses something other than a holy book to defend their position.
I was posting in the off-topic area of a soccer forum, and the subject came up — and all these people started posting things like “I’m an atheist, and I think marriage is between a man and a woman.” “I don’t believe in God, and I don’t agree with gay marriage.” Don’t assume that just because the religious are very against redefining marriage, that atheists and agnostics support it.
I think Catholicism beliefs about complementary bodies and the Natural Law have something to add to this discussion, though.
The main reason to oppose civil unions, in my opinion, doesn’t seem to make for the best argument. Two state supreme courts (California and Connecticut) have ruled that passing civil unions is evidence of bias and discrimination against homosexuals — the rationale for striking down marriage laws and imposing same-sex “marriage”.
I think it was the separate is not equal thing.
If recognizing civil unions in the law means redefining marriage, there’s no way civil unions should be written into the law.
By the way, since these courts have ruled that separate but equal is not equal, why do you advocate for civil unions?
Muslims Join Fight to Protect Marriage in Washington State
The Seattle Times:
With less than two weeks to go, organizers of the Referendum 74 campaign to roll back the state’s same-sex-marriage law say they have surpassed the minimum number of signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot — with thousands more rolling in each day.
Some of that support is coming in from an unexpected place: Muslims, who as a community have traditionally remained silent on the question of gay marriage.
In recent weeks, several area mosques have requested thousands of Ref. 74 petitions to circulate among their members, and through November, Muslims plan to campaign alongside religious conservatives seeking to overturn the law.
On Wednesday, Preserve Marriage Washington, which is seeking to repeal the gay-marriage law with backing from the National Organization for Marriage, was reporting 127,211 signatures — 6,634 names more than the minimum required to qualify for the ballot. Organizers need to get — and the Secretary of State encourages — at least 150,000 signatures to ensure a sufficient number of them are from qualified registered voters.
“The number is changing daily,” campaign manager Joseph Backholm said. “It’s now only a question of whether we’ll have time to count them all and stick the number on our website every day.”
“Muslims Join Fight to Protect Marriage in Washington State” I think it was yesterday that the attorney general Holder told the state of Fla that they could not remove the names of dead or people who could not prove they were eligible to vote. Since only the names of regristered voters can sign petitions as for Referendum 74, I would not be suprised to see a challenge to those signing the petitions. So I can see the reasoning behind “the Secretary of State encourages — at least 150,000 signatures to ensure a sufficient number of them are from qualified registered voters.”
“return to their home states, and force their states to recognize their “marriages” (presumably by suing).” It is already happening, but it is not being reported by major new outlets. the couple from Cal who moved to Maryland and sued, but with no law for it, the judge granted it. This is from a old news article: “N.Y. Judge Allows Gay Divorce. … of its kind, a New York judge will allow a lesbian couple who married in Canada to sue for divorce in NY”
I can see the reasoning behind “the Secretary of State encourages — at least 150,000 signatures to ensure a sufficient number of them are from qualified registered voters.”
Gay marriage will go to ballot with submission of [over] 225,000 signatures
Thanks for posting this, what a great testimony. I’ll be sharing with everyone I know
Hi Stacy,
I have a few questions for your concerning your stance on gay marriage. I hope it’s okay if I ask them here.
First of all, why are you against homosexuality? You do realize, don’t you, that homosexuality isn’t a choice and it can’t be changed, which means that being against homosexuality is like being against a person’s skin color or ethnicity, which are both also unchangeable and innate. I’m sure you think it’s hateful to be racist or xenophobic, so why do you think it’s somehow not hateful to be against homosexuality? (Oh, and I myself am bisexual, so I can tell you for a fact that I did not choose to be this way. Ask any other GLBT person and they’ll tell you the exact same thing.)
Also, just because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean that you should believe that it’s wrong, you know. After all, the Bible is just a book, which was written, edited, revised, and translated by fallible, error-prone human beings, which means that it’s got to have at least one error in it, and it does. Have you ever actually looked at the Bible with a critical eye, instead of just blindly believing that it’s free of any sort of errors? Critical thinking isn’t a bad thing, you know. It’s certainly a lot safer and smarter than blind belief is.
Heck, have you ever actually studied the history and context of all of the supposed “anti-gay” Bible verses? Heck, have you ever even read those verses in the original Greek and Aramaic (before they were translated a million times), and do you know what the words “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” mean? Or are you just blindly trusting what others (such as your Christian friends and your pastor/priest/whatever you call him) tell you about those verses, even though those people are capable of being wrong, which means you shouldn’t blindly trust anything they say? I mean, why believe that homosexuality is a sin at all if you haven’t even done any research on that topic?
Finally, do you think that homosexuals should have to live their entire lives either pretending to be straight (which would cause them undue amounts of psychological harm) or else forcing themselves to be celibate, as though homosexuality were something that they needed to punish themselves for (this would also cause them psychological harm)? If so, then tell me, how do you figure your mindset on this issue is loving towards homosexuals at all?
I eagerly await your response to these questions.
Thanks so much in advance,
Hannah
Hannah,
I certainly don’t mind if you comment and ask questions. This Roman Catholic Apostolate page will answer your questions. Please read it and refer to it specifically if you have further questions.
http://couragerc.net/FAQs.html
Scientifically, there is no evidence that there is any “gay gene” and scientists are not sure what causes the urge, it could be combination of things.
I will try to respond more later, or maybe someone else can. I’m out of time for today. Thanks again!
BORN OR BRED?
This quote I think is approperate for this discussion.
Evil thoughts and desires are not always sinful, for they may arise in the mind or in the sensitive appetite without any involvement of the will. They are sinful only if we consent to them and if our heart is affected by them and takes part in them. – Saint Baptist de La Salle (1651-1719)
Adam Eve Stevens, the article on Born or Bred was good, saved in as a favorite.
I’m glad Richard.
I’m also trying to post another link, but every time I try, it goes into a black hole.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/09/28/study-change-is-possible-for-homosexuals/
Oh, those black holes. I don’t know why, Adam. But THANK YOU for the information. It is very helpful and I appreciate you for sharing it.
“The main lobby group promoting gay marriage yesterday distanced itself from polyamorists demanding to be included in the proposed reforms, saying marriage involving more than two people would undermine a traditional institution.
“As reported yesterday by The Australian, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has come under attack from polyamorists, including some who are members of her party, for insisting that marriage should be between two people of any sex, but no more than two.”
…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/same-sex-marriage-campaigners-distance-themselves-from-polyamorists-demands/story-fn59niix-1226366157709
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined today to rehear arguments over California’s Proposition 8.
Here is what one of the dissenting judges wrote:
“Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.”
Gay marriage opponents turn in more than 241,000 signatures
by Jordan Schrader / The News Tribune on June 6, 2012
That’s activists’ count of the voters who signed their petitions seeking to overturn the law passed last winter by the Legislature.
Preserve Marriage Washington handed in the signatures this morning.
State elections officials still need to check the names, but with double the number of signatures they need to be valid to make the ballot, voters are almost certain to have the final say Nov. 6 on Referendum 74.
….
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/06/06/2131208/r-74s-232000-signatures-put-gay.html
… and the People have never voted to redefine marriage.
Washington gay marriage referendum qualifies for ballot
The UK Christian Institute:
“Dad” has been removed from a taxpayer-funded baby guide after a single complaint that same-sex couples were being excluded.
The Scottish NHS guide, called Ready Steady Baby, now features the word “partner” instead of “Dad”.
Critics said the health service should not be wasting money on such a change.
The pregnancy and parenthood guide, which is 220 pages long, has been given to parents for the last 14 years.
But following one complaint that the book was “not inclusive of people in same-sex relationships,” the NHS in Scotland replaced all references to “Dad”.
Norman Wells, Director of the Family Education Trust, said: “The NHS should not be squandering tax payers’ money to advance the cause of a minority interest group.”
He continued: “No matter how much effort is made to present positive images of families headed by same-sex couples, the fact remains it takes a man and a woman to create a child.”
High school paints over traditional family portion of student’s mural
Student artist is told that her original design may be “offensive or a religious symbol”
http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2012/apr/06/12/high-school-paints-over-portion-student-mural-ar-990592/
So Adam, what you and the new study show is that of the 3500 randomly selected persons between the ages of 18 and 39 (I think that is what the study said) 1750 were raised in the traditional mom and dad marriage from the age of inception to adulthood, and 1750 were raised by the same same sex couple (just like the married folks so assuming they stayed as a household the entire time) the study showed the ones raised by the gays did worse than the ones raised by the straights?
If that is not how the study was conducted then it would appear to be flawed from the beginning.
So Adam, what you and the new study show
Well I don’t know what “I” and the new study show.
Lois Collins at Deseret News reports on the new studies by Prof. Regnerus at Prof. Marks:
The oft-cited assertion that there are “no differences” in outcomes between children of same-sex parent households and those of intact biological families may not be accurate, according to a new study published today in the journal Social Science Research.
Adult children of parents who have been in same-sex relationships are different than children raised in intact biological families on a number of social, emotional and relationship measures, according to research from the University of Texas at Austin.
Among other things, they reported lower income levels, poorer mental and physical health and more troubled current romantic relationships. The study found 25 differences across 40 measures.
The research does not address why the differences exist. It doesn’t predict if changing attitudes that are more accepting of same-sex relationships will mean that children growing up today with same-sex parents will one day fare better in similar analysis. It doesn’t address stigma or whether the difference is not the sexual preference of the parents but rather how stable the home life was, lead investigator Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas Austin’s Population Research Center, told the Deseret News.
“Nor does the study tell us that same-sex parents are necessarily bad parents,” he said in a written statement. “Rather, family forms that are associated with instability or non-biological parents tend to pose risks for children as they age into adulthood.”
His study does challenge long-held assertions that there are no outcome differences between children raised in intact biological families and those with same-sex parents.
Adam, I read the study. I guess my question is how does it prove the point that gay marriage is bad?
Do Children with Gay Parents Do Just As Well? The New Social-Science Debate
That’s the title of National Organization for Marriage co-founder Maggie Gallagher’s post in National Review on this topic:
Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in his decision overturning Proposition 8 that social science had disproven the idea that children benefit from being raised by their mom and dad in a marriage. The American Psychological Association has issued a proclamation to that effect, allegedly based on a neutral study of scientific evidence.
Today in the Social Science Journal, as Charles C. W. Cooke reports over on the home page, two new studies were published that challenge these assumptions and launch us into a new phase of the scientific debate.
Professor Mark Regnerus, the author of the New Family Structures Survey project, has published a study that is not only the largest and most comprehensive, it is only the second study based on a probability sample. Scientifically this is huge.
… On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents. This should surprise no one. It doesn’t mean that gay parents are bad parents. Plenty of kids raised outside of intact married families do fine. Nonetheless, this new research tends to affirm that the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad.
Major family scholars such as Paul Amato, while cautioning that this should not be conclusive for policy questions such as same-sex marriage, affirm that this is an excellent study, indeed probably the best study we have to date on gay parenting.
alanl64 wrote, “I guess my question is how does it prove the point that gay marriage is bad?”
Supreme Court Take Notice: Two Sociologists Shift the Ground of the Marriage Debate
by Matthew J. Franck and Matthew J. Franck
June 15, 2012
Judges and justices who reasoned in favor of same-sex marriage based on social scientists’ “no differences” thesis must now contend with better research: Heterosexual married couples offer the best family structure for children, according to a new, rigorously researched sociological study.
A notable feature of the legal debate over same-sex marriage in the United States in recent years has been the employment of social science research on the family as evidence. In courts of law across the country, advocates of same-sex marriage have advanced the “no differences” thesis—the view that having gay or lesbian parents makes “no difference” in the development of children into well-adjusted adults. For this proposition they have repeatedly relied on the claims of academic sociologists, psychologists, and other researchers. But as Ana Samuel explains in her recent Public Discourse essay, the findings of the New Family Structures Study led by Professor Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas (partly supported by a grant from the Witherspoon Institute, and published by Regnerus in the latest issue of Social Science Research), using data that for the first time meet the highest standards for research in social science, make it impossible to continue making such claims with any real credibility.
How much does this new study matter for the legal debate over same-sex marriage? A very great deal. Same-sex marriage advocates have argued in state and federal courts that traditional marriage laws have no “rational basis,” or that they fail some other more stringent form of “scrutiny” under constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process and the equal protection of the laws. Defenders of marriage have responded that one prominent basis for the conjugal definition of marriage is that the optimal form of family for raising children is the stable union of a married man and woman bringing up their own biological children. The ties of nature, the presence of both parents in the home, the modeling of manhood and womanhood for the next generation—in addition to a host of material benefits produced by stable relationships of this type—have been presented by defenders of marriage as among the reasons for preserving the status quo in law. With decades’ worth of research supporting the “two-parent family ideal” (a phrase used by sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur) as generally better for children than being raised in families experiencing divorce, or headed by merely cohabiting couples, or by single mothers, or in other variations of broken-and-mended families, the argument would seem to have a lot going for it.
Yet a significant number of social scientists have come forward—in the public press, in legislative hearings, and in courts of law—to suggest the unlikely conclusion that the one form of family that equals or approaches the “two-parent family ideal” of a married man and woman is the family headed by a same-sex couple. The American Psychological Association, in an official publication in 2005 intended to influence the legal debate, claimed that “the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s pyschosocial growth.” But as Professor Loren Marks of Louisiana State University points out in his own separate contribution in the latest issue of Social Science Research, the studies on which these claims have been based are all seriously flawed. Marks demonstrates that they have defects respecting “sample size, sampling strategy, statistical power, and effect sizes”—and in general that they lack methodological rigor.
For years, however, courts of law in significant same-sex marriage cases have been bombarded with the alleged findings of social science that the “no differences” claim is sound. Some of the courts in the early cases (in Massachusetts and Connecticut, for instance) were circumspect, not relying heavily on the “no differences” claim, or skirting the issue by claiming that it is somehow “irrational” for legislatures to permit gays and lesbians to adopt children but not to enter into same-sex marriages. But repetition of the “no differences” claim eventually paid off. In the 2009 decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, Justice Mark Cady accepted the proposition that “sexual orientation and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples, and same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-sex couples.” Citing multiple “leading organizations” in the study of child welfare, Justice Cady took the “no differences” claim as established by science. While he accepted that those who believe “dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children” are “thoughtful and sincere,” he declared that this view was “largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”
Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. district court in San Francisco, in his 2010 decision overturning California’s Proposition 8, was the most enthusiastic promoter of the “no differences” claim, returning to this point repeatedly in his opinion. Relying heavily on testimony by psychologist Michael Lamb, Judge Walker announced as a “finding of fact” that “children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
Thanks to Loren Marks, we know that there is indeed “serious debate” among scholars about the quality of the research purporting to establish the “no differences” claim. And thanks most importantly to Mark Regnerus, we have the first large, national, probability-sample-based study examining whether this claim withstands close scrutiny with methodological rigor. It does not.
Regnerus’s ground-breaking peer-reviewed article, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” compares eight different kinds of family structure, including those in which a child was raised by a parent who had had a same-sex romantic relationship. Regnerus finds that the “intact biological family,” headed by a man and woman married to each other throughout the raising of their own children, is indeed the “most secure environment for child development.” Children raised by a parent who had been involved with someone of the same sex are, to a significant degree, more likely to record, in their own estimation in interviews, a variety of negative outcomes related to their upbringing. Regnerus is careful to make no claims of causality, but the controls in the study are careful ones and the correlations remain strong. What Iowa’s Justice Cady said in 2009 was lacking from the case for “dual-gender parenting”—namely “reliable scientific studies” supporting that case—is lacking no longer….
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5634?utm_source=RTA+Franck+NFSS&utm_campaign=email&utm_medium=email
Thank you for that, Adam.
My pleasure Stacy.
“On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents.”
was that same sex romantic partnership a marriage? Did it last from when the child was born until the study was done? If not you are at best comparing it to children from broken homes or raised partially by step parents.
If the study is to truly be conclusive then the comparison must be married straight folks raising kids and never separating against married gay folks who have never separated.
And quoting Maggie Gallagher? Really?
And really not finding anything where Paul Amato wrote that, well at least not in the New York Times or Huffington Post. But even if he did, it appears that no one thinks it is a conclusive study about children raised in gay stable homes having disadvantages.
So still not an argument against gay marriage.
And really not finding anything where Paul Amato wrote that, well at least not in the New York Times or Huffington Post.
Interesting. With the exception of homosexual publications, the New York Times and the Huffington Post are the two publications that are the most heavily biased in favor of redefining marriage that I know of.
and yet his study flawed.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/don_t_let_criticism_of_the_new_gay_parents_study_become_a_war_on_science.html
Read it and realize that it is entirely possible that stability that is greater than gender in parents. Now that would be the study to see done before deciding, don’t you think?
alanl64 wrote, “and yet his study flawed.”
June 14, 2012
The Regnerus Debate
By Douglas W. Allen
[...]
The study published by Professor Mark Regnerus this week certainly has some flaws, and many of the comments made about it have some merit. However, as a matter of intellectual honesty, it needs to be recognized that virtually all the studies of same-sex parenting that have been conducted thus far fall far short of any standard of scientific testing.
Of the 50-plus such studies done in the past 15 years, the vast majority come to the same conclusion: Children of gay parents perform at least as well as children from heterosexual families; there is no difference in child outcomes based on family structure.
For several reasons, this literature is unlike anything else within social science. First, it partly arose from, and was strongly influenced by, legal cases in which lesbian mothers were denied custody of their children on the basis of their sexual orientation. Second, for the most part it has been written by individuals with strong personal worldviews who sympathize with those studied. Third, the focus of the literature is often on “soft” measures of child and family performance that are not easily verifiable by third-party replication, and that differ substantially from measures used in other family studies. One of the odd characteristics of this literature is the lack of consistency of measures across time. Subsequent studies seldom test for measures that were used in previous studies. Fourth, the data and procedures used in the studies are never made available online in order for other scholars to replicate findings. And finally, almost all the literature on gay parenting is based on weak designs, biased samples, and low-powered tests.
The result is a nascent literature that falls far short of standard social-science research. At its best, the literature contains interesting exploratory studies that raise provocative questions and make interesting observations. At its worst, it is advocacy aimed at legislators and judges — which may explain why, despite its weak scientific nature, the literature is characterized by strong recommendations for policy and legal changes to family regulations.
The bias of the same-sex-parenting literature has been recognized by individuals within and outside this literature (indeed, in the same issue of Social Science Research as the Regnerus study, Loren Marks has provided another critique of this literature). Ironically, the common complaint about Regnerus — that he compares apples to oranges — is valid about practically every study that finds no difference between homosexual and heterosexual families. In the latter, biased samples of high-income, highly educated, self-selected lesbian parents are compared to random samples of opposite-sexed parents.
If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out, then practically everything else in the field has to go with it.
I think Regnerus needs to be applauded for what he did and didn’t do. He tried to use a random sample; he developed many hard measures of outcomes; and he is making all the data and procedures available for others to sift through. Inadvertently, he is going to draw attention to the failures of other studies in terms of their design and methodology, and he has demonstrated how difficult it is to find a large sample of this elusive population. He also didn’t make a lot of unjustified claims in his study. He was careful to note that he made no case for causality, and that his findings may or may not be related to the same-sex aspect of the adult relationship. He didn’t take his results and announce a series of policy recommendations. He has simply called into question the claim that there is no difference.
….
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302749/regnerus-debate-douglas-w-allen
Alan, I have read almost everything you have written on this blog in several threads, I have not seen you give much of an argument to the question, why homosexual marriage is good. I have read lots of sentences from you questioning why a person thinks it is bad; sniping is easy. How about giving everyone your reasons why people should accept homosexual marriage, why is it good for society, why you want this instead of an unmarried relationship, why you want to change the traditional meaning of marriage.
Howard, yes sniping is easy.
But you want reasons why homosexual marriage is good?
Stability.
Especially in raising children, but in relationships without children as well. My opinion is that if people are willing to commite LEGALLY to each other this is a good thing. The legal aspect makes it harder (or should but heck you heterosexuals have made divorce far to common) to end, thusly it should be given more thought before entering into. But even with divorce being so prevalent I think that the legal aspect adds stability in relationships. It shows a greater form of commitment.
If young gays realize that marriage is a possibility for them (and yes the sense of acceptance that comes with it) then perhaps they will wait longer for sex, or have fewer partners (thus cutting down on diseases). Although this is my wish because we all know it doesn’t happen that way with most heterosexuals. But mostly perhaps if young gays see society treated gays with respect they will not kill themselves. Sad aspect but true.
Plus there is the economic issues involved. Hey gays throw wonderful weddings. It is a boon to the economy where they are allowed.
I also prefer to view it as expanding the definition (I think meaning is the wrong use of word here) of marriage. Of course if you look up the word marriage you will often find the joining of two.
Would you agree with me that traditional marriage has changed over the years?
And please Howard, as much as you might disagree, understand I don’t want this, I have this. Six years next month to a wonderful man. Stacy tells me I don’t understand love, but see I think you all are missing the point. I maybe understand love better than you. Radical thinking I know, but think it through, you might see it.
I do hope this has answered your question though.
by the way Howard, did you or Adam read the link I attached?
I read it.
alanl64 wrote, “I also prefer to view it as expanding the definition (I think meaning is the wrong use of word here) of marriage.”
Here is another perspective:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2116123/Gay-marriage-row-The-real-bigots-liberals.html
Alan, Yes I did read it. We can easily get lost in the world of competing studies.
As you know I am only able to consider one idea at a time, age I guess. I am interested in your views. How many times have you heard that?
Stability itself sounds like a good thing in many ways. A stable ladder, so you can climb, a stable job, so you can earn. Stability is not a REASON why homosexual relationships or marriage is a good thing, it is only a hope for those relationships. What is the actual reason?
Howard, I guess you didn’t really read it, it wasn’t about competeting studies, but more so where Mark’s study failed. The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof.
Why is stability not a reason? Is it more of a hope for homosexuals than heterosexuals?
Stable relationships lead to a stable society, or at least one would hope.
So in my opinion, stability is a great reason for gay marriage.
How many times here have I read that marriage is what binds people to each other and their children? That that stability is what makes marriage special? That stability is what our society really needs?
So why doesn’t stability work as a reason for gay marriage?
Or are you in fact trying to get me to see that there is no reason for homosexual relationships at all?
Alan, as you know I don’t agree with you. No tricks, just to explore your reasoning.
As I tried to say, stability is a good thing in man/woman relationships, family, friendships; not better than something else. That should be settled.
I have never had a person tell me, “I got married because I wanted to stabilize society”.
alanl64 wrote, “The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof.”
I never said that. Since you have said that I did, perhaps you will quote me.
alanl64wrote, “Mark’s study failed.”
You keep declaring that the study was “flawed”.
“But outside experts, by and large, said the research was rigorous, providing some of the best data yet comparing outcomes for adult children with a gay parent with those with heterosexual parents.” — Benedict Carey, Debate on a Study Examining Gay Parents, The New York Times, June 11, 2012.
Even the link to the op ed you provided was entitled, “A Liberal War on Science: Don’t bury Mark Regnerus’ study of gay parents. Learn what it can teach the left and right.”
alanl64: you just wrote: “So in my opinion, stability is a great reason for gay marriage. How many times here have I read that marriage is what binds people to each other and their children?” Many times in this discussion the aspect of children has been mentioned. My question is ‘when two men are on the wedding bed, how can they procreate and bring forth new life?’ when two women are on their marriage bed how can they procreate and bring forth new life?’
The bringing forth new life is what marriage is about, though we do know that many will forgo the marriage and have children out of wedlock. We are reminded what God handed down, ‘be fertil and multiply, fill the earth..” There is no biological way that the union of two men or two women can bring forth new life.
Yes, I agree that stability in any relationship, even that among friends of the same or opposite sex is needed, that that is no reason to change what the insight of marriage is from Genesis to today. If two men or two women want to share the same bed who am I to judge them even if I find their union morally wrong, that would not keep me from acknowledging them as a friend. But to classify this union of two men or two women as the same of that of a man and a women I cannot justify. Society in a whole has taken the concept of what so many consider sinful and telling us it is not a sin, we should throw out our comcepts of morality and go with the flow.
I did use the term ‘marriage bed’ above in very loose terms as not sure how to discribe it in a nice way.
I just read this article and it goes with this discussion. I‘m just giving two quotes from the article than the link:
An open letter to homosexuals:
I write this to my fellow travelers in life – average, ordinary people, male and female, young and old – who happen to call themselves “gay.” I write this out of obedience to God.
The truth is that you have immeasurable value. You are a beautiful, unique, priceless human being. The very Creator of the universe, in the person of Jesus Christ, took such an interest in you that He meticulously wove you together in your mother’s womb. He loves you with a love that no human can fully grasp. Still, this is true not because of your so-called “sexual orientation,” but, rather, in spite of it.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/an-open-letter-to-homosexuals/
Howard, not wasting my time on this. You don’t want what I think, you only want to tell me why I am wrong.
Adam, sorry but sometimes words don’t need to be written in order for the intent to be understood. You can pretend your intent was something other, but that would be a lie.
Richard, grow up. Putting “” around words was childish when Stacy did it, and remains to be so when you do it.
I realize why I left here and wish I learned my lesson, but nope, I sure didn’t.
Sorry if you see this as sniping Howard, but you just continue to prove that you, as well as the others here don’t want the opinion of others. So enjoy your little catholic world here.
Alan I commend you on your patience in trying to enlighten people with religiously enforced bigotry. You have done it with patience, understanding and maturity. Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears, but was the one thing that kept me reading to the end of this. Thank you, your words were very encouraging. I wish you continued joy in your marriage.
alanl64 wrote, “You can pretend your intent was something other, but that would be a lie.”
The lie was when you wrote, “The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof.”
I never said that, regardless of what you think my “intent” may have been.
chris accused posters of “religiously enforced bigotry.”
chris, the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, and should stay that way, is not bigotry.
The Ninth Circuit’s dissenting opinion described the over 7 million Californians that voted for Proposition 8, as being “committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia.”
chris, you can throw out sound bites like, “religiously enforced bigotry” — and there are places where this specious dogma may fly under the radar — but not here.
As an agnostic, I can state unequivocally that my beliefs on the subject are not “religiously enforced.”
Do you really believe people like me, who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids, are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.
The real bigots in the gay marriage row are the liberals
By Simon Heffer
17 March 2012
[snip]
Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP who is Equalities Minister [...] said the opposition expressed by prominent Christians to same-sex marriage was ‘homophobic’ and belonged in ‘the Dark Ages’. She singled out as ‘medieval’ the use of the term ‘heretic’ by a cleric to describe those advocating a change in the law.
Miss Featherstone said her own views were, by contrast, ‘progressive’ and the Government’s policy was ‘loving’.
Such blinkered intransigence — indeed, I would go so far as to call it bigotry — does not bode well for the free, pluralistic society that liberals claim to believe in. And it makes a mockery of their much-vaunted virtue of ‘tolerance’.
. . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2116123/Gay-marriage-row-The-real-bigots-liberals.html
Stop vilifying those who oppose redefining marriage
Activists seeking to rewrite the definition of marriage must stop trying to vilify those who oppose them, a gay writer has warned.
“If they don’t snap out of it they’ll even lose the support of gay people like me,” said Max Wind-Cowie.
He is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos and he accused the “gay-rights brigade” of allowing their quest to redefine marriage to turn “into active heterophobia”.
And he branded the vilification of those who oppose the redefinition of marriage as “intolerant” and “ugly”.
He also criticised the advertising standards watchdog’s investigation of a Christian blogger who displayed a pro-marriage advert on his website.
Mr Wind-Cowie, who was writing in the Huffington Post, also warned that far from allowing a plurality of views ‘diversity’ has now come to represent “homogeneity” and “repression.”
Mr Wind-Cowie, who himself supports gay marriage, continued: “Hiding behind it, secularists and the ayatollahs of social liberalism are able to strip public discourse of the bits they don’t like – faith, orthodoxy, skepticism about change.
. . . .
Opposing gay marriage not homophobic, says advertising watchdog
Chris thank you for your kind words.
Adam,
I think you might have mentioned the California vote twice here, once I know you quoted over 8 million voted against it, in the other I think you quoted 7 million. I guess in a state of about 37 million 1 million is not much of a difference, but still the vote does not show an overwhelming majority, as it appears most skipped voting on it at all.
I am intrigued by your name. It seems really religious but you claim not to be. Am I reading too much into this?
And no you don’t say it is a difintive study, doesn’t mean I don’t see your implication that it is. What we all write here is opinion. I don’t know you, you don’t know me. Sorry but what y’all say isn’t necessarily Truth, as the only way we will ever really know is when we die.
But I do agree that some in the gay rights movement are bigots and go to far. I think we are all bigoted in certain ways. It just differs for each of us.
I realize that getting anyone here to see any point I make as valid is pointless. Don’t know why I try. Perhaps it is my cheery optimism that at one point someone will actualy see that I have a valid point.
And yes the study is flawed. As are most studies.
I merely made a mistake when I wrote “eight million.” I was probably thinking Proposition “8″. It was 7.
I am intrigued by your name. It seems really religious but you claim not to be. Am I reading too much into this?
Yes. It was taken from a religious expression. It’s still just a pen name.
And no you don’t say it is a difintive study, doesn’t mean I don’t see your implication that it is.
That’s just an opinion. Here are facts:
You wrote, “The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof.”
I never did.
I never said the study was anything. I just posted the op eds without commenting.
I’m still digesting all that I’ve read and am still reading about it.
It looks like the “no differences” thesis is mortally wounded — and that the studies that supposedly established it, were junk. (Marks)
Parts of certain court rulings are now trashed — including Walker’s “finding of fact” that “children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
Homosexuals are 10% of the population: BS.
Gay gene: Discredited.
“No difference”: Not supported by science. (Marks)
Intact biological family: Gold standard.
American Psychological Association (“the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s pyschosocial growth.”): Full of it.
what y’all say isn’t necessarily Truth
I never said it was.
I realize that getting anyone here to see any point I make as valid is pointless. Don’t know why I try. Perhaps it is my cheery optimism that at one point someone will actualy see that I have a valid point.
I think I’m more open to suggestion than you may realize, but I thought we were debating. If you want to know if somebody sees that you have a valid point, you may have to ask. I think you’re a better debater and less prone to incivility than most of the people I’ve debated.
You knew about the critique of the study’s limitations and ultimately expressed it, and even spun it your own way, while I was just acquainting myself with the study.
I have to say, I’ve never seen it argued that we should redefine marriage to increase homosexual family stability.
The disappointing thing is that you seem to just want to repeat that the “failed” study was “flawed”. Is that for political reasons? I just want to understand it better, and come to a conclusion of what its value is.
And yes the study is flawed. As are most studies.
R’s study seems to be the best study to date. It has value. Simply repeating over and over again that this “failed” study is “flawed” discounts its contribution.
I guess my question is how does it prove the point that gay marriage is bad?
Can we agree that marriage is associated with family creation?
Here’s another American Psychological Association statement that has been trashed:
“Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”
“I merely made a mistake when I wrote “eight million.” I was probably thinking Proposition “8″. It was 7.”
Would you care to address what a small percentage of the total residents of California this number actually is?
“I am intrigued by your name. It seems really religious but you claim not to be. Am I reading too much into this?
Yes. It was taken from a religious expression. It’s still just a pen name.”
Just, but a pen name that leads one to think you are actually religious.
“And no you don’t say it is a difintive study, doesn’t mean I don’t see your implication that it is.
That’s just an opinion. Here are facts:
You wrote, “The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof.”
I never did.
I never said the study was anything. I just posted the op eds without commenting.”
And if you truly want to debate this point I never actually said you said it was definitive, but rather alluded to the fact that you alluded to the fact that the study was definitive.
“It looks like the “no differences” thesis is mortally wounded — and that the studies that supposedly established it, were junk. (Marks)
Parts of certain court rulings are now trashed — including Walker’s “finding of fact” that “children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
And no this study does not trash anything. As stated before, there has been no direct comparison of children raised in similiar households (both parents whether they be same or opposite sex partnerships raising the child while remaining with each other), so the study is showing that children raised in broken homes suffer. I don’t think we are debating that.
“Homosexuals are 10% of the population: BS. Perhaps. But does this have any relevance to anything?
Gay gene: Discredited. Not that I am aware of.
“No difference”: Not supported by science. (Marks)
Intact biological family: Gold standard.
American Psychological Association (“the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s pyschosocial growth.”): Full of it. Not so much
I am sorry is this you saying all of this or quoting it? Because you keep saying you didn’t say it was a difinitive study, but you seem to keep trying to show that it has beaten all others. Sorry I am just a little confused.
“I realize that getting anyone here to see any point I make as valid is pointless. Don’t know why I try. Perhaps it is my cheery optimism that at one point someone will actualy see that I have a valid point.
“I have to say, I’ve never seen it argued that we should redefine marriage to increase homosexual family stability.”
I don’t think it is a redefinition of marriage.
“The disappointing thing is that you seem to just want to repeat that the “failed” study was “flawed”. Is that for political reasons? I just want to understand it better, and come to a conclusion of what its value is.
And yes the study is flawed. As are most studies.
R’s study seems to be the best study to date. It has value. Simply repeating over and over again that this “failed” study is “flawed” discounts its contribution.”
I say it is flawed so that it will not be seen as gospel. It’s that simple. As I think I have stated the only truly definitive study will be children of married opposite sex couple compared to children of married same sex couples. Until that study is done there really can be no real deciding.
“Can we agree that marriage is associated with family creation?”
Absolutely. Sadly now I think we will need to agree to what makes a family. How is a family created.
alanl wrote, “Because you keep saying you didn’t say it was a difinitive study, but you seem to keep trying to show that it has beaten all others. Sorry I am just a little confused.”
As you know, this was the first post in which I wrote anything about what I’d gotten out of all the op eds I’d read about the study.
Previously, all I had done was post op eds without comment. Then you wrote, “The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof.”
I had never said that.
Your claim wasn’t about my “intent”, or a claim I “alluded” to anything, so quit trying to weasel out of it.
alanl wrote, “I never actually said you said it was definitive, but rather alluded to the fact that you alluded to the fact that the study was definitive.”
You mean, when you wrote, “The study that Adam was saying was definitive proof” — you “never actually said [I] said it was definitive”?
Oh brother!
Alan, sorry you can’t see the point of talking with other people. You immersed yourself into this world of as Val says “thousands” by choice and I think curiosity. You are outnumbered by those who are willing to write something and who disagree with you. This can be a hard position to take on.
Believe me when I say I am really interested in what is behind the mere proclamations of your life view. To want an opinion does not carry with it the obligation to accept that opinion. That is not to say that I am sympathetic or even comfortable with what you have to say. One thing that attracted me to this “little Catholic world” here and the MUCH LARGER Catholic world of our doomed globe, is the love of Truth. We are not afraid to “let it all hang out” as we used to say ages ago. Truth is not declared, it is not voted, it is not enforced – it can only be recognized. For a Catholic that leads to faith.
You have left here before and returned. What are you after?
Howard
it’s interesting to me what you say, but again at the end of the day I think you still want my opinion to just turn around and discount it. I understand that you don’t agree with me, that is a given. But it would not matter what I say, you will discount it.
Why do I keep coming back, well really I don’t know. I saw Adam post that study, which I knew would get here and would be viewed as gospel. It isn’t and that has been shown.
Funny thing about Truth though. It isn’t necessarily truth. At the end of the day it is still just belief.
Alan, I could not very well discount your explanation to me of why you think a homosexual relationship or marriage is good because you are speaking from position that I would expect is knowledgeable. If you expect me to accept your judgment that this is a good thing then you would be expecting something which you don’t grant me either. Not quite fair.
“Funny thing about Truth though. It isn’t necessarily truth. At the end of the day it is still just belief.”
Then Alan I guess we are must all be resigned to accept a world that only respects personal belief. We must then hope that power and control isn’t the belief of our leaders. The only answer then is to hope that we are among the powerful.
“Alan, I could not very well discount your explanation to me of why you think a homosexual relationship or marriage is good because you are speaking from position that I would expect is knowledgeable. If you expect me to accept your judgment that this is a good thing then you would be expecting something which you don’t grant me either. Not quite fair.”
Howard at the end of the day I don’t expect you to accept my judgement. What I expect is that if you ask me what I think you don’t go and trash it. I know you don’t agree, that is a given.
I have never said you should not be allowed to have and practice your beliefs. What I have said from day one is that you cannot expect me to live my life by your beliefs.
“Funny thing about Truth though. It isn’t necessarily truth. At the end of the day it is still just belief.”
Then Alan I guess we are must all be resigned to accept a world that only respects personal belief. We must then hope that power and control isn’t the belief of our leaders. The only answer then is to hope that we are among the powerful.”
But see you do belive that the world only respects personal beliefs. Your belief in your god is a personal belief. Can’t you see that?
“What I expect is that if you ask me what I think you don’t go and trash it.”
—Alan, what in the world does this mean? You are expressing your thoughts to a potential public of millions if not billions of people in a debate about a fundamental change in human life that is attempting to be codified into law and spread. What you think is not sacred it is merely thought. Why your thoughts should be off limits and those of your opposition should not is a whiny argument and arrogant at the same time.
“I have never said you should not be allowed to have and practice your beliefs. What I have said from day one is that you cannot expect me to live my life by your beliefs.”
—-I believe that you should not steal, I believe that you should not punch people in the face, I believe that you should not get drunk and crash your car into someone, I believe ………….
Why should you not live your life by those beliefs?
“But see you do believe that the world only respects personal beliefs. Your belief in your god is a personal belief. Can’t you see that?”
—-I should have put “factious remark coming” in front of it.
Howard,
Do you really think same sex marriage is a “fundamental change in human life”?
“Why your thoughts should be off limits and those of your opposition should not is a whiny argument and arrogant at the same time.”
Whiny and arrogant? Think that might be a comment to be turned inward by some here?
“I have never said you should not be allowed to have and practice your beliefs. What I have said from day one is that you cannot expect me to live my life by your beliefs.”
—-I believe that you should not steal, I believe that you should not punch people in the face, I believe that you should not get drunk and crash your car into someone, I believe ………….
Why should you not live your life by those beliefs?”
Wow, childish. I think you really knew what I meant by beliefs. Your religious beliefs. You think gay is wrong because god says so. I say it isn’t. You claim to live your life by gods words. Great for you, I applaud you for that, even knowing you have only been doing so for the last few years.
alanl wrote, “I saw Adam post that study, which I knew would get here.”
Why did you know it would get here, because you knew it was an important development?
14-Year-Old Girl Receives Death Threats for Defending Marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflEdUoYOIM
Adam
is this where we put the news storys about a gay man or woman being beaten for just being gay?
Guess what, most of us think it is horrible to threaten others lives.
Shall we talk about the ministers who want to build a wall around gays so they can die out? The one that thinks it should be ok to kill gays?
I don’t see you posting those links for discussion or outrage.
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/girl-gets-death-threat-for-defending-god-ordained-marriage.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LX-3hjILRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsNi3XcT9k
Alan, are you trashing my thoughts here? I am afraid that all you have in defense of any position is, “this is what I want to do so accept it”. You have nothing to say that doesn’t sound like a tantrum. Maybe it is time for you to go.
Howard being dismissive. What a surprise.
Clearly we don’t like the mirror being held to our face.
Maybe I will leave, maybe I wont. That basically is up to me (and Stacy if she chooses to block me)
“Maybe I will leave, maybe I wont. That basically is up to me (and Stacy if she chooses to block me)”
Alan, I agree with you for once and you reject it. I have a vision of you with your hands on your hips and your chin raised defiantly. In this vision you are about 3 feet tall. Stacy has dealt with you longer than I have. I guess I have finally tired of your nonsense.
On your way out if you so choose of course, think about the Ten Commandments and the beliefs I listed in my comment.
Howard,
Please review your sniping comment of earlier.
And again, realize the ten commandments are your beliefs, they are given to you by another, but still yours.
But apparently unless the pope tells you that you will never see it.
This afternoon I was reading another article, would have to back and find title of it, but in the discussion one person wrote this which fits right in with this on going discussion: “no such thing as ‘gay rights.’ There are gay demands.”
It seems most of the discussion lies in the area of ‘it is my way or the highway.’ No matter how any study comes out, even if done just on children raised with same sex partners someone will not be satisfied unless the study supports everthing one is trying to prove. But we know that would be flawed as it has no control group.
Alan64, you told Howard “we don’t like the mirror being held to our face.” Unfortuninately you don’t either.
You would probably be suprised how many people out there do not dispise what your sexual nature is, it only becomes a issue when it is being forced on those who find it offensive.
Richard, hold the mirror to my face, I can take it. I know who I am. I know I have my prejudices. It just seems that a few people when things have been pointed out to them all of a sudden call me a child having a tantrum. I really think they need to look at what they have written and see the tantrum in that. But if you would like to give an example of where my tantrums are, I will be more than happy to see them.
Keep in mind that very few rights have been given without being demanded. Including the right to freely practice your religion. Or the right to not practice.
You also write “It seems most of the discussion lies in the area of ‘it is my way or the highway.’”. I ask are you including both sides of the debate in this?
And I know many people who no issues with me being gay, open and proud. But I know how you feel about not wanting an issue forced on me.
Alan, decided to stay.
Your tactic, even if you don’t realize it, is to keep all argument on a generalized level avoiding anything that would get closer to the heart of an issue. Redirecting all comment towards the proposition that you believe that people object to you, Alan, being a homosexual.
This could be a subject discussed in public more easily if it wasn’t in the first person. Unfortunately it has come to public discussion by attacks on married life and public decency by your rather aggressive community of practitioners.
Howard
I am not sure what your point is. Please tell me how we can get closer to the heart of the issue.
I understand that catholics view homosexuality as a sin, and that the act are immoral and sinful, not the person. I don’t take it personally that you disagree with me.
I do take it personally (although it doesn’t bother me in the least) when you call me a child and tell me I am full of nonsense. It is counter productive to any debate. I merely ask you to look at your own words with an open eye.
And sorry, but gays wanting marriage is not an attack on ” married life and public decency”. That is an opinion you happen to have.
And sorry, aggressive behavior is on both sides of the argument.
Finally a question Howard. Do homosexual unions deserve any kind of legal recognition?
Two slams. I would have been glad to supply clarification if you needed it.
My point was this. You do not reject Christian beliefs when they don’t conflict with your desires, the beliefs that our country was founded upon. If I must guess at your views instead of having to read your mind, I would say you only object to the parts of God’s word that tell you not to commit sodomy and marriage does not include you and a man. In prior conversations you have decided not to pursue this line of reasoning about your country’s founding principals regarding marriage, saying you don’t believe in God or some such, and that is supposed to be an argument that the founding fathers didn’t actually rely on anything real. It doesn’t matter what you believe. As stated, “….Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…..” as revealed to us by Christian teaching was the basis of our desire to form a country and is a fact in history.
This argument about “God says so” doesn’t work with Adam does it? So how do you account for the fact that we both agree, accident?. Who tells you that gay is right? This takes us to the greater question. If your vision of the world is going to dominate, a world where right and wrong is determined by individual preference, then God help us all. We have seen in the 20th century these kinds of horror societies created based on this premise. Your problems are just a blip in history. What is coming after? Your desire to redefine marriage will not be the end. What about me will be heard by groups large enough to have a voice or when the limonene liberals get tired of you and take on another cause. I am thinking of Kathy Griffin’s remarks about “my gays”, as if they were house pets
(this comes before the last, the edit didn’t work)
Alan, here is where we broke off.
“Wow, childish. I think you really knew what I meant by beliefs. Your religious beliefs. You think gay is wrong because god says so. I say it isn’t. You claim to live your life by gods words.”
Howard,
I am not sure I follow a lot of what you have written. Some of it doesn’t seem to make any coherent sense, but I shall try. I apologize if that sounds rude, it is not meant to be, but I really am not sure what you are getting at with some of it.
Wasn’t the US founded in part to escape the religious persecution of the church of England? Do I remember that incorrectly from my history lessons? I wont argue about christian basis in founding of our country. However that basis was not catholicism. And they followed the bible, not the catholic doctrine. And if my teachings were correct it was left that people would have the freedom to not follow religion if they so chose. No one would be bound in this country by the religion of another.
Does the constitution mention god? I think it also mentions our freedom from religion. But this does not serve your purpose, so it is ignored.
You say you and Adam agree and this is true. I can’t explain why. He claims his reasoning is not religious so I have to take him at his word.
Can you speak to the many christians and jews (probably muslims and some of all religions) who have no issue with gays marrying? Heck I met a catholic priest the other day who didn’t have an issue with gay marriage.
But can you answer the question I asked you directly? Do you think that homosexual relationships deserve any legal recognition? I will go further. Do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to have relationships with each other?
Maybe you can answer my questions.
Alan, a thing throughout history that Europeans were united about was the value of family and marriage. This was carried into the U.S. through our founding also when we acknowledged natures God – a Christian God that defined and revealed marriage in scripture. The heart of our success as a capitalistic world power is Christianity through the furtherance of it’s teachings in new America. The individualism you express today did not exist in the old country. Along with all of that comes moderation and acknowledgement of beneficial behavior, both taught by the Church. The studies Adam mentions show the dangers of adopting behavior contrary to those teachings and gives a warning to a deteriorating society. To deny God as we have known Him is to sink into disarray and turn over this incredible ability to progress to Asia and Africa whose people are now seeing the value in Christianity. You have the freedom to embrace things harmful to you because of our unique founding. Christianity tells you that is your choice, I just don’t want you to bring me down with yourself by codifying the destruction of our society.
Now as before I have not heard anything from you to justify any change in what marriage is except a weak plea for stability. A stability that has deteriorated since easy divorce was instituted. If a license from the state controls what marriage is and how you view it, then you have relinquished your freedom and have returned it to the slave master or your serf lord or your king. This is a slow death of a people just as freedom has been very slow in coming to us.
That’s the best I can tell you.
Howard
The point you are missing is that the homosexuals who are fighting for marriage rights value marriage and family. All you see is “we want what we want” but you have missed so much by that narrow view point.
“Now as before I have not heard anything from you to justify any change in what marriage is except a weak plea for stability.”
As stated many times before I don’t see it as a change in marriage. Marriage is the joining of two to form a family. Homosexuals marrying does not change that at all.
“A stability that has deteriorated since easy divorce was instituted.”
So where is the fight against divorce? We agree though, easy divorce has destabilized marriage.
“If a license from the state controls what marriage is and how you view it, then you have relinquished your freedom and have returned it to the slave master or your serf lord or your king. This is a slow death of a people just as freedom has been very slow in coming to us.”
The license from the state is not how I view marriage. Marriage is the joining of two to form a family. I intend to be married for life to the man I love. I don’t need the laws to tell me that. That being said there are an abundance of legal benefits that come with marriage. I don’t see you fighting to keep marriage as just a religious term and not legal. When I see you fighting for that we will be on the same side of the fence.
“The studies Adam mentions show the dangers of adopting behavior contrary to those teachings and gives a warning to a deteriorating society.”
Again the study shows no such thing. It shows what has been shown before. Children from broken homes fare worse than those from stable homes. The study did not show children from stable homosexual homes, but rather children from broken homes who had a homosexual parent. Or even more specifically children from broken homes who had a parent who had a homosexual affair (but did not identify as homosexual). And lets look at what is truly shocking about the study. A conservitive organization paid a conservative studier to make the study. Shocking results occur.
So again Howard (lets see if third time is the charm and you can finally answer this)
Do homosexual domestic romantic partnerships deserve any form of recognition legal or other wise?
there are an abundance of legal benefits that come with marriage.
The point you are missing is that the homosexuals who are fighting for marriage rights value marriage and family.
How do you know? Maybe they’re looking for “an abundance of legal benefits.” Isn’t that how the “equality” spin got started?
As stated many times before I don’t see it as a change in marriage.
That sounds like willful (strategic) blindness.
Marriage is the joining of two to form a family.
Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, not just any “two”, regardless of gender.
Homosexuals marrying does not change that at all.
Clearly, it does.
Marriage is the joining of two to form a family.
“Two” what? You left out an important qualification.
I intend to be married for life to the man I love.
How do you express that love? Lovemaking? How do two men do that? With an abuser and an abusee? I don’t mean to offend you, if you’re a bottom, but I think bottoms are tweaked — and the man that takes the male role is taking advantage of that. There’s no pleasure in taking the female role, in anal sex. That’s why the poster couples for SSM are almost always old lesbians — to divorce the concept from what makes homosexuals, homosexuals. To keep the image of their sex acts out of peoples’ minds. They’re defined by what they do, not by what they are. They don’t have the same right to have “sexual orientation” (formerly called “sexual preference”) included in anti-discrimination laws that list race, national origin, gender, and ethnicity — because these are immutable characteristics! Homosexuals are people that have sex with people of the same gender. That’s not reason enough to earn special rights. As far as I’m concerned, gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. alanl69 seems to have declared that marriage has already been redefined! That’s hogwash!
I don’t see you fighting to keep marriage as just a religious term and not legal.
Marriage isn’t just a religious term. Marriage is marriage, a term that exists independent of the existence of religion. This schism in the lexicon that you and apparently other SSM advocates are pushing is new. Declaring that there is now “religious” marriage and “legal” marriage is your strategy, and yours alone. You’re inventing terms for political strategy, not to describe reality.
Again the study shows no such thing. It shows what has been shown before. Children from broken homes fare worse than those from stable homes. The study did not show children from stable homosexual homes, but rather children from broken homes who had a homosexual parent
The studies call into question things like the opinion of homosexuals Judge Vaughn Walker. In the case that is trying to to California’s state marriage amendment (Proposition 8), he included as a “finding of fact” that “children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
That’s clearly not true.
Marks reviewed all 59 studies that the American Psychological Association relied on when it issued a brief in 2005 embracing the conclusion that there are “no differences” in outcomes for children from same-sex parenting and traditional moms and dads.
There are.
Or even more specifically children from broken homes who had a parent who had a homosexual affair (but did not identify as homosexual).
Well he had to find some way to compare heterosexual married couples to homosexuals that raised children. You can’t compare married homosexual couples to married heterosexual couples, there aren’t enough adults that were raised by married homosexuals. He performed a study to explore the “no differences” claim — and between his study and Marks’, they trashed it.
And lets look at what is truly shocking about the study. A conservitive organization paid a conservative studier to make the study. Shocking results occur.
He had to go to a conservative group for the funding because the liberal groups wouldn’t touch it. That’s not shocking.
Do homosexual domestic romantic partnerships deserve any form of recognition legal or other wise?
For what purpose?
alanl69 wrote, “As stated many times before I don’t see it as a change in marriage.”
Previously, alanl69 wrote, “I also prefer to view it as expanding the definition”.
Would not “expanding the definition” of marriage be a “change in marriage”?
Adam, I don’t even see it as an expansion. Marriage to me is the joining of two to form a family.
To me it’s that simple.
But wouldn’t to redefine a word mean to change it completely?
Marriage to me is the joining of two to form a family.
“Two” what? Your efforts to redefine things, using novel wording, has you obviously leaving out a noun there — deliberately.
But wouldn’t to redefine a word mean to change it completely?
Same-sex “marriage” is an oxymoron that, if imposed on society (since society is obviously unwilling) — by politicians, that are available to the highest bidder, or by judicial fiat — would result in a radical redefinition of the concept of marriage.
Storobin Bill Would Repeal Same-Sex Marriage in New York
Capital Tonight reports on David Storobin not losing any time making good on his promises to be a pro-marriage advocate in Albany:
http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/06/storobin-bill-would-repeal-same-sex-marriage-law/
Strategy for Effecting Social Change: Homosexual Special Rights Lobby Using Bribed Politicians and Public Schools to Indoctrinate Children
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/08/opinion/la-ed-textbook-20110408
And sure enough, the politicians passed the bill — and then deposited their campaign contributions checks. Want to effect social change? Use your influence over the politicians you bribe to pass laws for you, so that you can indoctrinate K-12 children in public schools. Then, when they grow up, viola!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJx1tpqe5W8
Alan, how is a redundant father, denying a mother that you had, and the inability to conceive children not a redefinition of marriage and family.
I fear we have gone as far as we can Howard due to your simple refusal to answer a direct question.
If you choose to answer it great, if not well then have a nice day sir. I can’t answer any questions from you until you return the favor and answer the one I have asked 3 times now.
Alan, as you know I can only handle one idea at a time, I don’t multitask very well. I yield to Adam on that one.
You have not given a an answer to my last question about redefinition of marriage. You can add to what I said, the complimentary natures of man and woman that are a part of marriage and benefit both them and their children.
Trying to change the subject is a cop-out.
Howard, your age is a cop out. You don’t want to answer my question, thats fine, but at least admit it.
I asked you, not Adam.
So guess we are done here. I have tried to answer your questions but to continue to pepper me with new or reworded questions is pointless. But see I think that is your point, to wear me down without ever really attempting to have a true dialog with me.
So no I wont answer your question until you answer mine.
The following quote came from another site I read this morning.
“The battle over cultures is often in the defining and redefining of words: In Orwell’s “1984,” the masses are fed redefining slogans like “War Is Peace,” “Freedom Is Slavery,” and “Ignorance Is Strength.”” Now there is the push to give the word (defined for thousands of years as between one man and one woman) a new meaning. Maybe we just need to strike out the word ‘marriage’ all together and replace it with ‘the sexual union of two people.’ But then there would probably be only a very small minority who would agree to that, as I guess (notice I said guess not predicted) the moral majority would never go along with changing the defination of marriage.
Richard, is it truly a “new” meaning? Has marriage not been defined as the joining of two? Perhaps it is an expansion, but really don’t see how it is a redefinition.
Yes it appears as though throughout history marriage has been between a man and a woman, but there are some bits of history that show that has not always been the case. But our society is a living thing, it changes over time, as have all societies. Some changes are good, some are bad. Hard to know which is which before they happen.
There is no anectodal data to suggest that homosexual marraige will be bad for society. Inclusion rarely is bad for society.
Inclusion rarely is bad for society.
Since marriage is between a husband and wife, same-sex couples can’t be “included”, by definition.
There is no anectodal (sic) data to suggest that homosexual marraige (sic) will be bad for society.
I don’t look at homosexual “marriage” in isolation, because marriage doesn’t exist in isolation. Marriage often leads to children and family. Children do best when raised by their married mothers and fathers. Homosexual parenting has been shown to be inferior, probably because — in homosexual families — the children are always deprived of at least one parent, just because that is the way the adults want it. That’s an indefensible cultural tragedy. Studies have long shown that homosexual parenting screws children up.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/03/06/studies-children-raised-by-lesbians-not-problem-free/
Marriage is the ultimate affirmation of a commitment between a man and a woman, and commonly leads to little bambinos, because men and women can and often do produce children. The promises of a husband and wife to stay together greatly benefits the children.
This is a good thing, and is why marriage — which has evolved quite naturally, over millennia, as a venerable institution — is recognized by law. Homosexual relationships do not share the qualities that get marriage accorded a great deal of respect. Society doesn’t have the same need to recognize homosexual relationships. Have whatever relationships you want, but don’t ask us to give up what makes marriage, as uniquely between a husband and wife — for all the reasons this is venerable — special.
Redefining marriage as a genderless institution, just to incorporate same-sex couples, would debase and tarnish the idea and ideal of marriage. Ripping away a cherished aspect of our culture, by eliminating an über important and essential characteristic of marriage, wouldn’t be worth it — just to affirm the relationships of people defined by their deviant/kinky sex acts. Elevating that wouldn’t be an improvement. It would come at great cost. I don’t want this deleterious change, because I care about the future, because that’s what’s in store for our children.
alanl, to answer your first question:Has marriage not been defined as the joining of two? – Yes, a man and a woman. I cannot find any dictionary anywhere that defines it differently.
“throughout history marriage has been between a man and a woman, but there are some bits of history that show that has not always been the case”
Can you show me where in history there was accepted relationships of the living together as a union of two sexes??
There is no anectodal data to suggest that homosexual marraige will be bad for society.
“There is no anectodal data to suggest that homosexual marraige will be bad for society.” I gave a answer to this before during this discussion: “No matter how many times persons of the same sex engage in sexual activity, there will never be any offspring. If everybody only engaged in homosexual sex, within 100 years the human race would be extinct. This is a mathematical, scientific, and medical fact. Bigotry has nothing to do with opposition to homosexual behavior.” Change would be bad.
You might not of read it but this sexual movement is on the move, in NY the other day a lesbian sued a Catholic Hosiptal because it does not give benefits to same sex partners, even though they had a civil union under NY state law. They are pushing their morality on the Church that sees their union as immoral and this is just one issue the Church and other Christian faiths are fighting. Just because a state might give you the right to join in a union does not mean that organizations like a Catholic hospital has to go against it moral beliefs and give what you want. This is not bigorty or racist or anything else but standing behind one’s beliefs.
Richard
You speak of the lesbian suing the catholic hospital. And you state “They are pushing their morality on the Church”
Doesn’t it seem like the catholic church might be pushing their morality on society by not allow homosexual marriages?
Showing evidence, well it’s out there. I have seen it and posted it before. You will only say it is not true, so there really is not point in my showing you. But if you want just do a google search and see what you find. You will find it should you choose. Is it true? Who knows. I am sure that some of history could have been rewritten throughout time.
oh sorry, totally forgot to comment on your statement : “No matter how many times persons of the same sex engage in sexual activity, there will never be any offspring. (true)
If everybody only engaged in homosexual sex, within 100 years the human race would be extinct.(not true, especially given the different way babies are created today)
This is a mathematical, scientific, and medical fact. (It was, but is no longer.)
Bigotry has nothing to do with opposition to homosexual behavior.”
from dictionary.com:
big·ot·ry
[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
I’d say it was textbook definition.
also from dictionary.com
Doesn’t it seem like the catholic church might be pushing their morality on society by not allow[ing] homosexual marriages?
No, because it isn’t the Catholic Church that doesn’t allow homosexual so-called “marriage”. Where it is not allowed (in 44 states), it’s the law that doesn’t allow it. Nice try.
Where it is allowed, it was imposed by politicians or by judicial fiat.
big·ot·ry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
I’d say it was textbook definition.
I’d say it works both ways. Homosexuals are completely intolerant of people that believe that marriage is between a husband and wife, and should remain so.
They stubbornly declare that this belief is “hate” — and that anybody that believes it, is automatically a bigot — ad nauseum (apparently because they believe that if they repeat it often enough, people will believe it). Sometimes they substitute “homophobia and homophobe, but that’s just a variant of the same ‘argument’.
name I 100% agree with you, some homosexuals just like some catholics are bigots. In fairness there really is not a person in the world who is not bigoted in one way, shape or form.
That being said, I am not bigoted against christian or any religion. I don’t hate your beliefs, I don’t think you should not be allowed your beliefs or allowed to practice them. I just don’t feel as though they should be forced on me. I know you will say that is what I am doing, and in the simple way it may seem like that, but really it isnt.
1. You are not being forced into a gay marriage. No one expects that of you. But yes by not allowing me to marry based on what god says, or because that is the way it has always been is forcing me to accept you beliefs.
2.You still have the right to your beliefs, you can still believe it is wrong. You can still teach your children it is wrong. Last I checked there are no laws that will stop you from doing this.
3. I don’t believe that churches should be forced to marry homosexuals. I know some of us do think that, but to me religion is a private thing. They have their rules and we should not ask for them to change that and marry us.
4. Business do not have religions (unless of course they sell religious paraphanalia, but a photographer, florist, bed and breakfast, these are not religious jobs) so they and their owners do not have the right to discriminate.
That about sums it up for me. Blast away
I don’t think you should not be allowed your beliefs or allowed to practice them. I just don’t feel as though they should be forced on me.
I was “Name”. In what way are beliefs you think I have being “forced” on you?
by not allowing me to marry based on what god says, or because that is the way it has always been is forcing me to accept you beliefs.
You can marry, just like anybody else — but marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so you would have to marry a member of the oppose sex (just like anybody else). “That is the way it has always been,” although you’re free to try to convince people that this should be changed. That is not “forcing [you] to accept [my] beliefs.”
I’m not keeping you from getting married “based on what [G]od says,” nor am I forcing you to accept any beliefs you believe I have, real or imagined.
Adam,
Of course I can marry a woman. And when homosexual marriage is allowed you can marry a man. Thusly we will have the same rights. But as it stands right now your belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman does infringe on my belief that marriages can occur between same sexed persons. You are stopping me from marrying a man. But the reverse is not true. My belief in same sex marriage does not infringe on your ability to marry who you want. Subtle difference I know, but its there.
You write “I’m not keeping you from getting married “based on what [G]od says,” nor am I forcing you to accept any beliefs you believe I have, real or imagined”
the first part is true, you are keeping me from gettting married based on your own beliefs that marriage is between a woman and a man (and you claimed this is because it is how it is? Or how it has always been?)
Second part is not true, your beliefs are keeping me from marrying whom I want. It’s that simple.
when homosexual marriage is allowed you can marry a man.
“When”? Don’t you man “if”?
I thought you meant religious beliefs.
My beliefs aren’t keeping you from getting “married” to a member of the same sex. The law is.
and lets keep in mind that no one is suggesting that everyone become gay, so there is no really worry in society dying out that way.
Also from dictionary.com:
mar·riage
[mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
EXPAND
no one is suggesting that everyone become gay
“Become gay”? Is this an admission that “sexual orientation” isn’t immutable?
In fact, isn’t the reason that homosexuals don’t become extinct, that sexual preference is a choice — and not genetically determined? (Otherwise, the “gay gene” would be eliminated from the gene pool, since homosexuals don’t reproduce.)
By the way, why is it that homosexuals hit on heterosexuals, if not because they think they can get them to become homosexuals?
Also from dictionary.com:
mar·riage
I don’t need a dictionary to tell me what marriage is. I’ve known it my whole life — in more depth than a dictionary could ever cover.
Adam writes
“Become gay”? Is this an admission that “sexual orientation” isn’t immutable?”
Nope its a ridiculous assertion in response to the ridiculous notion that if the whole world was gay the population would become extinct.
‘In fact, isn’t the reason that homosexuals don’t become extinct, that sexual preference is a choice — and not genetically determined? (Otherwise, the “gay gene” would be eliminated from the gene pool, since homosexuals don’t reproduce.)”
1. Homosexuals don’t become extinct because we are born of heterosexuals. Yes Adam I too have a mother and a father.
2. I did not choose to be a homosexual. I did not choose my sexual attractions.
3. But lets say for spits and giggles that only homosexuals who have babies would make homosexual babies. Where do redheads come from? Do both their parents have red hair? (quick hint on that one, the answer is no, my brother has red hair and neither of my parents do). Where do south paws come from? Are both their parents southpaws? (again quick hint, no. Out of the four boys in my family two are lefties, two righties)
So genetics are not so simply boiled down to homosexuals only create homosexual babies.
“By the way, why is it that homosexuals hit on heterosexuals, if not because they think they can get them to become homosexuals?”
1. Why do hetersexuals say yes?
2. Why do heterodexuals hit on other heterosexuals? (gosh even the married ones?)
3. Why do heterosexuals hit on other heterosexuals who clearly are not interested in them?
So Adam is this why you hate homosexuals? Did one hit on you? Did you say yes and now feel shame? And are you acknowledging that you indeed make a conscious decision not to be a homosexual? You seem certain it is a choice so you must have made a choice not to be.
So Adam is this why you hate homosexuals?
I don’t hate homosexuals. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Adam have you not been reading? I am a man married to a man. How could I beat my wife? Oh wait, are you trying to prove a point? Ahh I see.
Yes me assuming you hate homosexuals is a jump, but after riveting questions such as “why do they hit on heterosexuals” and comments like “you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us” it is not a far jump.
So I will ask you this question. Do homosexual partnerships deserve any form of recognition?
Yes me assuming you hate homosexuals is a jump, but after riveting questions such as “why do they hit on heterosexuals” and comments like “you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us” it is not a far jump.
Yes it is.
Do homosexual partnerships deserve any form of recognition?
What for?
alanl, I see you are adding a concept that is not mentioned in the quote: If everybody only engaged in homosexual sex, within 100 years the human race would be extinct.(not true, especially given the different way babies are created today)
This is a mathematical, scientific, and medical fact. (It was, but is no longer.)
What I shared has no mention of medical procedures such as INF (or is it IVF?) or the use of surrogates. This statement is about two members of the same sex having sexual relations – no way is it possible to produce another human being. You cannot insert something into a statement to make it what you want it to say.
“Doesn’t it seem like the catholic church might be pushing their morality on society by not allow homosexual marriages?” You would have to include almost all Christian faith churches in this, which are not pushing their morality but standing firm on moral issues.
Another article from earlier was of two men who had a civil union on a military base, it had to be performed by a civilian minister as the military chaplins refused to do it on moral grounds. The base in in a state that does not recognize either civil unions or gay marriage so anywhere off the military base their union will not be recognized. Is this state in error or standing on its moral grounds?
“Showing evidence, well it’s out there. I have seen it and posted it before.” Your the one who said there was evidence, I should not have to go searching for it and looked back in this discussion and did not see anything, might of missed it as this has been a long discussion.
In your definitions, why is it that everyone them except one can lead to procreation? Because a gay union/marriage by nature cannot procreate. And your number 4 has a term, it is called cohabitation and most Christian faiths along with the Catholic church do not promote it.
time to go back to the cws. (college World series)
You leave out other religions that define marriage as uniquely between a husband and wife, like Islam and Judaism.
civil marriage, not religious marriage. Two different concepts.
No need for me to go back anywhere Richard.
You disagree, but you didn’t necessarily disprove any of my points.
So what you are saying is marriage is ONLY about the ability to procreate. So by that token (and this has been said many times before) those who are heterosexual and cannot procreate (like old people) should not be allowed to marry.
And Richard if you can insert that the whole world is gay (a ridiculous concept as many here say that only about 1% of the worlds population is gay) then I can indeed insert the scientific fact that were the whole world gay procreation could still happen.
So Alan Religious and civil marriage is different. I thought you had denied that.
Howard this just shows me that I am talking to a wall with you. I don’t think you really read what I write, but rather just see what you want in it. The other day you claimed I didn’t believe in god, a statement I have not made.
There is civil marriage, the legal marriage that comes with the benefits. That is what the homosexuals are fighting for. Religious marriage is a ceremony as best as I can tell, but really has no legal standing. If you don’t have the legal aspect then society does not consider you married. So yeah there is a difference.
Alan, I think that you are just not up to the argument is the problem and resort to lame excuses. When you tell me several times that you are not bound by “my God” and since there is only one God how can anyone but conclude that you are not a believer.
Legal and religious ceremonies are different, a license from the state is needed in both, a marriage of people happens in both that has had the same definition throughout our history until recent times in some unique jurisdictions.
civil marriage, not religious marriage. Two different concepts.
Marriage. One concept. The union of a man and a woman. Both the law and religions accept this.
New SSM advocacy strategy: declare that there are two different kinds of marriage, “civil marriage” and “religious marriage.” A fabrication. Nobody goes around talking about their “civil marriage” or “religious marriage,” just about their marriage.
Suzie: I’m getting married!
Her friend: Really? That’s great! Are you getting a “civil marriage” or a “religious marriage”?
Bill: I’m going to ask her to marry me.
Joe: Cool. Will it be a “civil marriage” or a “religious marriage”?
Nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18410444
Howard writes:
“Alan, I think that you are just not up to the argument is the problem and resort to lame excuses.”
Uhuh, and you can’t even answer a simple question. Could care less if you think I resort to lame excuses. When you choose to discuss we can, but that is a two way street. If I ask a question you should answer it. Why are you not up for answering it but are more than willing to give “lame excuses” to ignore it?
“When you tell me several times that you are not bound by “my God” and since there is only one God how can anyone but conclude that you are not a believer.”
If there is only one god then why so many religions?
“Legal and religious ceremonies are different, a license from the state is needed in both, a marriage of people happens in both that has had the same definition throughout our history until recent times in some unique jurisdictions.”
Yes but one does not need a religious ceremony to be legally married.
Up for answering the question yet Howard, or will you “lame” out again?
Do homsexual partnerships deserve any form of recognition?
Adam:
“civil marriage, not religious marriage. Two different concepts.
Marriage. One concept. The union of a man and a woman. Both the law and religions accept this.”
You are of course right in the simple form, they are the same thing. In the greater scheme one does not need a religious marriage ceremony to be LEGALLY married, however one does need a civil marriage license for legal marriage. So while they are the same concept they are different.
“New SSM advocacy strategy: declare that there are two different kinds of marriage, “civil marriage” and “religious marriage.” A fabrication. Nobody goes around talking about their “civil marriage” or “religious marriage,” just about their marriage.”
Exactly, no one does that. And guess what, my homosexual friends don’t go around talking about their homosexual marriages, they just talk about their marriages.
“Suzie: I’m getting married!
Her friend: Really? That’s great! Are you getting a “civil marriage” or a “religious marriage”?”
Again correct. However as you are not religious and have not had the debate against marriage on a religious level you must understand that the religious don’t seem to accept that the government has any jurisdiction in marriage. To them all that matters is the religious marriage (of course they all get the license because they “have to”)
So in that respect there is a difference in civil and religious marriage. But you are right they are the same concept.
” Bill: I’m going to ask her to marry me.
Joe: Cool. Will it be a “civil marriage” or a “religious marriage”?
Nonsense”
Agree. Total nonsense. No one would ask this. But the question “will it be a church wedding” is quite commonly asked.
So this is how I see them being seperated. One happens in a religious place and holds no legality without the license. One doesn’t happen in a religious place, has a license and is legally binding.
.
Alan, we have not finished our last discussion when you bugged out and decided to demand a change of subject. As you know I have no reluctance to express my views, only when the debate get boring or tiresome. I would be glad to go on when you recognize that there has been a change to the definition of marriage in your state, I am guessing Mass.
“If there is only one god then why so many religions? “
The same as having one law and different interpretations of it. So, which one do you profess to belong to?
“Yes but one does not need a religious ceremony to be legally married.”
Who has claimed that? The issue is a change in the definition of marriage in which the law originally mimicked the religious definition.
Howard,
Sorry but my question was in regards to the last discussion we had.
So answer the question or don’t, it’s really that simple.
Do homsexual partnerships deserve any form of recognition?
What for?
Anyone without an incentive to be in denial understands why marriage is recognized in the law.
one does not need a religious marriage ceremony to be LEGALLY married, however one does need a civil marriage license for legal marriage. So while they are the same concept they are different.
Churches can legally marry people here. That doesn’t make the concept different.
To them all that matters is the religious marriage
What “religious marriage”? They get married. Same difference.
So in that respect there is a difference in civil and religious marriage.
What difference does it make whether you get married in front of a justice of the peace, a church, a golf course, or on a boat? Wherever you get married, you’re married. There’s no “civil marriage” versus “religious marriage.” There’s no distinction. If you’re married, you’re married. If you’re not, you’re not. Nobody goes around saying Suzie got a “civil marriage” and Bill got “religious marriage,” so that makes some difference. This is just a distinction you’re trying to make up for political reasons, not to reflect our culture.
One happens in a religious place and holds no legality without the license.
Marriages that happen in religious places are just as valid as marriages that happen on golf courses. Regardless of where the marriage ceremony is performed, it’s still a marriage.
Adam;
“Anyone without an incentive to be in denial understands why marriage is recognized in the law.”
And marriage is recognized by law why?
Adam,
Yup you are right. They are exactly the same thing. No difference what so ever.
Does this make you happy?
If you don’t see differences then I cannot make you.
You are right though, no one ever says I was civilly married, yet without that license you aren’t married.
And that is why civil unions are not acceptable to the homosexuals, only full marriage will be acceptable.
stand corrected, def nubmer 5 will not result in procreation either.
Stacy—
You state that there is no genetic marker for homosexuality. You infer that this somehow proves that homosexuality is therefore a choice.
This, of course, would require that someone made a concious decision to be gay and would support the theory that people can be “coverted” or “recruited” to homosexuality. Your “can’t take my children to the park” blog also supports this statement—as you clearly don’t want your children brought up to believe that it is, in any way, acceptable. They may end up making the wrong decision.
That there is no genetic marker can therefore also be used to justify treating homosexuals as second class people and denying them equal access to the legal, economic, and familial benefits of marriage.
Let me apply your reasoning to being left handed.
You see—there is no genetic marker for being left handed. Therefore, being left handed must be a choice.
And since being right handed is “normal” it is clear that children are being converted or recruited to lefthandedness. This is dangerous to the child. The world is designed for being right handed—sissors and guns are both examples.
In order to protect our children you would have to agree that lefthanded people should be denied the right to be teachers. They might “convert” children by showing them that being left handed is “normal”.
For the same reason you would have to agree that lefthanded people should not be allowed to adopt and should be discouraged from breeding (by not allowing them marriage). Again—I’m sure you must agree that it is in the best interest of the children and society as a whole.
Right handed weapons can actually become deadly in the “southpaws” hands. Therefore, we would need to create laws keeping them out of the military. This discrimination is just necessary for the sake of the unit.
Now—before you trot out the “I don’t have any problem but the bible says…” please note that there are about 25 bible verses that condenm left handedness including Matthew’s statement about the sheep on the right going to heaven and the goats on the left going to hell.
There is a long history of societal negativity about lefthandedness that continues in some society up to the present. Even in the US up until a very short time ago teachers tried to keep children from being left handed by forcing them to use the “right” hand.
So—I need to ask you if you think the above directives against left handers is something you would like to see codified into our national laws. (Like DOMA)?
Then—I’d like to know if you have any left handed children and if you’d like a child of yours living in this USA?
That there is no genetic marker can therefore also be used to justify treating homosexuals as second class people and denying them equal access to the legal, economic, and familial benefits of marriage.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals aren’t being treated as second-class citizens. They have equal access to the legal, economic, and familial benefits of marriage.
Left-handed people aren’t distinguished by a behavior that they claim entitles them to special rights.
The now-discredited “gay gene” theory that homosexuals were putting forth as fact was something they were trying to use to claim that they merited a place in anti-discrimination laws alongside lists like: race, gender, national origin, and ethnicity — immutable characteristics. They were trying to say that what made them gay wasn’t their behavior. It was what they were.
You’re now turning things around and claiming the lack of a gene justified discrimination. The lack of a gene just is.
I think we have a flag on the play here.
Last I checked a homosexual gene was not discredited. It has neither been proven or disproven.
What can be said is that the majority of homosexuals can tell you that they knew from an early age that they liked the same sex. It is not something that was chosen, but rather something that was.
Now Adam I assume you are not a homosexual, but I have never asked.
Are you?
If not then why do you assume it’s a choice? Did you choose heterosexuality?
Comment
Now for marriage—
As much as you’d like to argue, the facts are that in the US in 2012 marriage is civil contract.
I don’t care what you claim the word means, I don’t care what the history is, I don’t care what you want to claim the bible says. In the US in 2012 marriage is a civil contract.
You can be married without the clergy. My proof? A justice of the peace can marry you. A sea captain can marry you. Anyone who fills out the paperwork can marry you.
And even the POPE cannot perform a legal American marriage unless he is licensed to do so by the state.
Still not convinced? You can’t severe the marriage by a religious decry alone. The POPE can claim your marriage annulled—doesn’t matter to the state. You’re married until a judge says differently.
Furthermore—marriage does not have anything to do with children. There is no requirement of fertility, there is no requirement to want children, there is no requirment of any kind about the creation or raising of children as a prerequisite to marriage.
Now—before you trot out the usual arguments—
Children–a child cannot legally enter into a contract. They are not deemed to have the capacity to understand the ramifications. Therefore, allowing same-sex marriage does not open the door to underage marriage.
Animals—Animals cannot enter into a contract for the same reason a child can’t.
Buildings and inanimate objects—Can not give informed consent, therefore cannot enter into marriage.
Incest—A legal contract cannot be entered into when one party is deemed to have an undue influence upon the other party. Given the intimacy of the parent/child relationship it is easy to argue that undue influence precludes both parties have equal standing.
Polygamy—Marriage defines who may speak for you when you can’t speak for yourself. Case in point—Terri Schaivo. The court ruled that the husband spoke for Terri, not her parents. Even over the objections of good Catholic Rick Santorum. Polygamy muddies the water. Who has primacy? The first spouse? The last spouse? Do they have to all agree? The state has an interest in maintaining marriage as a two party contract.
And now Stacy—your sorority sister argument. Unfortunately there will always be parties who enter into marriage for frivolous or inappropriate reasons. So yes—two sorority sisters could marry. As can a fraternity brother and sorority sister. As can a female fake celebrity and a male basketball player. As can two drunks in Vegas. Equal under the law. Sorry.
marriage does not have anything to do with children
Willful blindness.
Marriage often leads to children (and families) — not always, but exceptions don’t eliminate this fact.
Marriage is more than just a contract, like one agreed upon for selling a car.
If homosexuals succeed in using the law to redefine marriage, polygamists can too. They can use many of the same arguments SSM advocates do. It’s disgusting watching this special interest group get the things it lobbies for — but if they can do it, polygamists can too.
Polygamy muddies the water.
So you oppose polygamy because it “muddies the water”?
Who has primacy? The first spouse? The last spouse?
When it comes to what?
Do they have to all agree?
On what?
The state has an interest in maintaining marriage as a two party contract.
Why only two?
What is the state’s interest in redefining (or “expanding”) marriage to consider same-sex couples as “married”?
I can understand how the state could have an interest in recognizing married couples as married — your statement, “marriage does not have anything to do with children,” notwithstanding.
Marriage is a social construct that changes things when a man and a woman become as one, especially when they become a mom and a dad — both of which are important in child rearing, in different ways.
This has been the case for thousands of years, before there was ever a USA with marriage laws.
Now for the children argument—
Marriage, in the US in 2012, is not about children. People are not required to take a fertility test to get a marriage license. Women past the age of child bearing can get legally married. A soldier who has lost his testicles in battle can get legally married. People who don’t want children can get legally married.
Now for the “let them have civil unions” argument–
Sorry—in this country we’ve had a long history of separate does NOT equal equal. If you want to argue a second class union, then you are going to have to agree that separate water fountains and the back of the bus were appropriate. The minute you write laws giving all united couples the same rights someone in congress will start writing laws that give additional benefits to “married” couples.
Equality under the law is the central theme of our constitution. The history of this country is the history of giving additional rights to previously marginalized people—blacks, women, native Americans, children. It is time for LGBT equality under the law.
Now for the “you are trying to undermine the church” argument—
We don’t need to undermine the church–you’re doing just fine by yourself. Seriously—you can believe and preach anything you want. What you cannot do is break the laws of the country or get taxpayer dollars while breaking said laws.
Specifically—Catholic charities was NOT going to be forced to adopt children to gay couples. They were going to LOSE TAXPAYER FUNDING if they continued to discriminate. They could have continued operating their adoption agencies without taxpayer funding—they decided not to. It was a financial decision.
If you want to run a business in the US you have to run it according to the corporate regulations. And that includes providing insurance. If you don’t want to provide insurance—don’t be in business. Stick with preaching.
We have laws in this country that preclude businesses from discriminating. Remember—subscribing to a religion is as much a choice as you claim for same sex attraction. If you think a bed and breakfast should be allowed to discriminate against gays you better be willing to support “no catholics allowed” signs. (And yes, I know they once existed. They would not in 2012.)
in this country we’ve had a long history of separate does NOT equal equal.
Does that mean we can’t have ladies’ bathrooms and men’s bathrooms?
If you want to argue a second class union, then you are going to have to agree that separate water fountains and the back of the bus were appropriate.
Separate water fountains and the back of the bus had nothing to do with the differences between African-Americans and whites.
Marriage has everything to do with the difference between men and women, and the difference between opposite sex couples and same-sex couples.
It’s not just a question of allowing same-sex couples “access” to marriage. This can’t even be considered without recognizing that this would fundamentally alter the nature of what marriage is, and what makes it special.
Marriage unites opposite sex couples and serves to bind them — not only to one another — but to their children, when they have them.
If gays want some kind of legal recognition for gay couples, homosexuals should come up with some other something — not insist on redefining marriage to accommodate them (provide them with affirmation).
Using “equal” as a talking point to propagandize overlooks the fact that same-sex couples aren’t “equal” to opposite sex couples, and it’s okay to recognize the unique union of a man and a woman — and, indeed, it is in society’s best interest to do so (because of the children).
Same-sex couples demanding “access” to marriage is like a round peg demanding access to a square hole.
Homosexuals demand “equality” by being willfully blind to what marriage is, and to the fact that they’re demanding that this be changed.
I also want to address the ever popular “accepting gays destroyed civilization “ silliness.
If we take ancient Rome as an example—The Roman republic and imperial Rome lasted approximately 900 years before Theodosis declared Christianity the official religion in 380 AD. The Roman Empire is said to have fallen in 476 AD. Therefore, for 900 years homosexuality was tolerated and, in less than 100 years the Catholic Church could be said to have destroyed the largest empire the world had ever seen.
People also like to claim that homosexuality doomed the Nazis. Sorry—but Hilter killed Rohm (the homosexual leader of the brownshirts) during the “Night of the Long Knives” in 1934—when the Nazis were still in ascent, not descent.
But neither example matters—because in both cases the argument that “post hoc ergo propter hoc” is a logical fallacy. Gays didn’t create the fall of Rome any more than the catholic church did. Gays didn’t cause the defeat of the Nazis any more than Hilter’s early catholicism caused his anti-semetism.
They are only arguments to justify bigotry.
You want the civil laws of our secular, plural society to be based on your religion? Sorry—it doesn’t work that way. You want a theocracy? Move somewhere that you agree with.
And finally Stacy—the Declaration of Independence is NOT law in this country. Proof? Elected officials, the military, and the President swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And in case I need to remind you—there is no reference to even a Creator in the Constitution
I also want to address the ever popular “accepting gays destroyed civilization “ silliness.
We’re discussing redefining marriage, not accepting homosexuals.
They are only arguments to justify bigotry.
Commitment to a venerable definition of marriage, that has existed for millennia, isn’t bigotry.
You want the civil laws of our secular, plural society to be based on your religion?
What religion? I don’t have a religion. I just don’t believe the proposed redefinition would be an improvement.
Sorry—it doesn’t work that way.
True. Marriage was the union of a man and a woman in this country before it was a country and there were laws to try to get that changed.
You want a theocracy?
No. Fortunately, we don’t have one.
Move somewhere that you agree with.
Maybe it’s you that should move somewhere that you agree with, like Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, or Sweden.
Adam Eve Steve
One of the previous comments mentioned the silliness–that is why I addressed it.
The definition of marriage has not existed for millenium. Marriage as a word was first used in the 14th century. After the existance of committed same sex unions in ancient societies.
Slavery has existed for millenium. Should we, as a modern society, reinstate that?
You don’t think the proposed redefinition would be an improvement? Terribly sorry–but last I checked you don’t get to define equal rights in this country. The constitution does that.
“True. Marriage was the union of a man and a woman in this country before it was a country and there were laws to try to get that changed.”
That sentence is nonsense on it’s face. Nothing can exist IN A COUNTRY before the country exists.
And laws are not trying to get that changed. Laws are trying, and succeeding, in destroying the attempts to define the word as ONLY the union of a man and woman.
Same Sex Marriage is the law in several states now. DOMA will be defeated. You will soon be living in a country with SSM. In a western world where SSM will continue to grow.
Because, as I stated earlier, the arc of this country has been to make equality open to more and more people.
“Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Homosexuals aren’t being treated as second-class citizens. They have equal access to the legal, economic, and familial benefits of marriage.”
No–they don’t. There are over 1100 benefits that two committed, same sex people are denied because they are not free to marry the person they love.
To deny this is to lie.
No–they don’t. There are over 1100 benefits that two committed, same sex people are denied because they are not free to marry the person they love.
Homosexuals are free to get married.
Problem is, all of these numbers are suspect, as Politifact Rhode Island found out when they looked into this claim:
In other words, the only way a number as large as 1,100 (let alone 1,700) would be to use it in the phrase “marriage and related words are mentioned this many times.”
But of course, that’s not a very effective figure to point out so instead we are treated to literally hundreds of news reports claiming that marriage confers over a thousand “rights and benefits” (sometimes you see the adjective “responsibilities”) without anyone really stopping to fact-check the claim.
Moreover, long before Politifact took a look at this question recently, the institute for Marriage and Public Policy investigated these types of claims back in 2004 and found them wanting. Obviously, most individuals pushing gay marriage didn’t get the memo.
Finally, in states that do allow full civil unions with all the rights/benefits/responsibilities, etc. of marriage, that is still unacceptable to activists bent on redefining marriage.
So maybe it’s time to drop the 1,000+ rights and benefits canard and get back to debating marriage.
To deny this is to lie.
the number is irrelevant. Even if there is one benefit or millions.
There is a simple fact–due to DOMA no matter what the laws of any state same sex couples are not entitled to federal benefits.
Separate it NOT equal.
And as for quoting maggie gallager–I won’t even dignify that.
same sex people are denied because they are not free to marry the person they love.
Using your logic, “marriage does not have anything to do with” love.
Please provide proof in the form of legal pronouncements within the US that have the rule of law that states that the ability to enter into a legal marriage is predicated on the ability and willingness of the parties to produce children.
Lighten up.
http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-would-ban-marriages-between-people-who-don,14401/
I wrote, “They have equal access to the legal, economic, and familial benefits of marriage.”
cminca wrote, “No–they don’t.”
Yes they do, because they can get married.
cminca wrote, “same sex people are denied because they are not free to marry the person they love.”
Polygamists are denied because they are not free to marry the people they love.
Do you support the right of polygamists to marry the people they love?
Monogamists can marry the number of people they love. They can marry all the people they want to. Where’s the “marriage equality”?
Adam–
Polygamists–already addressed. The state has a legitimate legal reason for outlawing polygamy.
Now–give me a legitimate legal reason why the state should withold marriage from a SS couple.
Not–”because we’ve always done it” (otherwise you would need to be in favor of slavery, and against women’s voting among other things). Not–because of my religion–that pesky first amendment. Not–becuase of the kids–(sorry–not planning on lightening up).
As I’ve said before–the arc of this country is to expand rights to marginalized people. Blacks, women, native Americans, and now gays.
Get over it.
Polygamists–already addressed
woefully inadequately.
The state has a legitimate legal reason for outlawing polygamy.
Now–give me a legitimate legal reason why the state should withold marriage from a SS couple.
No, you tell us why declaring same-sex couples, “married”, is in the public interest. You’re the one that wants change, so it’s incumbent upon you to establish that the state has an interest redefining marriage.
We already understand why the law recognizes married couples — same-sex couples, not so obvious.
Willful blindness.
(Start with an insult.)
Marriage often leads to children (and families) — not always, but exceptions don’t eliminate this fact.
(Doesn’t matter. Children are NOT a requirement.)
Marriage is more than just a contract, like one agreed upon for selling a car.
(Sorry-You can claim that marriage is more than “just a contract” but it doesn’t make it true. It is an agreement entered into by two people. It is invalid if undue influence can be proven. It is invalid if one of the parties can be proven to be incapable of entering into the contract because of age or infirmity. A lot of people claimed there were WMD in Iraq, but it didn’t make that true either.)
If homosexuals succeed in using the law to redefine marriage, polygamists can too. They can use many of the same arguments SSM advocates do.
(Already addressed. By both myself and the laws of the US.)
It’s disgusting watching this special interest group get the things it lobbies for — but if they can do it, polygamists can too.
(End with an insult.)
Doesn’t matter. Children are NOT a requirement.
Children are NOT a requirement, but the fact that “marriage often leads to children (and families)” does matter — whether you choose to recognize that, or not. Your statement, “marriage does not have anything to do with children,” is deliberately blind to what marriage has to do with children. It was not an insult.
It’s pretty mean to deliberately ignore the interests of the children, something marriage has a lot to do with.
Most special interest politics disgusts me. Homosexual special rights advocates got SB 48 into the law here. Using public schools to indoctrinate children is disgusting. That’s not an insult either. Even the LA Times, which is 200% in favor of SSM, published an editorial against SB 48 — but when bribery talks, the difference between right and wrong walks.
Adam eve steve,
You can say it over and over again–but it doesn’t make your position fact.
There is only one fact in this arguement: THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL REQUIREMENT ABOUT CHILDREN AS A CONDITION OF LEGAL MARRIAGE.
The rest of your statements are just diversion.
Adam writes:
“Using public schools to indoctrinate children is disgusting.”
To indoctrinate them how?
Adam–
I’m interested in your term “indoctrinate”.
Exactly how is a public school teaching tolerance any different than a church teaching intolerance?
How is that not parents “indoctrinating” their children to hate?
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL REQUIREMENT ABOUT CHILDREN AS A CONDITION OF LEGAL MARRIAGE.
True, although there’s no need to shout. Your statement, “marriage does not have anything to do with children,” is still untrue.
Adam eve steve
You are claiming a position–that marriage is about children.
Please provide proof in the form of legal pronouncements within the US that have the rule of law that states that the ability to enter into a legal marriage is predicated on the ability and willingness of the parties to produce children.
Unless you can provide this citation I will assume the conversation is over.
Exactly how is a public school teaching tolerance any different
It’s not teaching tolerance.
SB 48 now requires schools to add instruction about the role and contribution of transgenders and homosexuals historically. It regulates the content of K-12 classroom instruction.
SB 48 requires all public schools to include positive discussions of the sexual preferences of transgender, bisexual, and gay Americans in all social science courses. Nothing can “reflect adversely” on these lifestyles.
Public schools must now supplement current instruction with pro-transgender, bisexual and homosexual materials.
SB 48 added transgenders and homosexuals to a list in the law that had read, “black Americans, American Indians,
Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people, and other ethnic groups.”
SB 48 forces teachers and administrators to enter into the divisive debate over sexual preference and morality and to portray only one side of that debate. They are being asked not to teach tolerance but to advocate.
Students are taught to admire transgenders and homosexuals, in all grades from K-12.
The decision of who to include in history books is no longer left to academics, and is no longer based exclusively on their worthiness of inclusion — it is now based also on what gender they had sex with, or on whether they were crazy enough to have their healthy breasts or penises cut off.
It provides, “A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon” them.
The LA Times (which is 200% in favor of SSM) published an editorial condemning the politicians’ attempts to write the textbooks, but the pols knew where their campaign contributions were coming from, and figured Joe Plumber was sleeping. He was.
“SB 48 forces teachers and administrators to enter into the divisive debate over sexual preference and morality and to portray only one side of that debate. They are being asked not to teach tolerance but to advocate.”
You jump from nothing can be “reflect adversely” to the statement that teachers are being forced to advocate.
No evidence of this at all.
You jump from nothing can be “reflect adversely” to the statement that teachers are being forced to advocate.
No evidence of this at all.
SB 48 was special interest group legislation at its worst.
The change to the law was made for no other reason than to have teachers cast psychotic transgenders and homosexuals in a positive light — in the eyes and ears of impressionable K-12 children — in public schools!
Tchaikovsky may or may not belong in history books because of his great compositions, but not because he had anal sex with other men. His sexual preference is irrelevant, and not a reason to include him in K-12 instruction.
What if a Nazi lobby bribed politicians to get themselves added to the list (that was formerly only of ethnicities)? Then teachers would have to teach that they made the trains run on time?
Cminca, I would like to address 2 of your statements.
“Animals—Animals cannot enter into a contract for the same reason a child can’t.”
Dear Senator Blah Blah,
I would like to marry a sheep I am particularly fond of. I am madly in love and I know she loves me the way we are together. The Futuretown, Massachusettes zoo is willing to let me have the use of their sheep, Bambi, but only if I marry her. I will pay a small fee to the zoo and they agree to the union. I will gladly waiver my rights to any benefits from this union if this would be a problem, I am just so in love and know that I was born that way.
“Polygamy—Marriage defines who may speak for you when you can’t speak for yourself. Case in point—Terri Schaivo. The court ruled that the husband spoke for Terri, not her parents. Even over the objections of good Catholic Rick Santorum. Polygamy muddies the water. Who has primacy? The first spouse? The last spouse? Do they have to all agree? The state has an interest in maintaining marriage as a two party contract.”
When I lived in West Africa I knew polygamous families The first wife ran the house and had priority in matters defined by tribal custom. Not a problem.
Howard–
Since the sheep cannot give informed consent the contract cannot be legal. Period.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Since we are not in West Africa the tribal customs there don’t affect our laws. And they didn’t when the US outlawed polygamy. And they won’t in the future.
Is that so difficult to understand?
The reason that DOMA and Prop 8 have shot down by two federal courts is because there isn’t a CONSTITUTIONAL reason to uphold them.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Cminca, you are just an Ovinaphobic bigot who wants to deny me my rights. The contract would be between me and the owner of Bambi. She is the owners property and will be contracted out, very common in law.
Your claim was that, “Polygamy muddies the water. Who has primacy?” My answer was to give you an example of a way what would work.
I am not sure how just saying “period” can prevent an opposing view from being heard.
apparently Howard really wants to marry this sheep. Can we please make an acception for him so that his sheep can sign the legal document and consent to marriage? Plllleeeeeeaaassseeeee
Alan, thank you for your support. I have a friend who wants to marry a car, can you also help us with convincing your friends that is as valid as any marriage if love is involved.
Howard–
If your contract is with Bambi’s owner than you are leasing Bambi. Not legally marrying her in the eyes of the state. Because, as I stated, she is not capable of giving informed consent.
Marriage is not a lease agreement. They are different contracts.
Even if you bought her, you can’t marry her. Because she can’t give informed consent.
Now–you are free to enter into any religious rite that you want. But even if the officiant is lisenced to perform legal marriages you still won’t be married because, in the eyes of the state, the sheep cannot give informed consent.
See how that works?
We don’t run our country by tribal law. We run it according to the US Constitution and Amendments to that constitution.
You proposed two hypotheticals. I discredited them. Sorry if you don’t like the fact that my arguements better yours.
Alan–
I wouldn’t be surprised if Howard couldn’t find a religous group to “marry” him to the sheep, or for his friend to marry a car–
Especially if enough money exchanged hands.
They just wouldn’t be legally married in the eyes of the state.
So Cminca, “Not legally marrying her in the eyes of the state” would be an argument for existing law. Such as my state which has a constitutional amendment that declares marriage is between and man and a woman. Now are you telling me that when you try and change that one, you will deny me my rights to happiness by replacing it with “between only organic life that is able to sign a document.”? If you can propose a change in the law, why can’t I.
Howard–
Your state’s law against SSM will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Probably sooner than you think.
Your arguement doen’t hold water because one of the fundamental aspects of a valid contract–any contract–is that the parties are deemed to be capable of entering into them.
Your arguement isn’t attempting to change the definition of marriage. Your arguement is attempting to change the definition of a valid contract. Entirely different subjects.
SSM doen’t change the definition of contract. It doesn’t change the definition of the marriage as a contract.
Cminca, “Your argument isn’t attempting to change the definition of marriage”. I disagree and I am sure that the real proponents of this would have more imagination that you. I would propose a change that accepts in lieu of consent of the married party a contract for her services would be sufficient, since she has no legal standing to object.
Why fight it so hard, isn’t love enough? Are you just being intolerant of a smaller minority. Kind of like a bully.
“I would propose a change that accepts in lieu of consent of the married party a contract for her services would be sufficient, since she has no legal standing to object.”
Congrats–you’ve just attempted to defined white slavery as marriage. And white slavery is illegal.
And since you cannot write a legal contract with an illegal outcome–your attempt to define this as a marriage is also invalid.
Sorry Howard–but until you learn of fundamentals of contracts you’re not in a position to argue this.
The reason that DOMA and Prop 8 have shot down by two federal courts is because there isn’t a CONSTITUTIONAL reason to uphold them.
Prop 8 was (temporarily) shot down because the most liberal judge in the nation’s most liberal federal court of appeals said we took away a right that homosexuals had, since the CA “supremes” refused to stay their ruling until after the Prop 8 vote (even though Prop 8 was already on the ballot).
The two-judge majority opinion didn’t agree with the homosexual district court judge’s opinion that there was a CONSTITUTIONAL right to homosexual so-called “marriage”.
It’ll be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Cminca, I have had some education in contract law although I am not a lawyer. Since the subject of my contract is an animal it can’t be any kind of slavery. Contracts can exist between an entity and a person. Nice try, but as we hammer out the details we only give food for thought to the group which you seem to object to so much. All they want is to satisfy their love in their way and be recognized by society as legitimate.
Howard–
Let me try and make this as clear as possible.
No–an animal cannot be considered a slave. But your definition of the change to the marriage contract would, in effect, legalize white slavery.
Which means that your attempt to change the marriage contract would not be legal.
Yes, there is such a thing as a contract between a legal entity and a person. But it isn’t a MARRIAGE contract.
When the sheep can show up at the license bureau and give informed consent then it can be married.
Got it?
Cnimca, now you quibble. The concept is possible and as with all legislation must be carefully drafted. The point I think you see is that without more to the definition of marriage than 2 people who love each other, any kind of marriage is possible.
No Howard, I’m not quibbling.
I have stated consistently that one of the legal requirements of a contract–and a marriage contract–is that the parties are legally able to enter into said contract.
Your sheep is, by definition, unable to be a legal party to the contract.
Period.
You keep coming back with variations on nonsense–which I’ve proven are NOT legal. Not under any form of contract.
You can spout nonsense until the cows come home. You can say it over and over. You can get millions of people to agree with you.
It still doesn’t make you right. Because your premise is fundamentally flawed.
A sheep cannot now enter into any contract. Because it cannot be a legal party to a contract. And until we teach sheep to write or speak–they won’t be able to enter into a contract legally.
So your hypothetical is nonsense. Now, and until sheep write or speak.
Got it?
cminca, why are you so mad?
Cminca, Massachusetts law on a minor not able to contract but able to marry.
Section 25. The probate court for the county where, or a district court within the judicial district of which, a minor under the age specified in the preceding section resides may, after hearing, make an order allowing the marriage of such minor, if the parents or surviving parent of such minor, or, if only one such parent resides in the commonwealth, that parent, or, if neither such parent is alive and resident thereof, or if the parent or parents qualified as aforesaid to consent are disqualified as hereinafter provided, a legal guardian with custody of the person of such minor has consented to such order.
Howard
Tell you what–when you bring the sheep’s mother in to speak or write in front of the licensing bureau I’ll see your side of it.
Seeing is that is about as likely as the sheep giving consent–I’ll call it what it is:
NONSENSE
Howard
In case you were refering to that in relation to SSM suddenly opening up the floodgates of same sex adult/child marriages–
We would, of course, have to rely on the child’s parents and what they believed was in the best interest of the child. While I personally feel no minor should be allowed to marry–if that law is on the books for hetrosexual marriage, it must be applicable to same sex marriage.
Now–is there currently a flood of children marrying adults in MA? I don’t think so. Is there any reason to believe that there would suddenly be a flood of parents giving their children up to SS marriages? No.
If you would like to argue that it is time that we protect young girls from old men–especially in the west and on LDS compounds–I will be happy to work with you.
cminca,
Stop taking advantage of Howard’s mistake to out him, no matter how much you hate him for having an opposing viewpoint you can’t tolerate.
It’s obvious to everyone what you’re doing.
Adam, I just returned to the conversation, what mistake and outing are you referring to?
Just in case there is misunderstanding out there. My rebuttal to cminca is based on not my views, maybe unasked, but speaking for real people as here. The making fun between Alan and Cminca is very revealing .
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
I have nothing against these people, I don’t hate them I don’t even know them, but will also speak to deny them marriage. What may be forgotten is that there are millions of people who simply love their pets having nothing to do with sex. I don’t see how they could justifiably be discriminated against if marriage is opened up using such a narrow definition as is proposed now.
All of my comments were of course speaking of future lawmaking not that any of could possibly work today. The attempt to rebut by insisting on arguing using today’s law is simply dishonest. When I was a young man if I had said that two men could marry or should be allowed to marry, the response would have been NONSENSE that could not happen in a million years! Cminca is simply wrong about the future.
Howard,
You are, to begin with, misquoting the article.
It doesn’t claim that they are, or that they claim to be, a subset of the LGBT community.
The article states that they are comparing themselves to the gay community of the 1950s and saying they could learn from the gay rights movement.
And once again–an animal cannot give informed consent.
Cminca, I never claimed anything like being a part of, subset of or any other crazy musings of yours. I am convinced though that you are an idiot who did not actually read this article and cannot understand the written word here or there!
“As this group gains confidence, zoophiles figure to be more open and then more outspoken in their demands for personal liberty and against discrimination. Improbable as it may seem, zoophiles might yet prove the new frontier in the battle for sexual civil rights.”
“This is not a fetish,” James says of his attractions. “It’s an orientation, a lifestyle.”
“Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover. It’s the fictionalized account of a love affair he had with a dolphin”
“the dolphin had died, probably from the stress of moving from her former park to the new one in Mississippi. The news threw Brenner into a depression that lasted five years. Ruby, he’s certain, was the love of his life.”
“Miletski concluded the single explanation for the behavior was the conscious one that zoophiles offered: It was an orientation they were born with.”
“”They really loved their animals,” she said of the research subjects. “To the point that some want to marry them and treat them as spouses.”
Adam and Howard,
Your bitterness is amazing.
The way you treat Cminca is disgusting.
Ive told Howard he should turn the mirror on himself, well you should do the same.
Alan–
Doesn’t surprise me at all. I’d say it is fairly typical of the tone on this website against anyone who disagrees with them.
Howard and Adam,
I think I need to add a sixth stage to my evolution.
Confident.
They have no good arguments, and the more you consider what they are saying, the more obvious it is. As Adam pointed out somewhere up there, the activists are a very small (but loud) minority.
Thanks for carrying on the conversation. We are in the middle of a MAJOR move, and I’m typing from an iPad while surrounded by boxes.
Lets look at the “good” arguments.
My religion say so. (really can’t say god because there are religions that worship the same god and think it’s ok)
It has always been that way.
Yup those are really two good arguments.
Good luck on the move, moved last year and it was a pain, I can only imagine what it is like with 7 kids.
I think it is incumbent upon people that want change to make arguments to persuade people that the status quo should be changed.
By the way, screaming BIGOT! isn’t an argument.
Stacy–
Your confidence is clearly fake bravado. You haven’t really addressed anything in anyone of my posts.
All Howard is offered is repeat over and over that he wants to marry a sheep, when I’ve pointed out over and over that since the sheep can’t enter a legal contract the sheep can’t be legally married. No matter how much he tries to manipulate the hypothetical.
Adam just keeps saying the falsehoods that marriage is more than a legal contract and that it is about the kids.
But just like WMD–saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.
I do have one question for you, though–
Are you as confident about same sex marriage as you were about “Catholic Moms for Rick Santorum”?
You haven’t really addressed anything in anyone of my posts.
We’re still waiting for you to address whether, if marriage can be redefined (or “expanded”), it can be redefined again by eliminating other qualifications (like age and marital status).
Adam just keeps saying the falsehoods that marriage is more than a legal contract and that it is about the kids.
Your statement, “marriage does not have anything to do with children,” is deliberately blind to what marriage has to do with children.
That’s sad if all marriage is to you is a contractual arrangement, even if your convenient blindness is strategic.
Adam–
I’ve already proven that there is no danger of marrying buildings, or children, or polygamy.
I did it in my original posts.
I also proved, over and over, that it doesn’t have anything to do with children.
Just a reminder–you told me to lighten up whan I asked you for a citation. Which you cannot produce.
I’ve already proven that there is no danger of marrying buildings,
I think the point is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that you can’t marry the pet you love, the tree you hug, or your imaginary friend.
or children,
The age could be lowered. You can’t just “prove” it can’t be, by claiming that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. A lot of countries allow marriages at younger than 18.
or polygamy.
All you did was ask a few questions that I asked you to explain. You didn’t.
I also proved, over and over, that it doesn’t have anything to do with children.
You haven’t proven this. Marriage has a lot to do with children, and always has.
Just a reminder–you told me to lighten up whan I asked you for a citation. Which you cannot produce.
Your question was a leading one that didn’t establish that “marriage does not have anything to do with children.”
Do you always just declare that you’ve proven things?
As Adam pointed out somewhere up there, the activists are a very small (but loud) minority.
What gets to me is that, despite all the haranguing, most gays don’t want to marry a member of the same sex.
“Most gays are not interested in marriage. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, there have been only 5,000 among the state’s 130,000 gay men.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-marriage-letter-20120423,0,2538700.story
If they don’t want to redefine marriage to get a same-sex “marriage”, then why?
August 21, 2012
Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage
by Bruce Hausknecht
If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?
That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims. [...] And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification. Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of “standing,” which boils down to whether the challenger has really been “injured” in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.
The polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case, but against the backdrop of several marriage-related cases that have already been appealed to (but not yet been accepted by) the Supreme Court. The upcoming term, starting on the first Monday in October, has the potential to be a marriage blockbuster. We’re waiting to hear if the high court will accept any of the following: the Hollingsworth v. Perry case (the California Marriage Amendment, a/k/a Prop 8), the federal Defense of Marriage Act appeals from the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits, and the Arizona state employee domestic partner benefit case entitled Brewer v. Diaz.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/21/polygamy-waiting-in-the-wings-while-supreme-court-addresses-the-definition-of-marriage/
cminca,
Could you respond to this?
http://nambla.org/faq.html
Please read the FAQ’s before responding.
Thanks!
why must nambla always be brought into this. All gay men are not nambla, nor do they agree with them. It’s like say all religious agree with al queda.
And Stacy says we have no good arguements. Geesh
Alanl, do you agree with the law denying boys the right to marry the men they love?
Is it possible that they were born with this “sexual orientation,” on account of a gene, and therefore should be added to anti-discrimination laws with lists of races, national origins, genders, and ethnicities?
Adam responded to before, actually every time nambla is brought up.
I agree with an age of consent, I agree with an age to enter into a legal contract (because that is what marriage is)
I believe that those that have sexual relations with humans of a certain age do harm to those persons. I believe that it is the harm to those that is more important than anything else.
oh and I believe that age should be no lower than 18 (not like a certain other blogger who told me teen marriage was ok and once a girl starts menstruating she is technically old enough for marriage cuz she can have kids)
I agree with an age of consent,
Even though it discriminates against children?
I agree with an age to enter into a legal contract (because that is what marriage is)
Marriage is more than just a legal contract.
I believe that those that have sexual relations with humans of a certain age do harm to those persons. I believe that it is the harm to those that is more important than anything else.
So Harvey Milk did harm to his 16-year-old lover, Jack McKinley?
If that is more important than anything else, why did the homosexual special rights lobby successfully get the politicians in Sacramento to declare a state Harvey Milk Day, to be celebrated in schools? Schools are encouraged to teach students about this sexual predator, using schools to indoctrinate children?
It seems there must be something that is more important to homosexual special rights advocates, than the harm adults do to the children they rape.
I guess those campaign contributions (bribery) must really mean a lot to politicians.
I believe that age should be no lower than 18 (not like a certain other blogger who told me teen marriage was ok and once a girl starts menstruating she is technically old enough for marriage cuz she can have kids)
You agree with discriminating against teenagers that are under 18, denying them the right to marry the people they love?
They can get engaged, and be fiancées/fiancés, but separate is not equal. Why do you want to deny them their human, constitutional and civil rights to marry?
Have you hated teenagers long? Why are you a bigot? Your teenagephobia is showing. What are you afraid of?
Why do you want the law to restrict who teenagers can love? They just want what adults want, commitment and stable families.
There’s no difference between how well children raised by teenagers, and children raised by adults, turn out — in fact, children raised by teenagers may do better. Didn’t you read that steady done by Seventeen Magazine, of teenagers found in teenage rights bookshops? Pay no attention to that other study that relies on a large, random, and representative sample. It’s flawed. Besides, large, random, and representative samples are overrated.
How would teenage marriage affect your marriage?
Stacy–
You scream bloody murder anytime anyone tries to paint the entire catholic church with the pedophile priests, yet immediately bring up NAMBLA when you can’t address serious and thought out arguements that refute your position.
Sorry–I’m not going to dignify your attachment with a response.
But nice try.
Now–How about you address my refuting each and every one of your objections–starting with the soriority sisters?
Adam,
Our society defines 18 as the age of majority for pretty much everything except drinking.
I have no problem in indentifying it as the age someone can enter into a legal contract of any kind. Including marriage.
You scream bloody murder anytime anyone tries to paint the entire catholic church with the pedophile priests, yet immediately bring up NAMBLA
SSM advocates reject the opposite sex qualification of marrying.
Marriage supoorters ask, if marriage can be redefined, why can’t others like polygamists get it redefined again.
The relevance of NAMBLA’s FAQs is that they oppose age-of-consent laws, another qualification for marrying, so they’re on topic. Priests aren’t opposing a qualification for marrying, or trying to get marriage redefined (or “expanded”).
I have no problem in indentifying [18] as the age someone can enter into a legal contract of any kind. Including marriage.
Your frequent repetition that marriage is nothing more than a “legal contract” is willfully blind to what makes marriage so much more.
When’s the last time you heard Suzie exclaim, “Billy proposed to me and where’s going to contract!”
Now you’re using your misleading characterization of all marriage supposedly amounts to, to completely avoid the issue we’re discussing?
when you can’t address serious and thought out arguements that refute your position.
Adam,
My point, which I am sure are willfully disregarding, is that Stacy is using a fringe group part of the LGBT community to paint the entire community. She objects strongly to a (supposedly) fringe group of the catholic priesthood being used to paint the entire priesthood.
Therefore–her use of the NAMBA article is diversion–not a reall arguement.
But–I find it interesting when Howard and you don’t seem to have a problem lowering the age of consent for hetrosexual couples but somehow find NAMBA too horrible to contemplate? Wouldn’t that be considered hypocritical?
Changing the age of consent laws–whether for hetrosexual of homosexual relations–is entirely different that allowing consenting adult homosexual couples the same legal rights and privledges as consenting adult hetrosexual couples.
“But–I find it interesting when Howard and you don’t seem to have a problem lowering the age of consent for hetrosexual couples”
Where do you come up with this crap! Are you sure you have a grip on sanity?
Howard,
It’s funny how you think only those that oppose to you are bad and wrong.
Are you really an adult?
“It’s funny how you think only those that oppose to you are bad and wrong.”
Alan, It is impossible for anyone to think that a person opposed to them is right, that is what opposition is. Do you mean “bad” as in “Go to your room Alan”.
Howard,
I can be opposed to your opinions without thinking them wrong. They are right for you, but that doesn’t make them right for all. You believe what you are lead to belieive, why would I say they are wrong.
As far as “bad” (and your apparent tendency to equate me with a child) many of your comments have made your true feelings towards homosexuals very apparent (especially the one about a few getting too close) so certainly not going to engage in a debate about meanings of words and the choice to use them.
“I can be opposed to your opinions without thinking them wrong. They are right for you, but that doesn’t make them right for all.”
Alan, you are speaking nonsense. Why would anyone be in opposition to another person’s statements if they agreed with that person? What could you say that would be honest? Why are you even contradicting me if you don’t think I am wrong? When you correct me you are appealing to a higher truth, one that you hope I will see, an absolute truth that affects everyone. Actions are unique to each person, not truth.
Howard, your beliefs are your beliefs. It is not up to me to tell you that they are wrong, so I wont tell you that you are wrong.
You can find it nonsense, I don’t really care what you think.
So while I disagree with you as stated it is not up to me to tell you you are wrong. What I can tell you, have told you , is that you don’t get to tell me how to live based on your beliefs. That is wrong.
I know this wont make sense, mostly because you don’t want it to (sort of like Stacy saying we have no good arguements, it’s not that we don’t have good arguments, it’s just that you she doesn’t want to see them)
I don’t feel the need to explain myself any further to you. Maybe you should open your mind, read what people are saying and you will get it.
it’s not that we don’t have good arguments, it’s just that you she doesn’t want to see them.
Or that she believes y’all don’t have good arguments.
Maybe you should open your mind
Maybe you should open yours. I haven’t seen you writing that the people you’re debating have made good points.
You were so busy writing that Regnerus’ study was flawed, you never recognized what its contributions were.
Adam,
As stated, Stacy (and of course you) wont see others good points. For me there is not debate.
I have said on different occasions that people indeed have good points. But again you would not see that as you are blind to it.
I have mentioned much more than Regnerus flawed study, but you seem to be the one harping on it. But as you brought it up, I see you think the study shows gays should not adopt. I will extrapolate that this means you also think single folks should not be allowed to adopt and that children should only be raised by their biological parents in a committed relationship. If you don’t believe any of this then you really still haven’t read the study.
“your beliefs are your beliefs. It is not up to me to tell you that they are wrong”
Alan, if you will look at the top of the page you will realize that you are on another person’s blog and on that blog is an essay that states a position about homosexual marriage. You decided to submit posts in OPPOSITION to that opinion, now it seems, you are telling me I cannot argue in support of that position because it is what you want.
“I don’t really care what you think. So while I disagree with you as stated it is not up to me to tell you you are wrong”
It seems that you have been doing nothing else but telling most everyone they are wrong for months. If you feel you are misunderstood, it is up to you to explain better.
I see you think the study shows gays should not adopt.
No, I wrote that “studies” reinforce what I’ve always believed. One was actually one that homosexual special rights advocates were using to promote their agenda.
March 6, 2012
Studies: Children Raised by Lesbians Not Problem-Free
by Karla Dial
Over the last few years, a few published studies have claimed that children raised by same-sex couples compare favorably to — and sometimes even better than — children raised by moms and dads on measures of self-esteem and academics.
Those studies, in turn, have served as fodder for a media campaign that two loving parents are all children really need.
But a closer look at the research, says Glenn T. Stanton, Focus on the Family’s director of family formation studies, shows there are quite a few problems associated with those studies — both in the way they were conducted and in what they reveal.
According to a study published late last year in the Archive of Sexual Behavior, girls raised by lesbian mothers are seven times more likely to consider a same-sex encounter, and twice as likely to identify as lesbian or bisexual than those raised by heterosexual parents. They are also seven times more likely to use “the ‘morning after’ pill.
“We already know that girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to be sexually adventurous, and it has a lot to do with being fatherless,” Stanton explained. “Two lesbians can be the most loving moms in the world, but they can’t give a girl the kind of positive attention and other-gendered affirmation she needs from a dad.”
While girls raised by lesbians tend to be much more sexually experimental than their peers, boys tend to be more sexually reticent.
“Boys without male role models tend to be either overly super-macho, trying to see how many girls they can get, or wallflowers,” Stanton said. “They’re not necessarily more sexually virtuous than boys raised by heterosexual parents, but they haven’t developed emotionally and psychologically in the same ways. It’s not that they don’t want to go in the water — they’re not inclined to go anywhere near the water.”
Overall, the research shows that 64 percent of children raised in lesbian households consider having homosexual relationships, compared to 17 percent raised by heterosexual parents.
The data was drawn from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study — the longest, largest study of same-sex families conducted so far. Though articles based on it have been published in several academic journals, Stanton said the methodology used wouldn’t be accepted for a less politically charged issue.
The 84 lesbian families — a statistically insignificant sample size — were recruited exclusively from San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. All were seeking pregnancy (or were already pregnant) through artificial insemination, and learned about the study from announcements at lesbian-oriented events, newspapers and bookstores; 38 percent belonged to gay activist organizations and 80 percent said if given a choice, they’d want to be lesbians.
“These women know they’re participating in something that’s really important for their movement,” Stanton said, pointing out the study’s 97 percent retention rate — extremely rare in scientific circles. “Joe Sixpack could discern the problems with this study, but good journalists tend to put their critical thinking skills to bed on this issue because they don’t want the backlash that will come down on them if they ask critical questions.”
I have said on different occasions that people indeed have good points.
Perhaps you will point one of those occasions out.
I have mentioned much more than Regnerus flawed study,
[lol] You can’t even write “the Regnerus study,” without throwing in the word “flawed”. You must be very threatened by the study. What do you think of the Marks study?
I will extrapolate that this means you also think single folks should not be allowed to adopt
I didn’t even know they could.
Keep in mind, the Regnerus study exported the “no differences” thesis, and destroyed it.
AP Poll: Only 40% of Americans Support SSM
The AP:
President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage did little to shift the nation’s views on the subject, with a new poll finding that the public remains evenly split on the issue.
…The poll found that 42 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, 40 percent support it and 15 percent are neutral. Last August, the country was similarly divided over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to be legally married in their state, with 45 percent opposing, 42 percent favoring and 10 percent neutral.
… posing a potential problem for the president, his announcement also fired up the right — against him. More Republicans and conservatives said they strongly disapproved of his handling of the issue now than before; 53 percent of Republicans said that, compared with 45 percent in August, and 52 percent of conservatives say as much now, up from 43 percent back then.
The issue could compel them to turn out in droves to vote against Obama.
and only 42 percent disapprove.
Polls consistently underestimate opposition to SSM, and overestimate support for it.
For example, the last poll — just before North Carolinians amended their Constitution — indicated that 55% were going to vote for it. 61.04% did.
Adam. whateve you say. I am sure you are right
Adam–
You questioned what I’m so mad about. I wasn’t going to respond, but I’ve changed my mind.
America is based on the premise of equality under the law. It is the bedrock of our society. And it must be protected against any and all attempts to pervert that equality.
One of the points of our three branched government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The idea that one population can vote on the rights of another population disgusts me. The idea that Americans would think this is appropriate disgusts me even more.
I’m a native born citizen. None of my ancestors arrived here after the year 1700. My family helped FUND the revolutionary war. (Not just faught–we also helped foot the bill). I have always paid my taxes. Never received public assistance.
But because I’m gay I don’t have equal rights under the law.
In some states I could lose my apartment for being gay. In some states I could lose my job for being gay. Until recently I couldn’t have served in the military. (Except, of course, we did when the army needed cannon fodder.) In some states I can’t adopt a child. Until recently I could be denied access to my partner’s hospital room.
It would cost me and a partner hundreds of thousands of dollars to put into place the legal protections that a married couple takes for granted.
We aren’t asking for special rights. We are asking that the rights that have been denied us be afforded us. We are asking for equality under the law just like any other American.
And don’t trot out the “you are free to marry someone of the opposite sex”. That is just the same as saying “you are free to marry someone of the same skin color” pre Loving vs. Virginia.
(And yes–sexual attraction is an immutable characteristic. Just like handedness. So don’t try that excuse either.)
So–back to the original point. You want to know why I’m angry?
The question is–why the HELL aren’t you?
(And Stacy–before you tell me that God is more important than the state–let me just say if that is your belief why don’t you move to a catholic theocracy somewhere?)
Had work to do on line yesterday and did not get read much of what was going on and trying to play catch-up today.
cminca, you addressed Stacy with: “You scream bloody murder anytime anyone tries to paint the entire catholic church with the pedophile priests.” hate to bust your bubble but this affects only less than 1% of priest world wide, the number is much higher for people in public education, and the Protestant Churches have a higher number of child abusers than the Catholic Church.
Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm
almost every child abuse case that has been brought forth is anywhere from 20-40 years in the past, “The church has revealed that there have been 13,000 credible accusations against Catholic clerics since 1950. (that comes to aprox 217 a year compared to 260 for Protestant churches)
“One of the points of our three branched government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority” so anyone who does not support SSU or SSM is a tyrant – interesting, guess I’m a tyrant.
“The idea that one population can vote on the rights of another population disgusts me. The idea that Americans would think this is appropriate disgusts me even more.” because of what disgusts you is what makes the U.S. what it is, it keeps one person or group of people from dictating what all should do, if you look around the world you will still it being done in some countries. This right of the people which is in our Constitution and Bill of Rights and in every state Constitution lets the voice of the people decide which way the government or state will go. The majority of the states have in their consitituions, either written in from the beginning or addd as an amendment through vote, define marriage as between one man and one woman, don’t place the blame on the Church for your not being able to get hitched. Unfortuninately in some states it has been the ruling party who have decided, as in Wash. state but now the people have gotten an amendment on this Nov election ballot and the people will decide if the State of Washington will acknowledge SSU or SSM and many pray that some gay judge will not overturn it as we saw happen in Cal.
“In some states I could lose my apartment for being gay. In some states I could lose my job for being gay.” Both these statements are false as the U.S. congress has passed discrimination laws to protect you from this, it should happen you would have the right to challenge the offender on it.
“I couldn’t have served in the military.” Again untrue, the military has always been open to gays to enlist, and it was under Pres Clinton that the DADT law was passed to protect gays in the military. There was not near the harrassment of gays that the media and congress lead us to believe, most came from ‘unwanted advances from a gay person’ as was the reason my nephew was discharged from the Navy, he punched one out for grabing his genetals, and will admit I broke one’s hands after telling him if he ever grabed me again I would break it, the second time he grabed me he did not see the 8″ pipe wrench in my hand, but his hand felt it.
“Until recently I could be denied access to my partner’s hospital room.” In many states that do not recognize SSU or SSM you will still be denied – take it up with the state.
“We aren’t asking for special rights. We are asking that the rights that have been denied us be afforded us. We are asking for equality under the law just like any other American.” You are given these rights in every state that has passed SSU and SSM laws, if you don’t have it where you live, there are 9 states that will welcome you with open arms.
America is based on the premise of equality under the law.
I didn’t know America was “based” on something, although I know it was founded in opposition to tyranny.
It is the bedrock of our society.
I would say family is more of a bedrock of our society.
And it must be protected against any and all attempts to pervert that equality.
You might say I can marry a member of the opposite sex, and that you can’t marry your same-sex loved one, so things aren’t equal.
I would say that you can marry a member of the opposite sex, so things are equal. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so you can’t marry your same-sex loved one. My desire to marry my opposite sex loved one isn’t “equal” to your desire to marry your same-sex loved one, because I want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and you want to marry someone of the same sex.
Some things just aren’t “equal”, and sometimes it’s okay to treat different things differently.
The Equal Rights Amendment failed, you know. Men and women are different. That difference causes children, and that gave rise to marriage. In the absence of children, it was no great tragedy if men and women didn’t stay together. Children change everything in that calculus. If men and women divorce, after having had children, everything becomes about the best interests of the children.
One of the points of our three branched government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
The point of our three branched government is so that checks and balances between the different branches will keep one branch from becoming tyrannical.
The idea that one population can vote on the rights of another population disgusts me.
Homosexuals have a right to live as they choose. They don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. The lack of that right doesn’t mean they’re being tyrannized.
The idea that Americans would think this is appropriate disgusts me even more.
You mean like the SSM advocates that put SSM on the ballot in Maine.
because I’m gay I don’t have equal rights under the law. In some states I could lose my apartment for being gay. In some states I could lose my job for being gay.
Why should people that choose to have sex with members of the same gender be entitled to special anti-discrimination laws?
Until recently I couldn’t have served in the military.
Heterosexuals don’t want to share a barracks rooms with a homosexual. Do you blame them? I don’t want a homosexual in my bedroom.
In some states I can’t adopt a child.
Just Mississippi. That’s unfortunate, now that studies are beginning to show what we knew all along.
Until recently I could be denied access to my partner’s hospital room.
I’m glad to hear that’s been fixed. Now we don’t need to redefine marriage.
It would cost me and a partner hundreds of thousands of dollars to put into place the legal protections that a married couple takes for granted.
What legal protections?
We aren’t asking for special rights.
Of course you are.
We are asking that the rights that have been denied us be afforded us.
Like what? You just wrote that you can’t be denied access to your partner’s hospital room, and you’re not even married! (a special right)
“Rights” that aren’t rights?
And don’t trot out the “you are free to marry someone of the opposite sex”.
You are.
That is just the same as saying “you are free to marry someone of the same skin color” pre Loving vs. Virginia.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.
Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.
(And yes–sexual attraction is an immutable characteristic.
No it isn’t. I watched my friend break up with his girlfriend and switch to men. He pointed to his former girlfriend. He said his heart and been “stomped on, tromped on.”
Just like handedness.
Handedness is genetic.
So don’t try that excuse either.
Does that work, writing people not to write things? You do it often.
So–back to the original point. You want to know why I’m angry?
Because you wrap yourself in the American flag and everybody doesn’t see things your way?
The question is–why the HELL aren’t you?
You play the victim card well, but given SB 48, Harvey Milk Day, another law that was passed to redefine gender, and homosexual successes in getting marriage redefined in six states — by bribed legislators or by judicial fiat — I’m not going to feel sympathy for you. Heterosexuals that agree to the redefinition think they’re being sympathetic toward those poor, mistreated homosexuals — and think they’re taking the opinion of the good person.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100157478/the-bile-being-spat-at-the-people-of-north-carolina-exposes-the-ugly-elitism-of-the-gay-marriage-lobby/
Y’all got “sexual preference” changed to “sexual orientation,” declared it immutable — based on the same kind of junk science used to push the “no differences” claim. Now you’re getting it written into hate speech law, bullying law, anti-discrimination law, etc. — in lists right alongside people that are defined by what they are (African-American, Mexican, women), rather than by what they do (homosexuals).
(And Stacy–before you tell me that God is more important than the state–let me just say if that is your belief why don’t you move to a catholic theocracy somewhere?)
Why don’t you move to a country where homosexual so-called “marriage” is legal?
cminca,
Do you realize that the “equality” you demand is the same thing the NAMBLA people are demanding?
Stacy do you realize the religious rights you claim can also be claimed by muslims and al queda?
Cminca: You may want to contact “Edward” who started commenting about a year ago to get your numbers straight (no pun intended): he cited thousands of dollars for legal fees — a full magnitude less than what you have cited. Perhaps you can get a group discount; I’d suggest using the savings you realize from the discount be spent on a few good history books.
Did you know you can be evicted from an apartment for storing Limburger cheese on the counter? Did you know that you can lose a job because you’re a jerk? When, oh when, will the State legally protect limburger-cheese-loving-jerks?
wow Richard nice to know that violence runs in your familly. Big man needing an 8″ pipe to show a gay.
Yes any unwanted sexual advances are wrong. Violence is definitely the answer.
Niave of you to blame the gays for the harrassment they receive in the military. I won’t be like Adam and post articles about harrassment of gays in the military, but if you don’t think it is there, or simply think it is the fault of the homosexual, well then you just truly are ignorant.
And yes we could move to the one of the 9 states that recognize SSU/SSM. Or we can fight for marriage rights in all states. You can also move to a country that is more in line with your way of thinking. Doesn’t that sound fun?
alanl64 wrote, “Violence is definitely the answer.”
What about when it’s right in front of the media?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcKJEHrvwDI
This video fits well with it aspect it is OK to go after those who oppose SSM or SSU, but on the other hand I’m acused of being violent while being groped for hitting the persons hand.
In the same manner I was saddened just a while ago when reading an article of two lesbian teens who were shot, one killed the other in critical condition, over the weekend down in Texas during ‘pride week’. It is still being investigated by the police looking for a third party. I do not accpet these acts of violence against other people no matter their sexual preference, but there is a difference between outright killing a person and protecting oneself from unwanted sexual advances, groping is considered a unwanted sexual advance.
Adam, no violence is not right in any instance. Did you see the video of the Mormons ripping down the gay rights protestors signs? Seems about as violent as the cross being ripped away from that woman.
Richard, yes one has the right to protect oneself from unwanted groping. It just appeared to me that you were proud of the the fact you broke his hand. Didn’t you say something about “him not seeing the 8″ pipe”?
alanl wrote, “Did you see the video of the Mormons ripping down the gay rights protestors signs?”
No, and that doesn’t sound like Mormons. Did they put the signs right in front of their church’s sign?
Or on their fence?
http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/templedefaced.jpg
These were signs painted on paper?
http://www.libertymusings.com/images/no-on-8-sm.jpg
Or directly on their church’s wall?
http://www.stopthemormons.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/biggot-spray-paint.jpg
Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng
I mentioned abuse in public education forgot to follow up.
The Associated Press found that sexual misconduct in public schools is widespread:
From 2001 through 2005, 2,500 educators had their teaching licenses revoked for sexual misconduct with a child (that is 625 a year)
http://www.schmidtlaw.com/public-school-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-lawyer/
From another report:
Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church
According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 “No Child Left Behind” act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml
From another article
THE REAL NEWS: CURRENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CATHOLIC PRIESTS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
FACT: Almost all accusations against Catholic priests date from decades ago, and indeed nearly half of all abuse accusations concern priests who are already dead. In an institution of 77 million people, contemporaneous accusations of abuse against Catholic clergy in the United States are very rare, recently averaging only 8.5 allegations deemed “credible” each year.
THE STORY THE MEDIA WON’T REPORT: THE EPIDEMIC OF ABUSE AND COVER-UPS GOING ON TODAY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FACT: The incidence of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools today has been estimated to be “more than 100 times” that by Catholic priests, and there is alarming evidence of school officials covering up abuse and failing to report suspected cases to authorities. Yet the mainstream media has largely ignored this shocking story while still rehashing decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests.
http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
Calif. flaunting deviant lifestyles in upcoming parades:
Thomasson says the LGBT movement is demanding acceptance by “punishing” anyone who does not agree with the cause.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1620224
Thomasson says the LGBT movement is demanding acceptance by “punishing” anyone who does not agree with the cause.
Homosexuals, known for preaching tolerance, have become the most intolerant of all.
I wonder how much current bullying is due to youths hearing the complaining of parents that homosexuals are causing a lot of trouble. (Probably not much, huh?)
Obviously a lot of attacks on homosexual men is natural, for some strange reason. I’ve seen it happening on different continents for several decades. But I’m thinking that something else may crop up. Homosexuals will never admit it, because bullying is an excuse to get homosexuals added to anti-bullying statutes.
The most ironic thing is that the bullied are now becoming the bullies.
Given their tiny percentage of the population (1.7% – 4%), I wonder if this new turn of events is sustainable, or even in the homosexuals’ best interests.
How many parents, resentful at the outrages they’re seeing this special interest group perpetrate (e.g., using their influence over politicians to use the law to use public schools to indoctrinate children), will look the other way and decide not to tell their kids that attacking homosexuals — just because they’re homosexuals — is wrong?
Will people react to the homosexuals’ intimidation? I think some homosexuals think using intimidation is great.
It seems that cminca hates me, and thinks of Howard as an enemy to vanquish by any means necessary.
I’m wondering if there’ll be a backlash.
I’m homosexual. Hear me roar, until…
Maybe nothing will happen. People don’t attack lawyers.
>>
FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.
A Web site takes names and ZIP codes of donors supporting the measure and overlays data on a map.
Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.
The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, eightmaps.com.
The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure — information that California collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws — and overlays the data on a Google map.
Visitors can see markers indicating a contributor’s name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find the rest — like an e-mail or home address. The identity of the site’s creators, meanwhile, is unknown; they have maintained their anonymity.
. . . .
<<
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1DWVTJ_gBo
>>
Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom
7/9/2010 | Jodi Heckel
URBANA – An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.
Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.
Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John’s Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.
One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. . . .
<<
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free
Adam it’s funny because you deride the boycotting of business where the owners gave money to Prop 8 but then later put a website about dump General Mills. Well is boycotting ok or not?
I guess it is only ok if it’s on your side of the argument?
alanl wrote, “you deride the boycotting of business where the owners gave money to Prop 8″
I have never derided the boycotting of business — but since you have written that I have, perhaps you will quote me.
Adam, I guess I misunderstood your mention of the poor backers of Prop 8 and all the horrible things that had happened to them since their names were published. One of them even mentioned their business had been boycotted. Is that not acceptable?
alanl wrote, “Adam, I guess I misunderstood your mention of the poor backers of Prop 8 and all the horrible things that had happened to them since their names were published.”
I posted an article about a website that published the locations of Proposition 8 campaign donors — so that they could be attacked. That article included this: “… victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation. Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.”
This was written by the reporter, the mention of boycotting was a small part of the article — and only one type of what the article referred to as “intimidation” — but even the reporter didn’t “deride the boycotting of business.”
I’m still waiting for you to quote where I “deride[d] the boycotting of business” — or to admit that you, once again, wrote that I wrote something I never wrote.
you wrote: “or to admit that you, once again, wrote that I wrote something I never wrote.” How long can you hold your breath incase you have to hold it for a answer to your question.
Oh sorry Adam, you post articles that you don’t agree with, I forgot that. Yes the author wrote it, you used it, and included the boycott part. As far as I am concerned you derided the boycott of their business.
Richard, what?
I think you boys have a little too much time on your hands.
alanll wrote, “Oh sorry Adam, you post articles that you don’t agree with,”
It was an article, not an op ed. I don’t know what you’re saying I “agree” with. That the facts were as the journalist reported them? The New York Times has a very good reputation for fact checking.
Yes the author wrote it, you used it, and included the boycott part.
I published the beginning of the article, rather than the whole article (because that would have been a copyright violation). The mention of the boycott is in the third sentence.
As far as I am concerned
Can one preface a lie with, “as far as I am concerned,” and make it any more true?
you derided the boycott of their business.
Not even the journalist “derided” the boycotting of any business. Here is what he wrote:
There is no derision (contemptuous ridicule or mockery) of boycotting in the article.
And I certainly have not derided the boycotting of any business.
Fox News Psychiatry Expert: “I Hesitate to Write [About SS Parenting] Because Every Time I Do I Get Threats”
LifeSiteNews:
Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist who functions as a Fox News expert on the channel’s “Medical A-Team” says that he hesitates to write anything that might be considered objectionable to homosexual activists, due to the threats of violence he is likely to receive as a result.
In a recent Fox News interview with Ablow, the psychiatrist spoke about the recent New Family Structures Study (NFSS), which showed that children who were aware of same-sex sexual activity on the part of at least one of their parents were much more likely to have been sexually abused themselves and to suffer from depression, impaired relationships with others, and many other problems.
Observing that the study is the largest ever done on this subject, Ablow said that the disturbing results indicate “we’ve got to look more at it,” adding: “And it’s such a controversial thing, I’ve got to tell you, that I hesitate to write the blog [on the topic], because every time I do you know I get threats.”
“Well, we’ll get letters,” the Fox host answered.
“No, I get threats, I get threats!” responded Ablow. “People are going to come to my office, they’re going to burn down my house, it’s incredible.”
“In this politically-correct insane environment, citing data doesn’t seem to be compelling enough, because there’s a lot of hatred,” he added.
Click here to read Ablow’s blog entry and to see the video interview broadcast on Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjwcn3-wY0
Southern Baptists Nearly Unanimous: Gay Rights Not Civil Rights
The AP:
A day after electing their first African-American president in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, Southern Baptists passed a resolution opposing the idea that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.
Thousands of delegates at the denomination’s annual meeting in New Orleans on Wednesday were nearly unanimous in their support for the resolution that affirms their belief that marriage is “the exclusive union of one man and one woman” and that “all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful.”
The nation’s largest Protestant denomination is attempting to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional white Southern base. At the same time, leaders said they feel it is important to take a public stand on their opposition to same-sex marriage.
The resolution acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience “unique struggles” but declares that they lack the “distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections.”
“It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of `same-sex marriage’ have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement,” the resolution states.
Another resolution passed on Wednesday is intended to protect religious liberty. It includes a call for the U.S. Justice Department to cease efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Obama administration to ensure that military personnel and chaplains can freely express their religious convictions about homosexuality.
and this has any validity? Especially to those who are not baptist?
Dump General Mills
http://www.dumpgeneralmills.com/
Dump Starbucks
http://www.dumpstarbucks.com/
alanl – from your comment I guess I shoud of let that fellow continue to grope me after I had told him to keep his hands to himself, you might enjoy being groped, I don’t.I’m a peaceful fellow, that was the first and only time I have ever struck anyone. As for my nephew, engaged to a sweey young lady, does not like being groped either and had given a warning to the fellow before and also reported the incident to his CO.
I have a question; with several states laws have been passed by leglistative branches (not the people) supporting gay marriage and unions with exemptions for religious organizations, churches, and people who find such as immoral and on conscience will not preform the services, yet is these same states gays who wish to tie the not will go to such people (justice of the peace) or churches and when they are told no on moral grounds they sue the person or organizaton. In these cases, already having their ‘right’ it now turns into a demand.
What is happening here on a small scale is happening just to our north in Canada in full scale since the gov passed SSM laws for all of Canada in 2005.
“Hundreds of Canadians have faced legal proceedings for opposing same-sex ‘marriage’ in the public sphere following its introduction in 2005, it has been reported.
Within five years of marriage being redefined in Canada, an estimated two to three hundred cases have been brought against individuals, mostly Christians, who have opposed same-sex marriage in the public sphere. The proceedings have been brought at employment boards, courts, and human rights commissions.
A number of employees have been dismissed from their jobs because they have maintained a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage. Businesses have been sued, gone out of business, and churches have been threatened with sanctions over their religious beliefs.”
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/hundreds-of-canadians-face-legal-proceedings-for-opposing-same-sex-marriage
The gays in canada have been given the ‘right’ but it is not enough, they are demanding everyone bow and accept and this is just what is happening in the US. Gays have been given a right in some states, but are demanding it of every other state and all people. Sorry, not going to happen.
Richard, no one should be groped against their will, to that I will agree. And one has the right to protect themselves against it.
Was the man who was groping you bigger than you? Was he so threatening you needed to break his hand with the pipe? Or was it to teach him a lesson?
I don’t believe churches should have to perform same sex marriage, and I would fight to keep things that way.
But as far as business and individuals being allowed to discriminate, well no that should not be allowed.
As a gay man would it be acceptable of me to say to a christian, no I will not sell to you, I will not cater your wedding, I will not take your photographs, I will not rent a room to you because you and I don’t have the same beliefs?
Would that same christian say no to a muslim? A jewish person?
You write this:
”
The gays in canada have been given the ‘right’ but it is not enough, they are demanding everyone bow and accept and this is just what is happening in the US. Gays have been given a right in some states, but are demanding it of every other state and all people. Sorry, not going to happen”
It seems a little angry. Funny thing is you expect us to just follow what you want either for religion or because it “has always been that way”, heck wait you don’t expect it, you demand it. I have to bow to your religious rights? But we dare to ask for equality (and fight the use of this term all you want, however it is what this is about) and you make us to be the bad guys?
alanl wrote, “we dare to ask for equality (and fight the use of this term all you want, however it is what this is about)”
alanl, what is it that isn’t equal?
alanl wrote, “you expect us to just follow what you want either for religion or because it ‘has always been that way’, heck wait you don’t expect it, you demand it. I have to bow to your religious rights? But we dare to ask for equality”.
You’re saying that SSM advocates “ask” for equality, but marriage supporters “demand” you follow what we want?
I don’t care what you do. I don’t want you to “follow” anything.
Has if ever occurred to you that marriage “has always been [between a man and a woman]” for a reason.
What do you mean by “equality”? Can’t homosexuals get married?
You don’t think that same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates are “demanding” that society redefine marriage? So if society just said “no”, SSM advocates would accept that and drop it?
The adoption of marriage amendments over time
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Marriage_amendment_animation.gif
Minnesota isn’t included, because they don’t vote until November.
Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!
All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.
Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.
So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:
First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.
. . . .
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html
A review of Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk. By Mathew Staver.
Broadman & Holman, 2004.
The debate about same-sex marriage, notes Staver, is really a debate about marriage itself. The debate seeks to overturn millennia of accumulated wisdom on the nature of marriage. And in so doing, it may overturn the very fabric of society which has been built on marriage and family.
Marriage is not simply a private relationship. It is a social good and a public institution. Societies have always given benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. For a society to disown its own birthright in upholding heterosexual marriage, is in effect to say that it does not care about the community, it does not care about couples, and it especially does not care about children.
Staver here simply repeats the obvious: marriage has always been about a man and a woman. And it has always been about the possibility of procreation. Societies have a lot at stake when it comes to the next generation. In order to survive, societies must ensure that each new generation carries forth its values, it virtues and its visions. And no one can better ensure this than a child’s mother and father.
But in separating children from a mother and a father, societies are committing social suicide. The truth is, children need a mother and a father, full stop. The evidence is by now as overwhelming as it is familiar. Yet restating the obvious has become the order of the day. . . .
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2005/05/09/a-review-of-same-sex-marriage-putting-every-household-at-risk-by-mathew-staver/
We cannot afford to indulge this madness
Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Britain’s most senior Catholic, sets out his opposition to the Government’s plans to legalise gay marriage.
By Keith O’Brien
3 Mar 2012
The Government is this month launching a consultation on same-sex marriage, asking the public whether it should be introduced in England and Wales.
I hope many respond and consider signing the petition in support of traditional marriage organised by a new organisation, the Coalition for Marriage.
On the surface, the question of same-sex marriage may seem to be an innocuous one.
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, . . . .
The Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage
BY Randy Hicks October 1st, 2006
Not many years ago it was unutterable, except perhaps as a schoolyard can-you-top-this, or as urban legend. Yet it is one of the most sensational issues of our time, and an almost-impossible topic to avoid. And, from what I’m hearing, it’s not always easy for people like you and me to articulate the reasons we oppose it. It’s called “same-sex marriage.”
“I know why same-sex marriage is wrong,” I often hear, “but I’m not sure how to articulate its dangers.” Christian friends are looking for a way to relate to those who may not hold the same views, and that’s wise.
To be clear, our religious beliefs do offer legitimate reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. But if we’re to win this important debate and win hearts and minds, we must be able to articulate our convictions in culturally relevant ways.
I’ve had the opportunity to take this debate into the university setting many times, this is what I hear from aggressive proponents of gay marriage:
• They’ve argued that denying them marriage is denying them the ability to have a loving commitment with another person. Frankly, that’s just not true. People love others and commit to others all the time—we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
• Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. . . .
http://byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage/
Why marriage is best defined for America as union between one man, one woman
Truth Be Told by Carla Garrison
WASHINGTON, April 4, 2012 — North Carolina is the only remaining southern state that has not explicitly defined marriage in its constitution as a union between one man and one woman. Voters there will get the chance to vote on the definition of marriage in their May 8 primary. President Barack Obama and NC Governor Beverly Perdue have both spoken out against the amendment.
The vote is important for two reasons. It places this decision in the hands of the citizens of the state versus judges, and it creates the opportunity to reaffirm the important role of traditional marriage in raising healthy children and maintaining a free society.
Marriage has not historically been treated as a constitutional “right,” yet government in America has played a role in regulating and encouraging it since colonial days. This is because marriage creates the households that produce and protect children, foster businesses, and promote charity and every other aspect of civil society. This contribution to maintaining society is why government can legitimately seek to strengthen the traditional institution of marriage.
The Family Research Council suggests that the federal government can strengthen marriage through pro-family tax policy (eliminate the “marriage penalty”), abstinence-until-marriage programs, and welfare reform.
. . . .
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/truth-be-told/2012/apr/4/why-marriage-best-defined-america-union-between-on/
Here is a interesting article I just read:
Book Promoting Lesbian Parenting Creating Furor in Utah School District:
The matter went before a parent-teacher board who then voted 6-1 to keep the book in the school’s library, but to place it behind the counter where only a parental permission would allow a student to check the book out. In making their decision, the board said that state law forbids the avocation of homosexuality in any school curriculum.
The Davis School District had added the book to five school libraries, including Windridge Elementary School because they had learned that a student at the school was being raised by a lesbian couple. Now the American Civil Liberties Union has gotten involved in the case. They believe that a library book does not equate to curriculum and thus the book should not be restricted from student access
http://godfatherpolitics.com/5951/book-promoting-lesbian-parenting-creating-furor-utah-school-district/
Again I see this as wanting to be politicially corrent just because one student has lesbian parents, but in Cal books like these for K-6 are required reading, thanks to the ACLU and LGBT groups.
Ehrlich: Maryland will reject same-sex marriage
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. says gays deserve respect, but not the right to redefine society’s most important institution
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
April 13, 2012
Maryland’s present flirtation with gay marriage is only the latest chapter in a long-running culture war. In the “Free State’s” case, it will ultimately come down to the people through a ballot initiative. A likely result: a coalition of Catholics, African-Americans, Hispanics and conservatives from both sides of the aisle send the measure to a decisive defeat. (Such a result would make Maryland the 32nd state to defeat a gay marriage referendum.) Opponents of all stripes will be tested in unique ways. First and foremost will be how to go about stating an opposing opinion without the usual “ism” and “phobic” charges from the secular left. It’s not so easy — being on the cultural defensive never is.
Indeed, it is an unfortunate aspect of our country’s marriage debate that one’s record on gay issues gets deconstructed whenever opposing views are aired. Bulletin to those who engage in such tactics: Most who oppose gay marriage are neither homophobic nor religious zealots. (Some of us public-sector types were willing to endure harsh criticism from the right when appointing gay Marylanders to senior positions in government or creating medical and custodial accommodations for nontraditional relationships, so vitriol from the left is neither new nor intimidating.)
I have little patience with both extremes: . . . .
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-ehrlich-gay-marriage-20120413,0,1560294.column
. California Considers Allowing More Than Two Parents:
The latest one is a bill that would allow children to legally have more than two parents. It has already passed in the Senate and will be considered by the Assembly.(imagine a sperm doner in Cal getting a child support notice for a child his donation created through science and now responsible for it)
It should come as no surprise that this sort of straw-headed effort would originate with gay San Francisco Sen. Mark Leno. You probably already guessed that he’s a Democrat. SB 1476, co-sponsored by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is being sold as a way of protecting children. The real motive for the bill is transparently obvious. Leno is trying to set up a law that will pave the way for polygamous marriages.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/5979/california-considers-allowing-more-than-two-parents/
After SSM, What Next? California Bill Would Let Children Have More Than Two Parents
When it is declared a child “has” more than two parents what does it mean to be a parent anymore?
State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.
“The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today,” the San Francisco Democrat said.
Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships.
… Under Leno’s bill, if three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could split those things up among them.
… Examples of three-parent relationships that could be affected by SB 1476 include:
• A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father.
• A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.
• A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well. — The Sacramento Bee
alan, you wrote earlier: Was the man who was groping you bigger than you? Was he so threatening you needed to break his hand with the pipe? Or was it to teach him a lesson?
It doesn’t matter, he had been warned not to touch again and as for breaking his hand, was not the intent and it was a reaction, not to teach him a lesson. If he had put his hand on my shoulder there would not of been the reaction, working in a very noise environment to touch a person’s shoulder is to get their attention, not groping their ‘johnson.’
“As a gay man would it be acceptable of me to say to a christian, no I will not sell to you, I will not cater your wedding, I will not take your photographs, I will not rent a room to you because you and I don’t have the same beliefs?” Yes it would be acceptible because you would be standing behind your moral beliefs but as for ‘renting a room’ are you refering to a hotel/motel or a privatly owned bread/breakfast? One is protected under federal law the other isn’t.
“Numerous bed-and breakfasts around the country have been targeted for lawsuits when the proprietors decline to rent their facilities to same-sex couples. Some of these bed-and -breakfast facilities are in their owners’ homes, yet they are facing legal action due to nondiscrimination laws. The message is simple. While many Christians would take a live-and let-live approach to the LGBT community, the LGBT community is not content to do the same. They LGBT community has in its aim the mission to force everyone to become complicit in their chosen lifestyle or face legal action and ostracization. While many of us can be tolerant, there is a marked and litigious intolerance presented by the LGBT community.”
http://www.awakenkansas.com/legislation
What you see above is exactly what is happening in Canada and in the US, the wish for equality is a demand.
Richard
of course it matters. Could you have just walked away? Breaking a mans hand seems extreme. Again it does not justify his groping you, that is just wrong.
But is violence every truly the answer?
And I laugh when you say many of you can be “tolerant” of our “chosen” lifestyle. I call bs on that.
You think that christians that run a B&B should be able to turn away homosexuals seeking refuge and that is taking a “live and let live” attitude. Ahh a big no on that.
See what you miss is the religious almost never take a live and let live attitude, while the homosexuals almost always do. Think long and hard about that.
Maryland Citizen: The Word “Marriage” Matters
Frank O’Keefe writes to the editors of the Baltimore Sun:
“…It is clear by now to anyone who has observed this controversy that proponents of same sex marriage are more interested in the re-definition of marriage than they are in the attainment of marital normalcy as regards the law. The law could easily have been changed nationally a long time ago to allow these rights as “civil unions” without disturbing the traditional definition of marriage. Many parties would have been satisfied by such a compromise, had not proponents denied the primary biological relationship questions by couching every argument as one of bias regarding their “civil rights.” The indiscriminate hurling of bigotry charges will simply not work with this question. In fact, it does not work on the majority of thinking people.
…In the end, there is no such thing as “civil marriage” — there is simply marriage, nothing else. Trying to dichotomize marriage into civil and religious forms is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. Unless one can find a way to magically erase inherent biological differences and make them equivalent, the controversy will go on endlessly. This is precisely why this will never be settled, because the final settlement of it would require the contradiction of innate, observable reality, and that is something that rational people are simply never willing to do. There are some differences that can never be reconciled, and America must learn this lesson if civility is ever again to grace our land. The role and function of law cannot change those natural things that are self evident. It may try-but the underlying realities will remain the same.
What man do you know who has ever really been a mother? What woman do you know who has ever really been a father? As I have always said, it’s about the definition. Words point to reality. How we use them is critically important. We are playing with primal fire as if it is silly putty.”
“In the end, there is no such thing as “civil marriage” — there is simply marriage, nothing else. Trying to dichotomize marriage into civil and religious forms is nothing more than an exercise in semantics.”
Mr. O’Keefe may want to visit Europe, where there is, indeed, civil marriage. Mr. O’Keefe may also want to watch a shipboard marriage, officiated by the captain. Or watch one officiated by a justice of the peace. Or a mayor.
The fact is that marriage is civil. Religous marriage is meaningless in our society–because as much as any church says you are married, you’re not married in our society until the STATE says you are married.
And no matter how many times, or how loudly, you say it–repeating it over and over doesn’t make it true.
Anymore than saying it is about children.
“Mr. O’Keefe may want to visit Europe, where there is, indeed, civil marriage.”
While there, he may want to catch the Bishop of Norwich, on BBC, saying “It simply isn’t the case that there have been two different understandings of marriage. The Church’s understanding and the State’s understanding of marriage has been the same.”
“Mr. O’Keefe may also want to watch a shipboard marriage, officiated by the captain.”
Are you now declaring that there is a third type of marriage, a “shipboard marriage”?
It looks to me that you’ve just made up this new linguistic dichotomy.
If my pastor marries me and my fiancée in a park, would that be a “pastoral park marriage”?
Adan eve steve,
So all you have is linguistic games?
Every one you mentioned are the same. They are CIVIL marriages–no matter where they occur. And they aren’t marriages at all unless they are recognized by the STATE.
Your medieval voodoo and your “definitions” are irrelevant.
Gay Journalists Leading a Revolution
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
September 10, 1993
Homosexual journalists, once as hidden in newsrooms as they were in much of America, have become sharply more visible in major news organizations in the last several years and they are helping to change news reports and reporting.
[...] managements at many newspapers have reached out to gays,” Mr. Aarons said.
Recruiting of Homosexuals
[...] for the first time, major news organizations, including ABC and NBC News, The Los Angeles Times, The Miami Herald, The Washington Post and The New York Times, will use this [National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association] convention to recruit homosexuals for their staffs.
[...]
Some journalists have objected to gay reporters covering gay issues, suggesting bias.
[...]
And journalism’s changing approach has provided ammunition to some critics of the press, who say they see a new “pro-gay agenda” in news coverage.
[...]
In effect, gay journalists have helped promote a national discussion about issues affecting homosexuals.
[...]
Homosexual journalists who are not involved in reporting on gay issues say they sometimes act as information resources for other reporters and editors. At some newspapers, gay journalists have reviewed articles to try to identify bias.
While some gay journalists have taken private action, others have worked publicly.
[...]
It is precisely the broad reach of gay issues coverage that makes critics furious. “The media comes across as promoting the gay-rights movement,” said Martin Mawyer
[...]
Some journalists say the increasing visibility of gay journalists creates concerns for news organizations, which are always struggling with the slippery concept of objectivity.
[emphasis added]
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
I think that one of two things are going to happen:
1. There will be a backlash. More and more people that care about marriage will stand up and speak out.
Much of the SSM strategy is based on spin and soundbites.
No, the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is not “hate”. Declaring that opponents are bigots that are stricken with “homophobia” is just namecalling, not debate (in fact, this limits debate). Homosexual outage, whether feigned or real, is groundless — but convenient (as people assume there must be some reason for it).
Sexual preference is not immutable. People change their sexual preference. Redefining marriage isn’t the next great civil rights struggle. Homosexuals weren’t slaves. Homosexuals weren’t excluded from social and political life, education, etc. Homosexuals have never had to sit in the back of the bus…
Homosexual special rights advocates are full of it, and they keep repeating their lies. Consequently, large numbers of people have accepted them as truths. Homosexuals aren’t 10% of the population, there’s no gay gene — and there *are* differences between children raised by homosexuals, and children raised by both of their parents in a family.
Equality? A homosexual can get married; a heterosexual can get married.
The media is incredibly and embarrassingly biased on redefining marriage, because they recruit homosexuals to:
* Report on homosexual issues.
* Function as information resources for other editors and reporters when they’re not doing the reporting.
* Review articles to identify bias.(Read between the lines.)
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html?pagewanted=all
The influence of homosexuals on the media, and the media’s influence on society, has been powerful.
Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church in the UK, but the politicians are apparently planning to use brute force there.
It is the marriage redefinition movement that is intolerant, and the recent kerfuffle over Chick-Fil-A is the latest proof. Mayors trying to ban the franchises from their cities, because Chick-Fil-A’s CEO supports marriage? Really?
It’s an outrage that a two-person majority of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia.
2. The reaction will be too little, too late.
Homosexual special rights activists and their money (and the politicians that money bought) will have made too much progress, and it will be too hard to roll back. States refusing to recognize marriages in other states (or countries) could become untenable, and the legal system could clean that up for the homosexuals. The 9th circuit has already declared that once homosexuals are given the right to “marry” a member of the same sex — no matter where that “right” came from (bribed politicians, judicial fiat) — it can’t be taken away.
Which way things go will depend on whether people stand up and speak out, and when, in my opinion. With things headed toward SCOTUS — and four important (and close) contests coming up in November — not to decide will be to decide, and sooner than we think.
Happy Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day!
For sure, not one really close to me, over an hour away, but will be celebrating in spirit as I munch on home-made fried chicken breast meal today.
I went to one Chick-fil-A:
There was a line across the entire restaurant, out the door, and down the sidewalk.
Cars were backed up, merging from two lines.
They were sold out of fresh-squeezed lemonade.
People in line were talking about the cause.
I went to another restaurant.
There was a line across the restaurant, out the door, down the sidewalk and around the corner.
Cars were backed up, and an employee was outside taking orders. There was a nearby business with sign that stated that their parking was theirs, with an employee guarding it! The nearest parking spot was 0.3 miles away.
People in line were talking about the cause(s).
It was so fun, and a smashing success!
Run an Internet search for Chick-fil-A right now. Even some mainstream media is reporting on it. A lot are slipping in some spin, but at least they’re not ignoring it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKwwoIUjK0s#!
Awesome!!!! There are no Chick-fil-A’s in three hour driving distance to me, but I did buy a friend lunch at one in Carmel, IN using my phone and credit card. They were so nice even on the phone with the crowd in the background.
I went to a couple of Chick-fil-As and saw the huge lines. That could have been the whole story. The media could have simply reported that, and reported that the massive turnout was because of Huckabee’s Chick-fil-A appreciation day announcement — which was a reaction to the outrage directed at the restaurant because of Cathy’s comments supporting traditional marriage.
Instead, I saw headlines announcing that both sides had protested.
I saw quotes from both sides. The quotes from the marriage redefinition movement were deeper.
I read about how a lot of people were there to demonstrate for free speech. This skirted the message, because this counter-demonstration was about *what Cathy said* — and the subsequent backlash. Deliberately burying the message isn’t reporting. It’s redefining, with spin.
I saw headlines that focused on the fact that it was only one day.
This isn’t reporting of unbiased journalists. These attempts to minimize and muddy the waters are activism.
A nationwide counter-demonstration, at 1600 locations.. lines out the doors and down the sidewalk all across the country.. traffic jams and zoos in parking lots, and the mainstream media deliberately diminishes its significance and muddies the water, leaving readers not realizing the significance of what happened.
The quiet, moral majority made its presence felt.
And this is all the homosexual reporters, that the mainstream media has recruited to report on homosexual issues, can come up with?
And the New York Times reports, “Some journalists have objected to gay reporters covering gay issues, suggesting bias”? (William Glaberson’s, “Gay Journalists Leading a Revolution“, The New York Times, September 10, 1993.)
Of course it does.
Homosexual journalists review articles for the purpose of bias adjustment?
What did they do on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, decide that simply reporting it wasn’t enough? It had to be couched within the context of:
* Both sides demonstrated?
* Provide quotes from both sides, in the interests of “balanced reporting” (unheard of when the shoe’s on the other foot), with the deeper quotes coincidentally from SSM advocates?
* Pass it off as if the demonstrators went as much to support free speech as to counter the marriage redefinition movement’s reaction to what Cathy said? (At its most basic level, all this started because of what Cathy said.)
* Put it in context: It was only one day. (Never mind that in one day we neutralized the boycotts of the other side.)
Homosexual journalists have made a mockery of the ideal of unbiased journalism, and the mainstream media is satisfied to allow it.
It must have really stuck in their craw that they had to include a picture of a long line outside a Chick-fil-A instead of a rainbow.
I went to two Chick-fil-As, Richard, one for you and one for me.
Thank you Stacy. It makes me happy to know you did that.
“Canada Has Recognized Gay Marriage for Many Years. What Has Occurred There?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLjIXirNxnQ
Opposing Gay Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious
August 9, 2012
Leroy Huizenga
Many make the mistake of thinking that opposition to gay marriage is religious. A Facebook friend recently posted this quote: “Have you ever noticed the same people who claim that marriage is a religious institution only think that LGBT people shouldn’t get married? They never seem to object to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists getting married.”
This is a perfect summary of the ignorance with which many (though by no means all) gay marriage proponents operate. And I think their ignorance largely the fault of religious supporters of traditional marriage who have forgotten the categories of reason and nature.
Many times Christians present our arguments for the traditional family by making arguments from Scripture and speaking of “God’s design for marriage.” For instance, Billy Graham recently issued a statement in support of Chick-fil-A and its owners, the Cathy family, in which he said, “Each generation faces different issues and challenges, but our standard must always be measured by God’s word. I appreciate the Cathy family’s public support for God’s definition of marriage.” Dan Cathy himself said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
It’s no wonder, then, that the broader population thinks opposition to gay marriage is a matter of religion alone. And as such, it can be marginalized. Indeed, it must be marginalized, for our culture assumes a fundamental split between faith and reason. . . .
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/opposing-gay-marriage-is-rational-not-religious
“Shouldn’t the government get out of the business of regulating marriage and leave it to adults to decide marriage for themselves?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z4B_bix_0U#!
Same-sex marriage and the manufacture of consent
…Last spring, just prior to a similar vote in North Carolina, highly regarded Public Policy Polling reported 55 percent – 41 percent in favor. Same sex marriage went down in flames there, 61 percent to 39 percent — a huge 16 point discrepancy between polling and balloting.
Polling data is easily manufactured through intensive campaigns by special interests such as the gay marriage lobby. Such data are then publicized and repeated to create a false illusion of collective belief. This is known as an “opinion cascade.”
White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and economist Timur Kuran once wrote a Stanford Law Review article on this topic, referring to a cascade as “a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse.”
Poll numbers, celebrity endorsements, politically correct media hype and other forces work together to shut up those who disagree with same-sex marriage and to construct an illusion of much broader support than exists. Once individuals perceive social punishment for expressing a dissenting view, they often clam up, and thereby aid the cascade. But such a process creates fragile support.
Perhaps the reality of that fragility is beginning to hit home. The LGBT oriented Washington Blade recently posted on its website a database of the names and addresses of Marylanders who signed the petition calling for a referendum on the state’s same-sex marriage law. Many were shocked to find the names of family members, friends and neighbors. One reader commented, “Apparently a lot of people didn’t realize their signatures would be made public. This brings into question the validity of recent polling data.”
Although a majority of Americans easily express openness to some form of recognized unions for pollsters, same-sex marriage has been defeated in every one of the 32 states where it has been put to popular vote. . . .
In an apparent act of domestic terrorism, a same-sex marriage activist snuck into the Family Research Center, with over fifty rounds of ammunition, in order to gun down his side’s opposition.
Carrying a bag of 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, he said, “I don’t like your politics,” and opened fire. A security guard, who’d been shot, got the homosexual special rights terrorist’s gun away from him anyway, prompting the terrorist to blurt out that it was about the FRC’s politics, nothing personal.
The SPLC had labeled the FRC a “hate group,” associating them with organizations like the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood.
The FRC, and other organizations that stand for marriage, immediately pointed out that labeling marriage support, “hate”, and groups like the FRC, “hate groups” makes it more palatable for same-sex marriage activists to hate the “haters” and attack the “hate groups.” (Duh!)
The SPLC maintains that it put the FRC on its hate groups list because people in the FRC have lied about homosexuals — over the decades — stating ‘hateful’ things like, “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
We called the SPLC to ask whether schoolchildren indoctrination laws that the homosexual special rights lobby has paid for (like SB 48, and Harvey Milk Day), don’t suggest that the FRC’s statement might be true — and if the SPLC was lying about the FRC, what would applying the SPLC’s standards (“knowingly spread[ing] false and denigrating propaganda”) to the SPLC possibly reveal.
They declined to comment.
———————————
This story was not brought to you by the mainstream media, who apparently figures that the shooter’s LGBT volunteerism was just a coincidence. Either that or the media’s coverage of homosexual issues is dominated by homosexuals that are biased, and they don’t want the public to make the connection.
Minister says 80% of Pacific New Zealanders oppose same sex marriage
20 August 2012
A Samoan church minister in Auckland estimates that around eighty per cent of the Pacific islanders in New Zealand are opposed to the idea of gay marriage.
Reverend Tavale Mataia of the Word of Life Church in Grey Lynn says many of them are reluctant to say so in public, partly because they lack confidence to express themselves in English, but also because they fear being labelled bigots.
. . . .
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/minister-says-80-of-pacific-new-zealanders-oppose-same-sex-marriage/1002492
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It’s never been the union of a man and a man, nor a woman and a woman.
If homosexuals want to commit to someone that is the same gender, why don’t they come up with their own name for their thing.
ADD to our culture rather than *subtract* from it.
Insisting that their new thing be called “marriage” takes away society’s recognition of the uniquely special union of a man and a woman.
The union of a man and a woman isn’t something we may recognize as special?
Why do homosexual “marriage” advocates want to take away our recognition of the uniquely special union of a man and a woman?
When did we lose the right to have a ceremony, and a recognition of marriage vows and this unique coupling.
It’s obviously unique, and special, because it results in children so often.
The union of a man and a man can’t be made equal to the union of a man and a woman. They’ll always be different.
“Most gays are not interested in marriage. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, there have been only 5,000 among the state’s 130,000 gay men.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-marriage-letter-20120423,0,2538700.story
Is it all just about, “as good as you”? Equal? I say, “different”.
Why can’t homosexuals come up with their own thing?
I feel like they’re fighting to take something away from us, and it really seems like the activists hate us.
We can make the laws such that people in the “gay marriages” have the same rights as married couples.
But that can never be enough for them — because then they’ll trot out, “separate but equal” isn’t equal. If you can win something by suing, sue? Right or wrong? Just convince yourself you’re right?
Here is a subculture that wants to be different, but have the law treat their pairings as equal to heterosexual couples — different though they may be — because they don’t like being treated differently (or they just don’t like the way they’re treated, so desperate to demand that everybody accept “it’s okay to be gay”).
So it’s got to be “marriage”. Nothing else will do.
Why? “Because we can.” (If they can.)
I am homosexual. Here me roar?
By being a special interest group, they’ve found they can exert great influence over the law, far disproportionately to their numbers.
I’m sorry, but after almost four year of caring about this, I still care about the future that our children will inherit. I don’t agree to the redefinition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CygExO01lyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sjo42O6qd0
A Stroke of Judicial Sanity on Marriage
By Ed Whelan
August 9, 2012
Via William Duncan at the Corner, I’ve learned of this strong and sound ruling yesterday in Hawaii by senior federal district judge Alan C. Kay holding that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Judge Kay determines (slip op. at 35-43) that the claim for such a right is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson. Alternatively, properly applying rational-basis review and judicial restraint, he finds that such claim fails on the merits.
Because the proper exercise of rational-basis review has been so rare of late in the marriage context, I’m going to briefly outline Judge Kay’s reasoning:
1. On plaintiffs’ claim that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause: There is a fundamental right to marry, but that right has always been understood as the right to enter into a union between a man and a woman. The asserted right to same-sex marriage is a new notion that indisputably is not deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. Therefore, the claimed right to same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. (Slip op. at 57-68.)
2. On plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim:
a. The traditional definition of marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender. (Slip op. at 69-70).
b. Binding Ninth Circuit precedent holds that classifications based on homosexuality are not suspect or quasi-suspect. That precedent is unaffected by Lawrence v. Texas. Unlike in Romer v. Evans, there is no basis for inferring that Hawaii’s marriage laws reflect animus against homosexuals. Therefore, rational-basis review applies. (Slip op. at 53-37, 70-79.)
c. There are various interests that the traditional definition of marriage, even alongside a regime of civil unions, can rationally be thought to serve: encouraging the stability of relationships that ….
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/313509/stroke-judicial-sanity-marriage-ed-whelan
A wonderful blog post! I found it by accident while searching for something else and it proved a welcome surprise.
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint. I have struggled with this myself and you nailed the mental process. It’s a great relief to know I’m not alone in my thinking.
God Bless you.