Monday, December 29, 2008
|
|
WOULD ADVOCATES FOR GAY MARRIAGE REALLY ACCEPT RELIGIOUS DISSENT?
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
1:05 AM
|
Advocates for same sex marriage regularly insist that they would never interfere with free exercise of religion and will do nothing to force unwilling churches to perform gay weddings. This position counts as hypocritical and misleading, and the current controversy over Pastor Rick Warren’s role in the Obama inauguration reveals the underlying intolerance in the gay agenda. Leading activists and politically correct commentators want Warren disqualified from giving the invocation because he opposes gay marriage, subjecting him to the sort of angry attack that will ultimately greet any clergyman who declines to sanction same-sex unions. Conservatives have never attempted to marginalize or humiliate pastors who support gay marriage, but the editorial and media attacks on Rick Warren give the lie to leftist claims that they’re ready to respect differences of opinion on this issue.
|
|
Yov've never been married nor considered it?
What a shocker. I'm amazed you could not find someone to put up with your bigot ways. |
|
|
Can you PLeASE get your names straight? We have a hard time keeping up with your multi personalities. I changed mine once - and let everyone know it was me, because of getting a new computer. but you change your name like you change your shirt! |
|
When did "conservative" come to mean Big Government intrusion on liberty? I never said "morality and God" should not be "mentioned", I said they have no business in government policy.
I never said you should "shut [your] voice" on anything, I said that your own personal moral opinion is not valid government policy.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "It is to protect our rights that we resort to government at all." Or, as the Declaration of Independence states, the very purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You have every right to use your voice to try to persuade people to follow your own moral code. It is a very different thing to use the government to FORCE people to follow your own moral code. |
|
|
This is a conservative site is it not? On this site morality and God are mentioned. If you want to go the other way you should find a liberal site to voice your opinions on. I or anyone else who is a Christian will not shut our voice when it comes to morality. |
|
What God does or does not accept is not relevant to this discussion, as we're talking about government policy.
Laws should be made to protect individual liberty, to protect people from fraud and coercion, not to enforce some moral code. That's why it is not against the law to covet your neighbor's car or to lie about how much money you make. It IS against the law to steal your neighbor's car. |
|
|
Even if they had it from every single human being our Heavenly Father would not give it to them because he did not create marriage between same sex people so it is not allowed in any way, shape or form. No acceptance for gay marriage and that will not change. |
|
|
What gay people want, they will never have because even if every single person in this world got together and told every gay person that they were all for gay marriage it would not be enough because our Father who is in Heaven did not ordain gays to marriage. That is for man and woman only and gays will never be able to change that. God did not create marriage for same sex people. It was given only to man and woman and them only. That is why gays will never find peace in their lives until they give up their lifestyle. It is an abomination against God and themselves to engage in this lifestyle. They cannot escape that fact no matter how hard they try or how many man made laws are passed, you will not have a marriage made in heaven because it does not exist for gays. |
|
The purpose of government is to protect individual liberty and property, not to legislate sexual activity between consenting adults or to enforce some set of morals or "values".
The issue of same-sex marriage isn't about "gay rights", but rather about property rights. Marriage as recognized by the government is a contract that confers various property and other benefits on the signatories.
I would say that any action undertaken by the government is valid for debate in public. Therefore, if the government is seeking to confer special benefits on one group as opposed to another, especially in terms of property rights, then it certainly is worth debating. That's the crux of the same-sex marriage debate.
However, regardless of what you OR I think is worth debating, every American has the Constitutionally-protected right to petition the government.
"It is to protect our rights that we resort to government at all." ~ Thomas Jefferson |
|
quote: "You sound very confused. Does marriage require sexual activity or not, in your book?"
I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in a marriage that didn't include sex, but whether or not a marriage contract is recognized by the government has nothing to do with the amount of sex between the signatories to the contract. If a married couple is happy living a relatively chaste lifestyle, that's none of the government's business.
quote: "Any one who denies the connections between traditional marriage and procreation and the raising of children is denying reality. "
Government recognition of a marriage contract between consenting adults has nothing to do with whether or not the couple engages in (or plans to engage in at some point in the future) procreation or the rearing of children. Perhaps you're advocating some sort of fertility testing and a promise to procreate as prerequisites for government recognition of a marriage? Sounds like Big Government intrusion to me. |
|
will now say prayer at opening event of the Inauguration. That's a start...I hope he takes Warren on.
Eddie, you are not a very good debater. You simply want us to ignore the obvious. People marry and don't even have sex. They clearly marry and cannot have children. It is a contract, nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to have your marriage 'sanctified' in some religious ceremony, no one would stop you, and no one can force a church to marry people it doesn't wish to marry. No church would be required to marry orthodox Jews to each other.
When I see Rev. Warren proposing to make divorce and adultery illegal, when blended families become outlawed, then and only then will I take anyone on the religious right serious about gay marriage somehow harming the sanctity of non-gay marriage. My straight marriage in Cali is just fine, 18000 gay marriages later. |
|
|
People tend to debate things that are not concrete. That's why you don't see too many people arguing over whether human beings need to breathe air to survive or whether an open flame will burn your bare hand and why you see lots of people debating on whether or not there is a God. |
|
Saying that some things are up for debate while others are not is intellectually foolish. Who decides what is debatable and what isn't? Who decides who gets to decide?
Eddie,
The fact is that the government affords the same rights to married couples regardless if they plan to and/or are able to procreate or not. That's not specific, that's general. A marriage certificate is not a promise to "try and have children".
You keep saying that marriage is primarily for procreation but let me ask you this hypothetically. Lets say all the residents of the state of Ohio suddenly became sterile and incapable of reproduction. Would marriages cease? Would the state no longer grant marriage licenses? I'd bet my next 30 lunches that the answers would be no and no. This is important because the laws about marriage, and the ones that grant it special status, are there for reasons beyond simple reproduction. It is human nature to find a partner, for whatever reason, and the laws that we humans have created have that in mind. |
|
keep explaining all of the benefits the government receives from relationships based solely on sodomy. |
|
being unable to procreate is different from not consummating a marriage.
Again, as I pointed out to chloe, it is illogical to use the specific to object to a statement about the general.
Whether or not a specific marriage is procreative or engaged in raising children, does not produce the logical conclusion that the institution of traditional marriage is unrelated to procreation and the raising of children.
Procreation and the raising of children is the main reason the state involves itself in the male-female sexual relationship? |
|
Or lack thereof, everythign is up for debate, which is intellectually dishonest from square one.
"So, by your logic, because some people don't like it, nobody should talk about it at all?
That's a recipe for disaster if there ever was one."
What if Constitutionally feasible and morally correct for open debate if for legal matters, lifestyle can be discussed [as it is] in coffeehouses... where it belongs, not on the hallowed floors of our Senate and Congress... or State legislatures. You misconstrue what law is about to make your assertions. |
|
Sounds like you misunderstand what laws protect and discriminate against. The U.S.Cosntitution is not a behavioral modification manifest guarding up and protecting through normalization of any self-valuing lifestyles. The government has... by-in-large stayed away from that arena, and yes... it was correct to cite its over all irrelevance. Lets not mystify the purpose of the Constitution... it is what it is, clear.
-That Darn Republican |
|
|
How many marriages in the country do you think are annulled when one partner is unable to procreate? |
|
|
Ken was making a point earlier in the discussion about broadening the law to include animals in a marriage contract. |
|
mistake of confusing the general with the specific.
Semp lib, why are you introducing animals into the equation?
Also, what do you mean by a fraudulent marriage?
The whole argument from the same-sex marriage proponents is that same-sex marriage is the only way to make marriage equal for all and by equal they do not mean anything to do with sexual activity.
You sound very confused. Does marriage require sexual activity or not, in your book?
Any one who denies the connections between traditional marriage and procreation and the raising of children is denying reality. That includes Chloe. Chloe wants to deny the connection, but marriage would not exist at all if it were not for marriage's connection to procreation and children. And Chloe, since you appear to be one of the logically deficient, just because some traditional marriages are not open to procreation and children (at least in your little world) does not prove the institution of traditional marriage has no connection to procreation and the raising of children. This is particularly true in light of the civil law allowing the annullment of traditional marriages that are never consummated.
I suggest both Chloe and Semper educate themselves about this subject in the hope of overcoming their ignorance, unless of course they are mired in invincible ignorance. |
|
So, by your logic, because some people don't like it, nobody should talk about it at all?
That's a recipe for disaster if there ever was one. |
|
quote: "we are lending credence to something that never had any business being considered a debate in the public forum - especially political. That is where America when wrong... beingto nice and allwoign poiltical correctness to blanket out actions when we should have been dealing with this matter in a forthcoming manner, we'd not have the issues we have today if so..."
It sounds like you're advocating some sort of suppression of debate? Sorry, but there's a pesky little thing called the First Amendment. |
|
Is... who cares? Gay isn't a lobby, even it it were.. we are lending credence to something that never had any business being considered a debate in the public forum - especially political. That is where America when wrong... beingto nice and allwoign poiltical correctness to blanket out actions when we should have been dealing with this matter in a forthcoming manner, we'd not have the issues we have today if so...
-That Darn Republican |
|
Marriage as recognized by the government is simply a contract that defines certain property and other rights and obligations between the signatories. Extending government recognition of such contracts to same-sex couples has no impact on "traditional" marriage contracts.
As for some expected increase in the number of fraudulent same-sex marriages, somehow I suppose to take advantage of potential tax or other advantages, I have seen no evidence of this phenomenon in places that have already begun recognition of same-sex marriages. If you have referenced, documented data showing otherwise, feel free to present it for discussion.
Just applying some common sense, however, would seem to cause that argument to evaporate. First of all, there does not seem to be a large number of "traditional" marriages entered into solely for potential property and tax advantages. In fact, it would seem that broadening the pool of potential marriage contract recognition could potentially LESSEN the number of sham marriages, as same-sex couples would have less incentive to engage in a fraudulent "traditional" marriage to claim insurance, etc. Also, property under a recognized marriage contract can be split up if the marriage ends in a divorce, and depending on state law a person could risk losing half his property in the dissolution of such a sham marriage.
I'm aware of no contracts that are legally recognized between animals and animals, or animals and humans. If you have any documented examples of such, please bring them forward for discussion. I'm no contract law expert, but I believe that for a contract to be considered valid, a signatory has to enter the contract voluntarily and be aware of the ramifications. I don't see how an animal could then be a legal signatory of any contract. Thus your argument about marriages to animals seems to be irrelevant to the discussion. |
|
"Conservatives have never attempted to marginalize or humiliate pastors who support gay marriage"
That's a lie. Check your facts. Pastors who support gay marriage are constantly vilified and condemned by conservatives. |
|
Under a rock, or 200 years ago? You said "There are many single people who would be willing to leave social security survivor benefits to a friend. I believe the same is true of using the marriage thing to be included in family health insurance policies.
Since marriage will have no relationship to procreation, children, or sexual activity, people would be foolish not to take advantage of what society is offering to any two people willing to file the correct paperwork and make the correct statements. The question then becomes why should society grant any exceptions or benefits to people who enter marriage?"
My mother in law is a widow, aged 80. She just married a widower, age 84. Their marriage has no relationship with procreation, children or sexual activity (at least no more or less sexual activity than a 40 year old gay married couple). Many people marry for health benefits, etc.
Do you want to start to hold hearings before and during people's marriages to make sure they are upholding the procreation, etc, requirements? That's where you gay haters lose the argument every time. Marriage in 2009 often has nothing to do with procreation, children, in some cases (like the old folks) sex. Marriage has been undermined by adultery and divorce, by blended families. For many straight people, they don't even bother to marry.
If you are fine with civil unions for gays, then there should be civil unions for all, and marriage if you wish to go into your religious institution. Otherwise, stop the claptrap about marriage being for procreation, etc. This is not 800 AD.
|
|
having never pursued marriage I do not know of the benefits of being married. I assume, based on the same-sex marriage proponents touting of equal treatment that there must be some.
I suspect that should same-sex marriage become a reality that there will be developed a pre-marital agreement that makes marriage simply an opportunity to reap the benefits of marriage without any of the obligations.
There are many single people who would be willing to leave social security survivor benefits to a friend. I believe the same is true of using the marriage thing to be included in family health insurance policies.
Since marriage will have no relationship to procreation, children, or sexual activity, people would be foolish not to take advantage of what society is offering to any two people willing to file the correct paperwork and make the correct statements. The question then becomes why should society grant any exceptions or benefits to people who enter marriage?
What does the married couple provide to society in exchange for its benefits? |
|
A quick search of yahoo produced the exact source of your information. Your reason given about homosexuality thinning the ranks of the aristocracy was 1 out of 26 reasons given for the fall of the roman empire. The page they are listed on was titled
THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE:
Some (Sometimes Silly) Explanations
Does not seem like a very credible source. Some far better reasons that I am aware of are:
The homogenization of so many cultures through military conquest eventually led to there being no true "roman" culture. The Romans did not enslave all the peoples they conquered, nor were they all sent to the coliseum to be gladiators. Many were assimilated into Roman society.
Roman territory was vast, stretching all the way into Asia and the middle east, as far north as Great Britain, and into Africa. It's military was stretched very thin dealing with civil wars and rebellions making them very ripe for invasion by organized foreign armies.
Since America is not ruled by an aristocracy, we don't have to worry about homosexuality thinning the ranks of our leaders. I am very doubtful that this played anymore than a very minor role in larger scheme of the Roman empires transformation anyhow. In a search of the internet, I found more evidence debunking the claim that homosexuality played a role and only found the quote you listed as advancing that theory.
Try again. Or at least, try your same theory with evidence.
|
|
come out of the closet.
and there are no bathhouses anymore. |
|
I'm not sure what your point there was, please explain.
Is it hard to explain what you mean? |
|
I have read history. I'm by no means an expert, but I have read history.
Rome and Greece did not fall because of homosexuality. Homosexuality was a part of their societies, but did not lead to their downfall.
If you think I am wrong, please explain so that I will know for future reference. |
|
in vitro. Infertile straights did. So, if the definition of 'procreation' changed, it did so because of selfish straights who wanted to have kids even though they were biologically incapable of doing so. That's what in vitro is all about, perpetuating that ridiculous concept that having your 'own' kid is preferable to adoption, etc. Just like the right rags on about abortion and 'murdered' unborn, but ignores the kids once they are born, especially if poor, of color or some other minority situation, the right rags on about how gay marriage affects the sanctity of the 'institution of marriage', an institution that has long since seen its better days.
Straights have done everything possible to diminish the 'legitimacy' or 'sanctity' of marriage. Gay marriage hasn't increased the rate of divorce, straight married folks did.
So, are you willing to support a constitutional amendment banning divorce, for any and all reasons? And how about making adultery a first-degree, prison offense? Divorce and adultery are much more harmful to the 'institution' of marriage than gay marriage would be.
I wonder if you would ban gay adoptions too? How about single straight parent adoptions?
And another riddle, Van--gays are born to straight parents. Funny that, eh?
I'm so done with your hateful rhetoric. I know that the California Sup. Court is going to overturn Prop 8. And people like you can just cry into your beer. |
|
Also, just so you know. AIDS is not a homosexual disease, nor is it limited to mostly homosexual people. It does not infect people based on sexual preference. The only reason AIDS is even associated with homosexuality is because when the virus first spread in America, it was in the homosexual community. IV drug use helped spread it as well and we all know that drug users come from every background, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc etc. Since members of that community probably had limited contact with heterosexual people, it spread more rapidly that way. If the virus had first started spreading in the heterosexual community, homosexuality would not be associated with it at all.
What is disgusting is how the country ignored the disease until it started affecting heterosexual people. When it was confined to the homosexual population, hardly a tear was shed.
|
|
Did you plan on answering my question? I would like you to back up your claim that homosexuality has directly led to the downfall of societies in history. Especially considering that homosexuality has been a part of most societies throughout history.
Please also explain what you mean by predatory methods. What exactly has the gay community done to "dement" the minds of children and confuse them?
Simply saying something does not make it true, especially when making claims like that. |
|
"Um, excuse me, but my type is not the one getting AIDS, and not the one incapable of procreating, so to the contrary, my type is living on, your type has no where to go but to die out. And a nation in support of your type ultimately dies out with you."
Funny thing...many gays are having kids, same way as many straights do, via in vitro or adoption. I would rather have kids raised by an intact gay couple than these 'blended' straight families.
Again, when you support banning divorce and criminalizing adultery, I'll consider your position about the sanctity of marriage as legit. Until then, you apparently are a hatemonger and are fearful of people who will do YOU no harm. |
|
I've read Vanagon's townhall blog entries and in them, he comes across as a well-spoken somewhat intelligent person. Why he comes in here and writes the childish things he does is beyond me.
Just for fun though, Vanagon, please present evidence of at least 2 or 3 examples in history where homosexuality led to the downfall of a society. I don't mean for you to cite examples of societies that failed that homosexuality was a part of, but examples where evidence shows homosexuality was directly responsible to some degree. I'm very curious.
Comparing homosexuality to the negative effects of murder and pedophilia is outrageous and asinine and I'm quite sure you're aware of that. I think you resort to insults and over-the-top accusations because you like to stir the pot. I'm not really sure what your motivations are. I could speculate but since I don't know you outside of this forum, I would never know if I was even close to being close.
Vanagon, you are an extremist on the fringe. It's possible that people quietly agree with you but do not want to verbalize themselves to the ridiculous extent that you do as well. Having had a lot of conversations about this issue though, most of the people I've talked to may have strong feelings about this but can present themselves like an adult. There have been a few in this particular comment section. You choose to present yourself with the eloquence of a third-grader thus setting yourself apart from people capable of adult conversations about complicated issue's. |
|
|
you are on the wrong side of history. Your type, fortunately, is dying out. Old, miserable people who cannot provide any support for why gays cannot marry, but straights who will never have kids can. There is no difference, not one bit of difference. You don't pass amendments to make divorce illegal, or adultery a crime. You simply hate people you fear, and your fears are baseless. 18,000 married gay couples in CA and my straight marriage is just fine. |
|
|
looks like Obama will remove ban on gays in the military. Your house of cards is already falling down. |
|
excuse for a human being, Van.
So glad you'll soon be whining about the Cal Supremes overturning Prop 8. |
|
any basis for your pov other than hate.
"And who decided that it was a crime?" The 'people' that you think should be able to make gay marriage illegal.
If sodomy is a crime anywhere, then men who engage in sodomy with women should also be prosecuted, yes?
|
|
|
would you arrest a man and woman who engaged in oral or other non-traditional sex? |
|
"And why do you hate pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and polygamists?"
Those folks are all guilty of crimes. Being gay is not a crime. So your analogy is completely wrong. I'd say nice try, but that would be too sarcastic.
I do find it interesting that the two biggest financial supporters of Prop 8 were the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches, the former which hid pedophiles for years, and the latter which would prefer to go back to polygamy. Seems they use gay people to make people forget just how criminal those churches have been.
|
|
that you are simply a hater of gay people. You don't answer questions, and you say nonsense like "Gaydom, OTOH, has brought nothing but emotional and physical destruction both to its practitioners and to anyone near them, especially the children. It is a known scientific fact that children are raised better in a healthy lifetime monogomous partnership between their father and mother."
If that is all true, then we best impose the rules I suggested. Meanwhile, Bristol is still a single mommy of a child whose daddy is a high school dropout who is now unemployed.
Hater. My marriage isn't harmed by gay marriages, it is harmed by rampant divorce as we have now, and by so many adulterers in the world. Clean up your straight marriage world and stop worrying about gay people. Besides, by May 2009, gay marriage will once again be legal in CA.
And another question...do you mind if there is gay civil union? If not, then you are hung up on a word.
|
|
like the house of cards it resembles.
If marriage is, in your little ideal world, sactified because it may lead to procreation, then no one should be allowed to marry unless they (a) prove they are fertile in advance of the marriage, and (b) agree to dissolve the marriage within 2 years if the woman does not get pregnant. No one can marry even if the only way they can have children is by adoption or in vitro. And no divorce ever, adultery prosecuted as the crime it once was, leading to the nullification of the marriage itself and jailing of the adulterer as a first degree felony.
If you'll agree to those limitations on straight marriage, then I might think that your differentiation of gay versus straight marriage holds any water. But you know that straight folks won't pass laws limiting their right to marry as often as they want, children or no children, or putting their adulterous folks in jail. So, you have no argument against gay marriage except you hate gay people.
Two questions you haters never do answer....
(1) You claim that people choose to be gay, yet you never answer the question when did you choose to be straight. And (2) why is it ok for straight couples to engage in sodomy, esp. straight couples who never intend to have babies. |
|
Maybe you are right, if same-sex marriages were allowed, you might see more applicants that are taking advantage of the benefits and are not actually homosexual.
My question is this. Why then, does it almost always work out that a man and a woman interested in pursuing a relationship with each other are the majority of people who get traditional marriages? You would think any guy and girl who wants to "game the system" as you are saying would just get married.
I think that once these people found that disolving a same-sex marriage would be the same amount of fun as disolving an opposite-sex marriage, you would see a lot less of them.
Also, saying that people that disagree with you do nothing but hurl insults, and especially when that is not the case, does nothing to advance your point of view. |
|
includes many acts that married men do with their wives, and includes 'portals' that are not used to procreate. Why should straight married people be able to act in ways that you deny gay married people? Why should old people, who cannot procreate, be allowed to marry? Why do we allow divorce and adultery--both huge impediments to the sanctity of marriage?
And what is it...day 10 since Bristol gave birth? Why the marriage delay?
The issue is this--does Rick Warren's church conduct Jewish marriage ceremonies? Has anyone demanded that he conduct Jewish marriage ceremonies? Why then, Mr. Medved, do you think that he'd be required or demanded to conduct gay marriage ceremonies? And don't you think--given a big enough fee and PR exposure--old Rick wouldn't marry famous gay folks, especially since he likely will be on the wrong side of the Prop 8 debate? |
|
by supporters of same-sex sodomy is astounding. They rarely get past name-calling.
If anyone thinks only same-sex sodomites will take advantage of changing the definition of marriage, they are crazy.
Nearly every single person I know plans to find another single person of the same sex to join in this new institution. None of these people ever expect to engage in sexual activity with each other. In the end, everyone in America should be reaping the benefits of the proposed new definition of marriage. Just think, anyone will be entitled to spousal benefits whether they be survivor benefits or family health insurance or whatever other benefits the current institution of marriage grants to people.
The morons have no ability to see all of the ramifications of doing away with traditional marriage. |
|
|
his church, do they? So why do you think that anyone would demand that Warren marry gays? We are mad at Obama for giving Warren, an intolerant hater, any forum at his inauguration. But the funny thing is that I expect that when the Cal Supremes void Prop 8 in March, Warren will conduct gay marriages, not at his intolerant church (his parishioners will tar and feather him), but maybe at someone's house. I bet he'd marry someone like Ellen and Portia. |
|
That's correct. That is why there is a push to legalize same-sex marriages.
We decide why one should be banned and one legalized based on it's effect on society. I for one think that children being able to enter into contracts which may exploit them, or which they do not fully understand, is far more dangerous than allowing two people to enter into a marriage contract as these two people would be of the age that our laws consider them to be consenting adults.
Pedophilia and same-sex marriage are different, obviously. First and foremost, pedophilia has a victim, the child. Pedophilia can cause untold amounts of damage to it's victims and their families. Pedophilia is illegal not just because society finds it "repulsive", but because it causes a great deal of harm to innocent children. |
|
"Because our society and it's laws deem that children lack the maturity necessary to enter into a legally binding contract below a certain age."
The laws in many states also prohibit same-sex marriage. Why should one be banned and the other legalized? As for "society", the very idea of same-sex marriage used to be repulsive in American society. If society's attitude toward pedophilia, should it be legalized? |
|
Because our society and it's laws deem that children lack the maturity necessary to enter into a legally binding contract below a certain age. There are many legal contracts that children are unable to enter into, not just a marriage contract. That's a separate issue. The law is set up that way to protect children and others.
Again, no animal can enter into a legal contract regardless of gender, species, age, etc. That's different than saying some animals can enter into a contract, and some cannot.
This would be a bit of a different conversation if civil unions were legal and recognized in all states. They are not. Nor are they exactly equal to a marriage. The federal government does not recognize civil unions. Therefore, any benefits granted to a marriage by the federal government are not granted to civil unions. Already, this makes them unequal. Nor is a civil union in one state recognized by another state.
While I would rather a marriage be a marriage for opposite-sex and same-sex alike, I would for the time being be happy with a completely equal civil union recognized as valid in all the states and by the federal government. |
|
"The argument isn't about extending rights to anyone."
I think proponents of homosexual marriage would disagree with you. Their whole argument is based on their concept of "rights."
"Children do have rights but no child can enter into a marriage contract if they are below the age limit."
I'm aware of that, but that wasn't my question. My question was, if we're going to re-define marriage to include homosexuals, why shouldn't we broaden it to include children and animals? |
|
Bi-sexuality means that you're attracted to both genders. If you're bisexual and you get married, you'd either be entering a same-sex marriage or a opposite-sex marriage. If you're suggesting that someone that is bisexual would have multiple marriages, that is polygamy and polygamy is illegal across the board, not just for certain sets of people.
As much as I've enjoyed your enlightening posts in this and other threads, I think you're a bit off the mark here. |
|
The argument isn't about extending rights to anyone. Children do have rights but no child can enter into a marriage contract if they are below the age limit. That's different than saying that only some children can enter into a marriage contract.
Animals cannot enter into any contracts at all that I know of or I'm sure there would be plenty of animals looking for "don't kill and eat me" contracts.
|
|
If two people of the same gender want to have sexual relations, that is their business. For the state to recognize it as "marriage" is quite another matter.
Whether you're willing to admit or not, you're basically arguing that we should broaden our traditional definition of marriage to include people of the same gender. Once we re-define marriage in that regard, where do we stop?
Many homosexual activists say it should only extend to "consenting adults." Why? Don't children have any rights? Don't animals have the right to marry owners that they obviously love? Suppose a brother and sister want to get married? Aren't they "consenting adults"?
You will probably dismiss this as a "slippery slope" argument. I must point out that slippery slope arguments have often proven true. |
|
|
What is a bi-sex marriage? |
|
|
Imagine a situation where the government decided only to recognize same-sex marriages and NOT recognize "traditional" marriages. Would you consider yourself to have the same marriage rights as a gay person? You would, after all, have the same right to marry anyone you wished and have that contract recognized by the state, so long as that person was of the same sex as you. I bet you'd feel like gays at that point were getting special privileges that you weren't. |
|
Thank you for your reasoned argument. It's people loke you who make this debate more difficult, because you speak with such reason and clarity, without taking offense.
I actually agree that most gays just want to be left alone but it's the small minority, "activists" if you will, who continually push the envelope and make the rest of us feel like it is getting shoved in our faces. Sort of like Christmas. Very few people, believers or not, take offense to Christmas, but those few who lie to stir things up make it miserable for everyone else.
I disagree with your same-sex marriage argument. Any person has the same right as I have to marry. I am prohibited to marry someone of the same sex just like anyone else. I have no special benefits that any other group is denied. I can't marry my sister, just like everyone else. I can't marry two women, just like everyone else.
I still happen to disagree with you, however. |
|
Actually, I would submit that most gays aren't "activists" and want nothing more than to be left alone. That's certainly the case with the gay folks I know -- they mostly just want to be left alone to live their life.
Most "activists" in any special interest tend to practice a double standard. Government spends way too much of its time either taking property from one person to give to another or granting a favored group some sort of special privileges not available to another group. If the government would stay out of the business of granting special privileges altogether, you wouldn't have special interests lobbying for special privileges.
In this particular issue -- same-sex marriage -- the government is granting a special benefit to a favored group: heterosexual married couples. The fact that the vast majority of folks are straight doesn't make it any less of a special benefit. By recognizing the marriage contract between two consenting adults of different sex, the government provides them with certain special privileges and benefits with respect to property and other things. |
|
"You mistakenly lump all "supporters of homosexual marriage" together. So I can't speak for all of them, but I know one such supporter who does indeed support religious dissent: me."
I grant there are exceptions to every rule, and I applaud your stand. Unfortunately, I fear that you are an exception and not the rule. I've seen far too many gay activists who want to punish churches for "hate speech" simply because they preach against homosexuality. I've seen many such sentiments expressed on TownHall.
"They should be allowed to refuse the use of their campground for any reason they choose."
Agreed, but the courts are telling them that they can't, and this is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent. Now that Barack Obama is going to the White House, many of us fear he will appoint more "activist" judges who will squelch religious freedom.
You cannot deny that homosexual activists and their sympathizers have a double standard when it comes to "tolerance" and "diversity." When so-called "Christian" groups commit violence against homosexuals, the news media talks about if for weeks. When homosexuals commit violence against their opponents, as they recently did in California, most news outlets look the other way. Like most people on the political left, homosexual activists seem to think "tolerance" and "diversity" extends only to those who agree with them. |
|
quote: "Will supporters of homosexual marriage really accept religious dissent? If anyone thinks so, please get in touch with me. I can get you a great deal on a certain bridge in Brooklyn."
You mistakenly lump all "supporters of homosexual marriage" together. So I can't speak for all of them, but I know one such supporter who does indeed support religious dissent: me.
If the situation you describe actually happened, the church in question should appeal to the Supreme Court. They should be allowed to refuse the use of their campground for any reason they choose. |
|
According to OneNewsNow.com, a lesbian couple recently sued a campground owned by the United Methodist Church for refusing to host their "wedding." The state of New Jersey ruled in favor of the lesbians.
Will supporters of homosexual marriage really accept religious dissent? If anyone thinks so, please get in touch with me. I can get you a great deal on a certain bridge in Brooklyn. |
|
Tarantino explains why Top Gun is the gayest movie ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN8VN4BSzM&feature=related
H/T: The Corner |
|
Actually, in most states gays DON'T have "civil unions", and the same people opposing same-sex marriage typically oppose civil unions being enacted as well.
As far as someone forcing you to "accept their lifestyle", how is that achieved? Most people simply want the same rights and benefits under the law as everyone else. Nobody can force me to "accept" anything -- I can choose not to like your lifestyle, my lifestyle, or anybody's. I don't have a right to be "accepted", but I also don't have a right not to be offended, and neither do you.
Nobody is attempted to "force" you to be gay, or to even like or approve of their lifestyle. If they do, then I'll fight that too.
I'll certainly agree that special interest groups in general tend to go overboard in attempting to get the government to grant them special benefits and privileges that other groups don't get. I fight that concept whenever it occurs. But in this case, you're attempting to do the same thing: you want to be able to have your marriage contract recognized by the government, with the benefits and privileges that incurs, but you don't want another group of individuals to have that same treatment.
The purpose of government is not to promote "morals" or "values" or to protect you or anyone from being offended. It is not to ensure that you aren't ever faced with others that make you uncomfortable. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To protect property, and protect against fraud and coercion. |
|
I don't have a problem with individual couples and the government recognizing their unions.The problem is that it isn't about that. They already have civil unions. The problem is gay people are not happy with that. They want to force us (and if not us then our children)to accept their lifestyle and normalize it.
So regular folks have to accept boys going into their daughters locker rooms because the boys say they feel like a woman that day. I have a problem with firefighters and school children being forced to march in gay parades or be fired or disciplined. I have a problem with kids being taken out of school when their test scores are bad to witness a wedding. I have a problem with everyone being sued because they don't agree with someone like the photographer in New Mexico or the father in Massachusettes. And that is what it comes down to. Because gay people are not happy with their civil unions - granting them all the rights of a married couple - but rather have to try and force everyone to call them married all these other consequenses follow.
Government, schools etc. did not start forcing this stuff down our throats and teaching this nonsense for no reason. It did it because it is terrified of the ACLU and other groups suing it for discrimination. So to accomodate the whiners and to avoid lawsuits it gives in. and just like with the parker situation in massachusettes the governments have decided parents don't have the right to object to anything. So we have the schools afraid of the gays, atheists, muslims and other fringe groups and taking the rights away from regular people to accomodate these fringe groups. |
|
The question is not whether or not same sex couples can get married -- any church can already choose to recognize or perform (or not recognize nor perform) any marriage it pleases for any reason. Gay couples ARE getting married around the country and throughout the world.
The question is rather whether or not the government recognizes a contract between two consenting adults concerning property rights and other benefits that recognition of such a contract confers. This is the true issue we're debating, nothing else. The government has decided that it WILL recognize that contract between two consenting adults of opposite sex. Choosing to do so for same-sex couples does not in any way impede or infringe upon your rights to life, liberty, or the *pursuit* of happiness. It does apparently infringe on your *attainment* of happiness. Sorry, you have no right not to be offended.
You mention a man who was murdered simply because he professed his Christian faith. Obviously that was wrong, an obvious violation of that man's right to life. I'm sure examples are available where someone has been killed simply because he was gay as well. That's no less of a violation -- every person has that same right to life, and the taking of life is a crime no matter of why the person did so (which is why I don't believe in so-called "hate crimes" laws, but that's another story).
If a teacher is teaching things to which you object, then your problem is with the teacher and perhaps the school system or even the state or federal government -- NOT with a couple wishing to have their contract recognized by the government. If the policy is not changed, then you have to decide whether you wish to continue in public schools or change to a private or homeschool situation. This is true regardless of whether the issue involves homosexuality or something else. |
|
|
why would the lesbians take it to the state if they didn't intend to pursue it to the end? Which they would like to be the end of the church. |
|
The state Division of Civil Rights now has issued a Finding of Probable Cause against the Camp Meeting Association. A Finding of Probable Cause does not resolve a civil rights complaint. Rather, it means the state has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) has been violated. Therefore the state found the lesbians CAN sue the church which I am sure they will but nothing has been done or resolved yet.....
NOT A FAIRYTALE...
|
|
"my fairytales" ... So all these lawsuits are my imagination."
No lawsuits or courts involved in the Ocena Grove case. That's a fairy tale. |
|
|
"my fairytales" Hmm, there we go again attacking people you disagree with. So all these lawsuits are my imagination. Why don't we go ask the people being sued or thrown in jail if I am spouting "fairytales". |
|
"1. the fact is the property belongs to the church, it is private property, tax exempt or not, and it should be able to rent to who it wants to not be forced to go against its teachings, morals and values to accomodate people it doesn't want to accomodate."
It's a corporation owned by the church, and the renting of the pavilion is a commercial operation. Suppose a church owns a restaurant chain; should they be allowed to refuse service to blacks because their bible says that blacks are evil? No; this is America.
The tax exemption was not based on the facility being owned by a church; churches do not get tax exemptions for commercial ventures that they own. The exemption was based on their agreement to make the facility available to the public "on an equal basis." They have now lost that exemption, and I believe they should be required to pay twenty years of back taxes.
The association has ceased to rent out the pavilion, deriving themselves and the church of that revenue stream and the general public of an attractive facility. This is, I suppose, a reasonable exercise of their rights; it's refreshing to see hatred overcome greed. (Btw, this all happened nearly two years ago.)
"2. The courts have ruled thus far, it MIGHT constitute discrimination but it still has to go to court. So nothing definitive has been ruled yet."
No courts were involved in this, and as far as I can tell the matter is settled, and no legal actions are contemplated by either side. I know you like to make courts and their activist judges the villain in all your little fairy tales, but it doesn't work here. |
|
|
should my kid have to be locked in his room. why don't people keep their sexuality in their rooms. I don't run around naked in parades, have sex on family beaches, or heavily pet my husband in front of my child and don't want anyone else to either. I hear this all the time, well straight people don't care if straight sexuality is forced down their kids throats only homosexuality. They have a double standard. Um, No we don't. I don't want to take my kid to a ball game and have some hetersexual couple making out passionatly either. Keep your tounge in your mouth, keep whatever yougot in your pants and keep it the hell away from public places. If you want to hold hands or hug I don't care. If you want to force my kid to march in a parade behind some dude, with a hairy butt hanging out of a g-string I'm going to have a problem and I don't really care if that guys is gay or straight. |
|
when clerks are forced to deny the words that come naturally off their lips "merry christmas" for fear of getting fired, like two women this holiday season did that does upset me. And probably the thing I was most looking forward to about being a parent was going to all my kids nutty performances at school. I wanted to see him be a sheep like peppermint patty on the peanuts christmas special and say moo instead of baa, or be like sally saying hark harold angels sings. Seeing him trip over the baby jesus and knock the whole manger over. Now if I send him to school I will hear none of that not even a rudolph the red nosed reigndeer, I may hear silent night winter night rather than the original silent night holy night and I may get into trouble if my kid gives out candy canes or by accident I send him to school with red and green cupcakes (oh I forgot no bake sales or birthday cakes anymore) send him to school with a jesus is the reason for the season tshirt. So yes my christmases are different.
Another example, this year like every year I go see the radio city christmas show. Every year at the end of the show they do a nativity scene and then on the screen they show and read a poem/verse whatever. I love this part and it really brings the whole show full circle. This year for some reason it was gone and I was left feeling gyped. The rest of my weekend in new york was ruined because I wasn't feeling the love. Then I took my son to the build a bear workshop every year they have a frosty, a rudolph something christmasy, this year they had a friggin moose, a moose, what does a moose have to do with christmas..... |
|
These are the exact facts of the case. Note the state has merely issued a finding of probable cause. And the church allowed the public to use its facilities BEFORE same sex unions were allowed so no use at that point would conflict with its teachings. Also the church has now stopped allowing the public to use its property. Im sure many other residents are thrilled about that.
"A church organization has been caught up in a discrimination case brought by two lesbians who were denied permission to rent the Christian group's facilities for a "ceremony" after the meaning of "equal" was changed by the state, according to a warning from Liberty Counsel.
The situation involves the United Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which has been accused by the government in New Jersey of discriminating against a self-described lesbian duo, Luisa Paster and Harriet Bernstein, who were denied permission to rent a church pavilion.
The pavilion is on church-owned beachfront property near Asbury Park and had been open to the public for decades under an agreement reached between the church and the local government then.
One of the provisions of the agreement was that the pavilion would be open to the public "on an equal basis," according to the report from Liberty Counsel.
But in 2007, years after the original agreement was adopted, the state set up a same-sex civil union law and the duo demanded permission to use the pavilion. When they were refused they filed a complaint alleging the new definition of "equal" was violated.
The state Division of Civil Rights now has issued a Finding of Probable Cause against the Camp Meeting Association. Division Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, who also was a complainant in the case, issued the decision. "
|
|
I'm a live and let live kind of guy. I don't care what homos do in their private lives. But just like all sexual activity, it should be kept PRIVATE!! Its not something that needs to be discussed in the classroom or on the nightly news. If parents want their kids to know about the gay culture and lifestyle, then parents should be allowed to teach their kids about it. Likewise, if parents don't want to teach their kids about it, then it should be their choice!
The gay lobby says they just want to be accepted, and yet they insist on shoving their agenda in our faces and forcing it on our children? Why???
Gays are a tiny fraction on the fringe of society! Their agenda is no more important than the culture and lifestyle of the goth vampires that hang out in night clubs and drink animal blood, or the agenda of the skin heads. Do our children need to learn about the culture & lifestyle of skin heads just because a tiny fraction of the population are skin heads??? I think not.
Personally this issue for me ranks just below the migration pattern of the South American Emu. I don't give a rat's tail about the gay agenda, just keep it out of my face!
Live and let live. |
|
The fact that sexuality is so prevalent and visible in our society now is really unrelated to homosexuality. It's been the trend for the last 50 years, well before any concrete LGBT movement had formed. If you want your child to keep his "innocence", you're going to have to very closely monitor what he sees and hears and reads, i.e, lock him in his room. Or are you saying it's okay for your child to see "normal" sexuality, just not homosexuality? You can teach your child your religion just as you could when you were growing up.
You can still enjoy Christmas without offending anyone. Really, does the fact that lots of stores say happy holidays really make your Christmas suck? I see Santa's and Christmas trees and wreaths and all other kinds of holiday decor all over the place. I love the Christmas season. I love the music, the feeling, the excitement. I wouldn't even have noticed or cared about a store saying happy holidays instead of merry Christmas except for the people up-in-arms about it. |
|
|
i suppose you heard about the man in nederland, colorado who was shot to death, leaving behind a wife and two kids because he professed his christianity. He was a work and some crazy guy came in and asked him what his religion was and when he told him he shot him two times and killed him. I guess that is what this debate is going to come to, agree with me or I will kill you. Much like the muslims, who when they take over our europe and the united states will not allow any of this nonsense. |
|
condescending...why don't you get your facts straight.
1. the fact is the property belongs to the church, it is private property, tax exempt or not, and it should be able to rent to who it wants to not be forced to go against its teachings, morals and values to accomodate people it doesn't want to accomodate. That would violate ITS rights. I am so tired of everyone claiming because something has something to do with something that means they get their way.
2. The courts have ruled thus far, it MIGHT constitute discrimination but it still has to go to court. So nothing definitive has been ruled yet. |
|
i miss the world i grew up in. I got to enjoy christmas without worrying about offending someone, adults were adults and didn't act like and pretend to be kids, Ronald Reagan made me feel safe like a grownup was in charge not like all of these clowns running things nowadays.
As for my kid I have always said I would rather him be gay then a democrat. But my fear isn't that he does or does not turn out gay rather I want him to be able to keep his innocence for as long as possible. I want him to feel the security of the love of a mother and father of not having sexuality shoved down his throat before he even hits puberty, of believing that the Lord, a higher being, is out there in the universe loving him and looking out for him. I want the biggest thing he has to worry about be the bully who tries to steal his lunch money, or getting detention for throwing a paper airplane. |
|
"A again I believe it was a methodist church didn't want to perform a civil ceremony and so it is being sued by two lesbians who say they were discriminated against."
No. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has for years rented its oceanfront pavilion to the general public for weddings, parties, and other secular and non-secular events. They refused to rent it to a lesbian couple for a civil ceremony. The NJ Division on Civil Rights ruled that that constituted discrimination.
The property has enjoyed a tax exemption for decades because it promised that the pavilion would be open to the public "on an equal basis" under the NJ environmental Green Acres law.
The Association is said to be "affiliated" with the United Methodist Church.
I have no doubt that, despite having been presented with the true facts in the matter, you will remember it and repeat it in the future in the fictitious alternative you wrote originally. |
|
The examples you cited are examples of people taking things way too far. They are all very limited cases and don't reflect the vast majority of behavior by the homosexual community. Did you condemn the southern baptists when they rallied and picketed against Disney for not changing their hiring practices to exclude homosexuals?
Yes, they will be taught about gay culture in school, just as they are taught about all kinds of cultures, viewpoints, religions, etc. It's one thing to learn about it, it's another to be advocating for it and I really don't see high schools trying to teach children to be gay. You seem like you're a little afraid that your children will be talked or tricked into being gay.
Gavin Newsom and the judges in California did not "create" laws. The law in California at the time did not allow for the discrimination against same-sex marriage and the judges that ruled on it stated this. Majority opinion is irrelevant to the judicial process. It's up to the legislative branch to create laws that reflect what the people want. That's why Prop 8 was created. While I really don't like the results of the Prop 8 vote, I have a hard time coming up with a good argument against it. My only hope is that it is unconstitutional in some way but I'm not a legal scholar so I don't know if it is or isn't. I suppose I'll have to wait a few years till a proposition to remove the law is brought to the people and wins the majority vote.
The United States will change with every generation. What you knew as a child will not be the same as what you know when you're older. There are probably people still alive who are old enough to remember when women did not have the right to vote and separate-but-equal and jim crow was the law of the land. You may not like the direction the country and the culture is heading but you will never be able to stop the evolution.
|
|
|
nevermind, like that restaurant, el coyote, even if I agree with gay marriage if one of my employees privately donated 50 bucks to the prop 8 campaign I suffer.The owner didn't donate money or support prop 8 one of his employees did. So the gays say the whole business has got to go. You know what that means...In the future employers will look more closely at your personal life and business before they hire you. I guess that is what everyone wants. |
|
|
were just about spending their lives with the people they love they would just do it. When one photographer didn't want to do their ceremony, they would find another that does and be on their way. Why after you have your ceremony with a great photographer do you feel the need to go back and punish the first photographer by suing him. When a church wont let you use their property for you ceremony go get another place. Don't get another place have your ceremony and then go back and sue the church. When a parent objects to something the school should take that parent seriously, respect the parents point of view and allow that parent to take their child out of the classroom for objectionable materials. Heck when one parent objects to kids singing rudolf the red nosed reindeer rudolf has got to go, this guy wasn't even asking that much, just to be notified and allowed to take his kid out of class during gay indoctrination time in kindergarten. And also, I mean really why do kids need to see their teacher get married gay or straight. They should be in school learning math or something. In my day teachers got married during summer break and just came back to class with a different name. And why do the kids need to be taken out of school to march in a gay pride parade. What does that have to do with two people wanting to spend their lives together. |
|
I thought the issue was should we let gays marry who they want to marry I was all for gay marriage. When I saw what effect gay marriage would have on me I got mad and now am against it.
WHAT EFFECT you ask?
1. I could be arrested if I challenge my kids school because I don't want my kindergartner taught about the gay lifestyle or taken out of school to see their gay teacher get married.
2. My kid would be harrassed in school and possibly punished and that punishment would go on their permanent records because I am teaching them my moral values.
3. My business could get sued if I don't accomodate everything a gay person wants. I would have to choose between my livelihood and my morals values.
4. I could lose my church if the church gets sued into oblivion so I would have no place to practice my religion.
So when gay marriage proponents say how does my getting married effect your life the above reasons are how.
|
|
There are two sides to every issue. Except that one side wants to completely shut down the other side. If they are so right about their issue they can have a fair debate and see how it comes out. But they are afraid to have a fair debate. So they get judges to rule in their favor, give them their way, punish those who disagree and thus shut the people who disagree up because they just don't need the headache.
What kind of argument is you don't agree with me so you are a homophobe, bigot, hatemonger. That is the response from someone who really has no argument. Much like a childs nanannana...
So far in Massachusettes a father was thrown in jail and told he had no rights when he objected to his young daughter being indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle. San Diego, kids from public school were forced to march in the gay pride parade where lewd and illegal acts were commited and the police did nothing. A photographer in New Mexico is being sued because she didn't want to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Kids in San Francisco were taken out of school to watch a gay wedding. When was the last time you heard of a class taken out of school to watch ANY wedding. A church in New Jersey being sued because they wouldn't allow a gay commitment ceremony to take place on their property. And the list goes on. So when gay people say they just want their rights, they just want to spend their lives with the people they love they are lying. What they really want is for EVERYONE to accept and condone their lifestyle and they want no dissent at all. |
|
BM: "It's safe to say that support for gay marriage is increasing with every passing day, as the older generation dies out and the younger comes of voting age. Our system is set up, rightly so, to make major change slow and painful. Gay marriage will eventually be the law of the land."
Me: Here's hoping you are wrong. |
|
1. California didn't take away gay rights. Gays NEVER had the right to marry members of the same sex. Gavin Newsome and some nutty judges created this right and immediately californians went to work to put the judges in their place and let them know they can't CREATE law because they feel like it.
2. Lawsuits against churches who won't marry gays have already happened. I believe it's Ocean Grove New Jersey. A again I believe it was a methodist church didn't want to perform a civil ceremony and so it is being sued by two lesbians who say they were discriminated against.
3. Why is it that when a christian person has a problem with something in society it is always: turn the channel, change the station, etc. In essense just shut up and deal with it but when another group doesn't like something they throw big hissy fits till they get their way. Getting really aggravated by this nonsense, we have that lunatic suing justice john roberts to make sure Obama doesn't put his hand on a bible, we have lesbians suing churches, taking kindergarteners out of school to go see gay weddings, hispanics blocking traffic on highways during their marches and shooting border patrol agents. I am getting tired of these whiny self centered people trying to change the United States into Sodom and Gomorrah. |
|
"If it can't pass in California riding the coattails of the Obama election I don't think it will ever pass."
If no one over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have been defeated handily; they voted 2-1 for it. Young voters took the opposite stand, and there's no reason to believe that people change their minds on this issue as they get older. Nate Silver says there's some evidence that this difference between the generations is greater in the minority communities.
It's safe to say that support for gay marriage is increasing with every passing day, as the older generation dies out and the younger comes of voting age. Our system is set up, rightly so, to make major change slow and painful. Gay marriage will eventually be the law of the land. |
|
Happy New Year and Happy Birthday. My wife is also a New Year's baby but we're old enough that we'll be the grandparents watching the grandkids tonight - and I guarantee, we will be enjoying a long winters nap by the time the new year is rung in.
I agree with you about keeping tax exempt organizations from contibuting to political causes, but as you may or may not know, the Mormon church did not contibute money or resources to the Prop 8 debate. They never take political stances or ever endorse political candidate. They do get involved with moral issues, however, and encourages its members to become involved. Many church members did contribute money and resources to Prop 8 but not the church - Big difference. |
|
It's hard to say. The vote in California was close 52-48. If another vote were to happen, it's hard to say if the results would be the same. You may not have as many people voting except for the people for whom this is a serious issue. In the more left leaning area's of the country, the opposition to same-sex marriage is declining and I think you'll see a few more states in the near future approving same-sex unions of some kinds. Myself, I only argue up to the point where a same sex union can take place, will be equal to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the government, and will be recognized in all the states. I don't really want or feel the need to get into the religious aspect of marriage as that will always vary depending on what religious institution you're talking to. I'm against any government entity telling a religious organization that they have to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. On the other hand, I would argue against tax exempt church's being allowed to contribute money or resources to political causes as very much seems that the Mormon church did with Prop 8.
Like you, I don't consider myself an expert on any of this really. I try to read and educate myself as much as I can but I have a full-time job, a family, and hobbies. I like debates like this because I've found I do some of my best thinking when someone is disagreeing with me.
Anyway, happy new year everyone! I'm going out for some new years karaoke tonight with the added bonus that New Years Day is my birthday. All I've got to say is, thank goodness for grandparents that will watch their grandchildren on new years eve! |
|
marriage laws in the U.S. have nothing to do with sexual orientation. They are based on the sex of the two people involved.
Heterosexual same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying just as homosexual same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying. Heterosexual opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry just as homosexual opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry.
All I am saying is let us address the real issue. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is entirely about whether or not same-sex couples deserve the same legal institution as opposite-sex couples.
The prohibition against same-sex couples marrying is most certainly discrimination. However, not all discrimination is illegal. The question than is, should the law's giving of benefits and recognition to opposite-sex couples that it does not give to same-sex couples be considered illegal?
To bring in the issue of sexual orientation is to deviate from the real issue and prevent a sound discussion of the real issue.
If you want to talk about the efficacy of sodomy, do so; but, do not confuse that with the issue of changing the definition of marriage because the current definition of marriage is illegal by some. |
|
I try to be as open minded as I can and do my best to see the other side of an argument. I also have to admit that at times I have also resorted to a bit of "nastiness" in my arguments, but it's much better if we avoid that.
We both can find differing studies with conflicting results.
I personally don't profess to be an expert on the subject, and it won't do any good to repeat my same arguments.
I do think that the majority of Americans believe that a marriage should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. Each time that the issue is put to a vote that's the result. If it can't pass in California riding the coattails of the Obama election I don't think it will ever pass. |
|
quote: "Wouldn't it be a terrific world if every child in the world was able to be raised by a strong, protective father, who provided for his family, and a loving mother?"
Of course. And I personally feel very fortunate to have had that experience myself.
However, allowing the government recognition of a contract between two consenting adults doesn't change that one way or the other. No one is more likely to become gay just because marriage is suddenly recognized; rather, gay couples already living together without those property, tax, and insurance benefits will then have them.
Would recognition of same-sex marriage result in an increase in adoptions by same-sex couples? It probably would, but I don't see how that would come at the expense (for lack of a better word) of "traditional" two-parent families. The main difference I see is that children already being raised by a same-sex couple might face less in the way of persecution if same-sex marriage were more accepted by society at large.
Note too that gay marriages are already taking place. Any church can choose to recognize or not recognize any marriage for any reason. The question is whether or not the government recognizes the contract.
One other thing before I hit the road. There are already some places in the world where gay marriage is recognized. I'm not aware of any big problems those places are having since legalizing them. |
|
|
|
I would argue that a child could be raised in a homosexual household provided that both parents were able to give the child the things it he/she needs for development, such as love, guidance, discipline, education, and encouragement. I think that two people can provide that for a child regardless of their gender and sexual orientation.
I also know that regardless, the dynamics within a specific family will always be unique and one thing that works for one will not always work for the other. Perhaps a mother and a father ARE the ideal pair for raising a child but they are certainly not the only combination that works. There a many hetero mother/father households that are not the environment I would ever want my children in. I guess what it really comes down to is the character and personality of the parent(s) involved and less about what their gender and sexual orientation are.
I agree with Semper about same-sex couples raising children. Even if you disagree with same-sex marriages and same-sex couples raising children, I doubt you could argue that a loving homosexual household would be worse for a child than an orphanage, foster care, or in the worst cases, the streets. Even Bill O'Reily, in his book Culture Warrior, said he would favor same-sex adoptions over children spending their childhood in institutions(I only bring this up because he writes columns shown on TH sometimes).
Anyway, Maineconservative, thank you for your reasonable and cool-headed arguments. I have a lot more respect for someone like you, even though we disagree, than I do with someone that is just shouting at me. I know that people on both sides of the line on this and other issue's do that and I've been known to lose my cool a few times as well. A logical cool-headed debate is so much more fun than a shouting match. |
|
Wouldn't it be a terrific world if every child in the world was able to be raised by a strong, protective father, who provided for his family, and a loving mother? Unfortunately that doesn't always happen for numerous reasons, but I'm kind of a simple man. I believe that we should make every effort to supply as many kids with that ideal family as possible. It seems to me that changing the definition of marriage strays from that effort.
As I said before, I know there are exceptions to the rule on both sides. Some solid people have been raised by single or even sam sex parents. Conversely, some heterosexual couples are deplorable parents. The rule still applies, and I think we should argue the rule, not the exceptions.
I just couldn't let Nate get away with his "stdies have shown no difference" argument. |
|
Studies or no studies, it is just common sense that a child is best in a stable, loving, two-parent household. We learn certain things from a mother, and we learn other things from a father. There's a reason we've developed the habit of these kinds of relationships.
That said, one of the reasons a lot of folks have problems with gay marriage or even just gay relationships is the idea of a same-sex couple adopting and raising children. Others bring up some kind of idea that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, and since same-sex couples can't procreate entirely with each other, that it is invalid.
Again, obviously the "traditional" family arrangement, all other things being equal, is best. But I don't see any reason to believe that being raised by a gay couple is any worse than being raised in a series of foster homes, or in an orphanage, or by a single mother or father. I think like anything else, it's a case-by-case basis. I've known gay couples that I'd trust my children with, and I've known straight people I wouldn't want anywhere near anyone's children.
I think a lot of folks are afraid that a gay couple is more likely to somehow raise their children to be gay, but I know of no evidence that suggests this to be true. I didn't choose to be straight, I am that way by nature; the fact that I was raised by parents who are also straight didn't control what I'm attracted to sexually. |
|
With regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, it's a common misconception that they were destroyed because of homosexuality -- nowhere does it say that in the Bible. They were destroyed because they were overall wicked people, because there was no righteous person left. Lot and his family were spared only because of Abraham's intercession, but they were certainly not righteous either, as you allude to.
The key part of the people of S&G wanting to have sex with the angels was that they were wanting to rape them. That Lot even thought to send his daughters out shows his level of depravity as well. |
|
This one from a liberal democrat.
http://www.americanvalues.org/html/FUMA.htm |
|
"Studies have shown that children that come from those households are no different and varied than children who come from single or two parent heterosexual households."
Can you cite some of those "studies".
I happen to disagree. See this "study"
http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html
Fathers have much different roles than mothers. Both are important to the growth and development of a child. My kids learned from me many important things that they could not have learned from their mother. They also learned much from my wife that would have been impossible for me to teach them.
Now, I know there are exceptions to the rule, and single parents have raised some terrific people, but as a rule, kids have a much better shot with a mother and father in the home. |
|
I agree with Semper on this. I understand his argument and he makes it with clarity and reason. I happen to disageree with that but I respect his argument.
You, on the other hand are a moron, and it's impossible to have a legitimate debate with a moron. |
|
That plain fact is, we've moved beyond the point of needing to worry about advancing the species. There are 6 billion people in the world and some would argue that's too many already! Homosexuality is actually GOOD for the planet because it doesn't create even more life to suck up the Earth's dwindling resources!(I know that's a little silly).
None of the rest of our laws are based on laws of nature, why would we choose to have our marriage laws be that way. Homosexual households can raise children the same way a heterosexual household can. Studies have shown that children that come from those households are no different and varied than children who come from single or two parent heterosexual households. Children don't need a MOTHER and a FATHER specifically, they just need the love, guidance, and nurturing that those parents provide and there is not limitation on who can provide that. There are probably children in this country raised in two parent same-sex households, though not homosexual(a father and his brother, a mother and her sister, a mother and her mother etc) and by your logic, those people should turn out differently. You think that the fact that the two people involved in a homosexual two parent household are in a sexual committed relationship with each other makes it completely different?
The state does have minimum requirements for driver's licenses, that's correct. Those requirements are in place to make sure you are sufficiently able to operate an automobile. If you are unable to, you can cause injury, property destruction, and even death to not only yourself, but others. THAT is why we license people to drive. Notice there are no bicycle licenses? |
|
Notice that they always bring up the homosexual male sex acts, not the female.
I will say you're not doing yourself any favors though by responding to ad hominem attacks with your own. |
|
quote: "However, I still do not see how homosexuals are denied rights that heterosexuals are granted."
A couple that consists of consenting adults of the opposite sex are legally able to have their marriage contracts recognized and enforced by the government, thus bestowing certain tax, property, insurance, and other benefits on the couple. A couple that consists of consenting adults of the same sex do not have that same ability to have the government recognize their contract.
Pretty simple actually. |
|
I did not realize you were such an advocate for advancing the practices of sodomy.
However, I still do not see how homosexuals are denied rights that heterosexuals are granted. |
|
1) By having this issue put out there for public debate, it lands on the evening news, the Sunday morning shows, and on the cable news channels. My kids see that stuff brought up and start asking questions. If you don't think a 3 year is smart enough to ask about something that he or she sees on TV, then you obviously don't have kids (would not surprise me). Again, this is not about fear as you like to imagine. I don't want my kids sexualized period! Same thing goes for porn. I don't want that topic brought up around my kids either. Kids are kids and we need to let them have their innocence. When my kids are old enough and mature enough to understand these issues, then I'll discuss them with them and that can make up their own minds.
2) Sorry but Im not buying your argument. States grant drivers licenses but there is a certain set of minimum requirements that a person has to possess before they can obtain one. The state gets to decide what those requirements are. If you had your way, they would have to give drivers licenses to blind people b/c to not do so would be discrimination.
3) What is stopping gay people from living as though they are married now??? Do you think that just b/c some government official declares a couple to be "married" that suddenly their mind-set is changed and they magically go from being promiscuous to faithful? My wife and I lived together for 4 years prior to getting married, but that didnt mean we didn't live as though we were married, and guess what, we were even faithful to each other! Imagine that! Sorry, either you are faithful or you are not and no government-issued piece of paper will change that. |
|
how so many people equate refusal to marry gay couples with discrimination against blacks, hispanics, etc........
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., are ethnic groups...........
Gays/Lesbians are not ethnic groups........
They are a LIFESTYLE.......... |
|
1) My kids are not even old enough to be in kindergarten yet, so don't tell me they already knew about homos. And even if they were old enough to be in schools, school yard kids teasing each other about it is quite different than dragging the issue out into the mainstream and have an open debate about it as though it is as normal as debating apple vs cherry pie. Its a sex-related issue that I don't want my kids exposed to.
2) Please show me where marriage is anyone's "right" as you keep referring to it. I didn't see anything in the Constitution that guarantees people the right to marry. Marriage licenses are granted by the states, but there's nothing that guarantees anyone must receive one.
BTW, you're gay "friend" that's been in a 20 year relationship that you keep siting is the exception - not the rule! Study after study has shown that gays are far more promiscuous than straights.
But again, I don't care if gays are more promiscuous. I really don't care if 2 consistent adults want to sodomize each other, just keep don't subject my kids to that. I don't care if people make pornos or watch pornos, but I don't want my kids exposed to it! Same thing! |
|
Personally, I think that the government should only recognize "civil unions" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. As for civil unions, I believe there are only a couple of states that have them for same-sex couples, and when a state has tried to establish them they are typically fought by many of the same people who oppose same-sex marriage.
Ultimately, this comes down to the age-old question: what is the purpose of government? I believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that the purpose of government is to protect an individual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Not to promote a specific moral code, not to promote values, but to protect liberty, to promote the idea that all are equal before the law.
A corollary to government protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is protecting property rights, and therefore the enforcement of contracts. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a contract, I see no reason why the government should pick and choose which of these contracts to recognize so long as they do not infringe on the liberties of another.
|
|
...argument. His examples of condemning church teachings are all legally prohibited behavior. These examples not only should be condemned but prosecuted under the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that where religion is concerned there is no "anything goes". Some practices are at odds with current laws and rights of individuals and are strictly prohibited. Every one of your examples are already prohibited and condemned and are and should be removed from religious practice in this country.
But there is no aspect of church teachings of Rick Warren's church, or my church, or Christian churches that I am aware of regarding marriage that is illegal or prohibited under the law. Therefore, you need to get over it. The government has chosen not to restrict this religious doctrine because it is not illegal. Therefore it is allowed. And to condemn matters of faith that are permitted under the law and prohibit believers from participating in the government is to deny them their freedom of religion. |
|
I get a tad irritated listening to people go on and on about how homosexuality is a just a beautiful normal facet of human sexuality. Hello!! Acting on the homosexual impulse serves absolutely no purpose. The "condition" and the "behavior" arguably are:
1. If you are an Evolutionist: An error in neural programming that doesn't otherwise inhibit normal physical function (well maybe wrist stability).
2. If you are a Biblicist: An unavoidable consequence of Man's fall from grace. Must have made God wince, that one!!
Homosexual agendicists, please feel free to shriek my ignorance from the tree-tops, but the simple fact of the matter is that the "condition" and the behavior are intuitively nonsensical....yet exist anyway....to be tolerated, yet not in ANY way to be accorded the same normal status as heterosexuality. |
|
I agree with your posts. But I would also add that it is a WASTE of tax payer dollars for our federal government to spend time on this issue! Redefining marriage to include homos does not serve the public at large and their job is to serve the public!
If the states want to let their own citizens decide on the matter, then they should do so via a referendum like California did with prop 8, and people should accept the outcome of the vote. No more whiny cry baby homos playing the victim card. |
|
more succinctly, the male-female sexual relationship is special. The male-male or female-female sexual relationship, compared to the male-female relationship, is no big deal. |
|
been away for awhile.
The main problem with including same-sex couples within the institution of marriage is that it is irrational.
When a society or its government acts irrationally, it encourages its people to act irrationally.
Marriage (as it is currently defined) is recognized by the government or society because of its relationship to procreation and the raising of children.
By changing the definition of marriage, the society will be saying that the relationship that produces children and best provides for the upbringing of children is no longer special.
That is a completely irrational position to take because procreation and the upbringing of children are still vital to a healthy society. To diminish the importance of these two activities is to, in a sense, condone species suicide. |
|
is talking over each other.
I am a conservative, politically and religiously.
If you like and it makes you feel good, consider me a right-wing fundamentalist, Bible-thumping neanderthal. I am opposed to homosexual marriage on religious and biblical grounds.
There, now that the preliminaries are out of the way.
However, that is not the only reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage and civil unions of any sort.
Natural Law exists. There are things that are true by their nature and as a part of just existing.
Sexual behavior in all creatures has as a purpose, propogation of the species.
It is in fact, natural, for homo sapiens to reproduce by the union of a male and female of that species.
Homosexual unions are by their very nature unable to procreate. If you wish to provide proof that this is inaccurate, please do so.
Therefore, allowing homosexuals to adopt is a tacit endorsement that homosexuals can perpetuate their unnatural behavior.
Society as a whole, should sanction and encourage behavior which advances the society. Please give us an example of the benefit and advancement for society provided by homosexual marriage.
It is a given that heterosexual marriage is part of the glue of all societies, present and past.
I don't want anyone arrested, beaten up, even ridiculed for their sexual behavior. However, I don't want homosexual marriage normalized. It is not "normal." |
|
|
You two fail to understand what marriage and the matrimonial cerimony is and that is a RELIGIOUS understanding of the union between God and a man and a woman. There is a governmental aspect of marriage where you must meet certain criteria in order to be legally recognized as "married", i.e. pay a fee, register or obtain a license, partake in a blood test, etc. The legal or governmental part of marriage is already obtainable through the vehicle of a "civil union" which I have yet to see anyone here trying to deny gays and lesbians that vehicle. If you two are being intellectually honest, you would acknowledge this fact and recognize that the "gay marriage" crisis is more of a social cause of those people looking for "acceptance" as normal and not so much about any legal situation that does or does not exist. |
|
Both of you seem like reasonable people to me and I appreciate your arguments and understand where you are coming from. I just disagree.
I do agree that the home is where I teach my children the moral standards that I espouse, but that doesn't mean that I won't do all that I can to try and keep the schools they attend and the society they are apart of to be high standards as I see them. It seems like we have a responsibility to do that.
I also don't believe we are denying rights to gays by not expanding the definition of marriage. Your argument of polygamy seems a little hollow - marriage has been for centuries defined as the binding relationship and commitment of one man and one woman. That is how families are created. That is how we procreate and continue the human race. I believe that children are much better taught and brought up with a Mother and a Father in the home. (I know there are exceptions, but let's not argue the execptions).
Now you want to change that definition to include same sex - still with only two people. Why wouldn't the next step be to expand it to include three people, or four, etc.? Then, why not brothers marrying brothers? Fathers marrying daughters? Are you going to discriminate against a daughter who wants to marry her fatherr? |
|
Other than the fact that the two people involved in a marriage are of the same gender, what do you think would be the difference between a same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage? Is that the only thing?
Polygamy is illegal for everyone. It's not the same as one pair of consenting adults being allowed to marry and one pair being excluded. Limiting marriage to two people is not the same as limiting marriage to two specific people.
Semper Libertas is exactly right in his post. You are responsible for teaching your children their morals. They will always be exposed to viewpoints that don't always coincide with yours no matter what you do and ultimately they will make up their own minds. I have three young children at home. I'm sure there will come a day when one of them asks my fiance(she'll be my wife by this time) and I why two men or two women are holding hands etc. I'm going to explain to them that they love each other and are devoted to each other the same way that mommy and daddy are. If one of them ends up being homosexual, I'm going to support them the same way I would if they were heterosexual, I'll just be more worried that the intolerance of others will harm them.
Homosexuals are not entirely different people than heterosexuals. They are people just like anyone, they just happen to have an attraction to people of the same gender as they are. We don't have to explain to our children that they are different and seperate, we need to explain that they are human beings and that everyone is different and that is okay. |
|
quote: "My concern is that if we sanction gay marriage that it will be taught as normal in our schools and that my kids and grandkids will be taught that it is as normal as heterosexual marriage. People have their own free agency to do with their lives what they will but I object to having it forced upon us as normal."
Regardless of what is taught as "normal" in school, the job of instilling morals in kids belongs to the parents. If you want to teach your kids that homosexuality or same-sex marriage is immoral or abnormal or whatever, that's your business, no different than what you teach your children about premarital sex in general or global warming or whatever.
If same-sex marriage were suddenly legal everywhere, nothing is being "forced" on anyone -- whether or not the government recognizes a contract between two people does not impact your own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness one iota. |
|
... is a contract between two consenting adults that provides certain property, tax, insurance, and other benefits on the participants. Marriage as recognized by a church can mean whatever that church wants it to mean. Let's not confuse the two.
Unfortunately, Medved and some others on here lump all advocates of gay marriage together and then begin attacking ad hominem. Yes, there are a-holes are see persecution everywhere and do hate religion, but most gay people I know just want to go about living their lives and be left alone -- just like most straight people I know.
Any church can choose to recognize or not recognize any marriage for any reason. If that right ever comes under attack, I'll defend it, even if it is, for example, a bigoted church that refuses to recognize inter-racial marriage. The issue at hand now, though, is whether or not the government should be deciding to confer special privileges on one group and not another.
Someone else's sex life is nobody's business, especially the government. For those that find gay sex distasteful or immoral, you have the right to try to persuade those people not to engage in it. |
|
I know you guys scoff at the slippery slope argument, but I believe it is a legitimate concern. Why, if we expand the definition of marriage to include two men, or two women, why wouldn't it be legitimate to expand it to two men and a woman, two women and a man, etc.?
My concern is that if we sanction gay marriage that it will be taught as normal in our schools and that my kids and grandkids will be taught that it is as normal as heterosexual marriage. People have their own free agency to do with their lives what they will but I object to having it forced upon us as normal.
I also really resent it when that view is interpreted as me hating gays, which I do not do. |
|
Yes, I remember arguing with you about this before. You're concerned that legal same-sex marriages would cause a flood of incestual marriages, people marrying their animals, etc etc. You still believe that we need to protect heterosexual marriage to protect procreation as if same-sex marriages would lower the birthrate considerably. All the laws written about heterosexual marriage were written before there was even a tiny movement interested in gay rights. It's only because our culture has progressed to the point that homosexuals are not afraid for their lives, the lives of their families, their livelihood, and their ability to live a normal life despite being outside of the mathematical "norm" that you see this movement becoming what it is.
I clearly remember you not answering a single question that I posed about the effects that legalizing same-sex marriages would have on current and future heterosexual marriages. Let me pose those questions again.
What effect will same-sex marriages have on heterosexual marriages?
What are the real negative effects on society that will be felt? This does not include your discomfort with same-sex marriages or that you would have to put up with "those gays".
Will the divorce rate skyrocket as currenty married heterosexual couples no longer feel their marriage is important now that same-sex marriages are legal? |
|
stop the lies. Marriage laws in the U.S. have nothing to do with sexual orientation or homosexuality. |
|
You'll find that most of the people that argue separation of church and state are not interested in the church doing anything in regards to same-sex marriages. Instead, we want state and federal governments to recognize a same-sex marriage as equal to current heterosexual marriages.
A church is a religious institution and the argument is not about a church recognizing a marriage, it's about the state recognizing a marriage. Having a marriage ceremony in a church does not grant you any rights, it's the marriage certificate that does. |
|
The very same folks that trumpet the vitures and go out of their way to enforce the consititutional right of seperation between chruch and state, want to now allow the state to force the church to perform certain religous rituals that the state finds appropriate on the church....
Are we now in the bizzaro world or what? |
|
That's a silly thing to say. You're not throwing a tantrum if you want to be treated equally but are denied equal treatment by people who condemn you based on a religion. It is irrelevant if you find it repulsive. Rights are not dictated by the comfort level of the majority.
Anti same-sex marriage advocates had better hope that the biological cause is never discovered because as soon as it is, same-sex marriages will be legalized.
Also, how are homosexuals spoiled? Are they getting benefits that you are not? Do they always get their own way? Like I said before, civil unions are only legal in a few states. Make them completely equal to marriage and legal in all 50 states and require each state to recognize a civil union from another state and then we'll talk. |
|
|
marriage is a church sacrement. gays should be happy with civil union but they wish force acceptance of a sexual preference most people find somewhat repulsive. they are nothing more than spoiled children throwing a tantrum becuase they did not get their way . |
|
|
we are Christians and follow the new testament and are not saved by the law . i realize and understand your hatred of religion and that's ok . homosexuality is one of the few things that new testament condemns . while the church has done some horrendous things in the name of Christ not voting for gay marrige is not one of them . |
|
You are right, persecution in this country is not as heinous as it is in other parts of the world. I think that's one of the great things about this country. That's progress.
That doesn't mean we should stop moving forward though. Why would you want to marry your dog? Why would you want to marry your sister or brother? If you are married, why did you want to marry your wife? Why do you like females?
There are only a few states that allow civil unions and they don't always grant the same rights as marriage. My support of same-sex marriage goes only as far as the government is concerned and I would disagree with any proposal to force church's to perform or recognize same-sex marriages against their will. There are church's that will already perform same-sex marriages. As long as the state views a same-sex marriage as equal to a heterosexual marriage, I will be happy. |
|
Yes, they do. But what if it isn't a choice? I'm willing to bet that your sister didn't choose to feel attraction and love for other women.
If there were some perks to being homosexual, I think it would different. There are no perks just as there aren't really any perks to being heterosexual except maybe that society will accept you if you are heterosexual. It's not a religion and it's not spiritual. It doesn't bring you fame, fortune, respect, or admiration. It doesn't get you high.
Assuming that homosexuality is a choice, what do you think a person's motivation is to "choose" to become gay?
|
|
|
for persecution pretty low . to consider not allowing gays to marry persecution would be laughable if it were not so pathetic .no one is forcing gays to were a scarlet g on their rearends ,their travel is not restricted ,they can own property and buisnesses they can associate with whomever they please, they can form legally binding agreements that give their significant others the same rights as married people ,they are even allowed to drink from the same water fountains. they are upset because the great majority of america does not agree with them on the issue of marriage .i personally like my dog much better than most people but i'm not going to marry her .i am also not going to marry my sister or brother that i love dearly or any number of other possible alternatives . i suppose because others are not willing to support my desires i should feel persecuted . |
|
I hate no one. My sister is a lesbian and I love her no less because of it. She has chosen a different path than I but I still love her.
I have joined a church that has caused some to ridicule me and call me a cultist. That's my choice and is right for me and has brought me much joy and happiness in spite of others ridicule. It's still my choice. People at times make choices that brings persecution onto themselves. |
|
Yeah, I'm sure that all the homosexuals over the course of history have "chosen" to live a lifestyle that, in most societies, was viewed very negatively and sometimes punishable by torture or death. A lifestyle that was not a religion that provided no dreamy dreams of a glorious afterlife if they could just make it through the persecution they had to endure in in their mortal life. A lifestyle that the followers of Christ named a religion after that was supposed to teach peace, love, and understanding but is instead being used to brand homosexuals as abominations, mistakes, and every other insult imaginable.
Yes, maybe they are all sado-masochists. Maybe they like being the rebels. That would explain why homosexuality has been a part of history from the lowliest peasant to the highest kings, from priests to paupers, from the land baron to the fishmonger.
Yep, they choose it. Can't have them born that way or that would mean you are persecuting someone for the way God made them. Can't have that, can we.
Hypothetically, what will you do when the biological cause of homosexuality is identified? Will you honestly be comfortable with yourself, and your religion, hating somebody because of the way they were born? |
|
OlsoRoy: "We know a lot more now. We know that most people are born with a gender preference."
Me: No we don't. Show me some proof of that. Identify the gene that causes homosexuality. Never been found. Just because you and a bunch of gay activists say it's so doesn't make it so. |
|
Bob Munck and Royinslo have been making some terribly good points.
I never presumed to think that only homosexuals have felt persecution. I was not trying to deny that Christians and other devoutly religious people don't experience persecution as well. Obviously they have and they do.
I condemn persecution in whatever form it takes and whatever it's target is. Please remember that as you read this. But the world is not black and white. Persecution of a group of people because of the way they were born is more heinous in my book than persecution of a group of people for the choices they make. You were not born a Christian. You were not a Christian(or whatever religion you happen to be a part of) until you made a choice in your mind to be a part of it. Religion is not biological. So, persecution of a group of people for the way they were born BY people who are persecuted for the choices they make is even more heinous.
|
|
For countless generations Bible-based Western belief systems made divorce impossible or at least socially unacceptable and made the oppression of homosexuality acceptable because it was considered a self-chosen sinful deviation.
We know a lot more now. We know that most people are born with a gender preference. We know that intolerance of divorce leads to the oppression of women, and perhaps men, to miserable lives, and that divorce is often best for the children.
As tragic as divorce is, it's an alternative we learned to accept despite its biblical implications. We aren't forced to divorce. Acceptance of homosexuality as a natural condition is another stage in evolution of our social selves.
|
|
"It matters not that I agree. But they have freedom of religion and should be permitted to believe and teach all things without condemnation."
Various religions in history have taught and practiced such things as ritual prostitution, chattel slavery, and the cutting out of infant's hearts with stone knives on the altar. This is ok with you?
I have the right to condemn any and all teachings of any and all religions: free speech. |
|
Pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal gay agitators is very tiresom. There are a myriad of examples and Michael has rightly identified this one, that they, the gay agitators swore they would not force churches to perform so-called gay marriage, but later, condemn those churches and religious leaders for teaching their followers to eschew the gay marriage myth.
I for will always support a churches right to believe and teach according to their doctrine and collective conscience. It matters not that I agree. But they have freedom of religion and should be permitted to believe and teach all things without condemnation. Let those who don't believe it, believe their own doctrines. No one should be left out of the political process for religious beliefs.
That the agitators want to force exclusion upon a believer is un-American and denies the rights of all to worship as they please. There should be no repercussions for religious belief. Faith is faith. Government is government. Let all faithful and non-faithful alike participate in the wonderful American political system without fear. |
|
|
ensuring their right to compete is a legitamate function of goverment . the goverment does not and should not be able to choose who you choose to to buisness with and who you choose to associate with . if it does then you have no freedom and no liberty. i for one think thaty anti smoking laws are crap ,if you own a buisness and choose to allow smoking so be it . no one is forced to go there or work there .but there are consequences , you could get cancer and any number of other health problems but it is all based on choice . freedom to associate with whom you please is basic human right |
|
"that is not a legitimate function of goverment"
Of course it is. Protecting the minority against the majority is perhaps the MAIN function of government.
I realize that right-wingers have constructed a fantasy government in their heads in which the only true function is military defense, but that's not the country we live in. Thank goodness. |
|
that is not a legitimate function of goverment .if those buisness people are foolish enough to discrimante against those people they can lose the money and if they lose enough they may go out of buisness . if an enterprising "minority " is not being allowed to go into buisness because of their color or whatever that is another matter.
i am self employed if i choose not to do work for someone, i do not. the reason is mine and mine alone , ocasionally it costs me money , but that is my choice and i live with the consequences . |
|
"if you are willing to tolerate the loss what buisness is that of the goverment?"
So you believe that those drugstore owners in the south should have been allowed to refuse to serve blacks at their lunch counters? Or that businesses should be allowed to refuse to sell to or hire Hispanics? Or that you should be allowed to refuse to sell your house to an Asian?
That's EXACTLY what the business of the government should be. You right-wingers really don't believe in the basic principles of our country, do you? |
|
|
should not be obeyed. if you discrimnate in your buisness you lose money.if you are willing to tolerate the loss what buisness is that of the goverment? |
|
"This is a myth"
No, it's a recorded, verified historic fact. The Greeks of that era left a great many documents, huge numbers of them preserved and reproduced by the Romans. Greece is a LOT better documented than, say, Jerusalem at that time. |
|
"You really should learn your history. The only part that [gays] ever played in a society was in contributing toward its eventual and ultimate demise."
Ancient Greece had elite military units that consisted of gay couples. These troops often played important roles in the survival and expansion of the city-states. For example, much of the success and long-term dominance of Thebes was due to such a unit. |
|
"a wedding photographer turned a lesbian couple down"
New Mexico has a LAW against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Since the photographer is a commercial enterprise, this is the equivalent of refusing to serve blacks at a lunch counter.
New Mexico also has a religious freedom law that would allow a church to refuse to marry gays.
That latter law also could be construed as applying to the photographer, as could general freedom of speech rights in this case. This is the reason that the photographer has a good basis to appeal the ruling of the NM Civil Rights Commission. It's a matter for the courts to decide: which law is more in the interests of the state? The law against discrimination or the law for religious freedom. |
|
|
a wedding photographer turned a lesbian couple down .she was a christian and did not wish to be thier photographer ,the complained to one of our state agencyshere in new mexico and the state goverment fined the photagher 6000.00 for violating the lesbians civil rights . soon they will be doing this to churchs . apparently freedom of association no longer exists |
|
"Johnny and Bobby want to get married in a real church. ... A liberal judge agrees with them and tells the Church in question they MUST marry this couple."
Christians refuse to allow couples to be married in their churches ALL THE TIME. Just this last summer, a nephew of mine was refused by his fiancee's (old and dotty) priest, due to his being a heathen Presbyterian.
Have you ever heard of anyone suing a church because they were turned down on religious grounds? You are constructing a bogey-man, and it's transparently false. |
|
"Try being called an abomination, a sexual deviant, being compared to pedophilia and incest, and any other of the number of insults and accusations leveled at the gay community by bigots and see how tolerant you are. Not that it's any excuse to be intolerant in return, but it does put things into perspective."
Silly argument, Nate. Why not do a search and see how many times "pedophile priest" "jokes" have been used to insult Catholics on public television? Try being called a "bible-beater" or getting compared to radical Moslems because you stick to your principles. Your "perspective" is more than a bit skewed if you think that only homosexuals have ever been persecuted. |
|
Unfortunately for you, homosexuality is not something that can be made illegal in this country. There may still be a few states left that have anti-sodomy laws on the books but those laws would be struck down as unconstitutional pretty quickly if someone tried to enforce them.
Homosexuality has always been a part of human society and always will be. You don't have to like it but you'll never get rid of it. In fact, younger generations will repeal many of the laws that keep same-sex marriages illegal in the near future. I think a big reason for this is that homosexuality is becoming less and less of a social curse and the homophobia of the older generations is seen as more and more absurd.
You can call that moral decay. I call it progress. |
|
|
using richard cizik as an example is kind of stupid , as a lobbyist he represented a group that was against any form of gay marriage be it marriage or civil union. It's comparable to be an anti smoking lobbyist and lighting up during a press conference . you would not keep your job long . |
|
"Conservatives have never attempted to marginalize or humiliate pastors who support gay marriage"
Maybe, maybe not, but they certainly will not hesitate to kick them out of leadership positions. I'm obviously talking about the case of Richard Cizik who had to resign after mentioning in an NPR interview that he believed in civil unions. He was the lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Both sides of this issue can be terribly intolerant but the difference is, homosexual intolerance isn't blocking people from equal rights.
Try being called an abomination, a sexual deviant, being compared to pedophilia and incest, and any other of the number of insults and accusations leveled at the gay community by bigots and see how tolerant you are. Not that it's any excuse to be intolerant in return, but it does put things into perspective. |
|
Homofascist. Many of them have said that tolerance isn't enough anymore (they have given up on trying to convince is that tolerance - affirmation). Now, they demand affirmation, encouragement, and support for the BEHAVIOR, and we are not allowed to say "no".
I would never try to pry two men apart. But I don't want to pay for their medical care, either, and they should not kick me out of my voting booth. |
|
If you think the legalization of Gay marriages won't hurt the church you are sadly mistaken, naive or just plain stupid.
Let me give you a scenario based on Gays haven been given the right to marriage.
Johnny and Bobby want to get married in a real church. The Pastor/Preacher/Reverend denies them a marriage in their church of choice as it's against the Church's beliefs.
Johnny and Bobby are furious and they go to the courts to file a law suit for discrimination. A liberal judge agrees with them and tells the Church in question they MUST marry this couple.
So now what for the Church? They either HAVE to marry the couple or stop being a Church if they stay true to their beliefs.
Think it can't or won't happen?
Can I interest you in a bridge........ |
|
|
Like most proponents of "diversity", gay activists think "diversity" extends only to those who agree with them. They would abolish the First Amendment if they could get away with it. |
|
|
Gays are quite possibly the most intolerant group of all .Marriage is not a right ,traditionally ,it is a sacrement. oprdained by the church and systymatically being destroyed by the state . they should be content with civil union , with the same legal rights as marriage .a lot of heterosexual couples should opt for civil union as well and leave marriage to beleivers . |
|
Homosexual activist groups won't push for a law compelling churches to perform gay marriages, they'll simply deny those churches "faith based initiative" money from the feds. It will be seen as just another instance of the government nobly refusing to support "bigotry and hate".
Medved and others were warned that if the federal government gave money to churches it would come with strings attached. This didn't seem so threatening when Republicans controlled the Senate, the House and the Presidency.
When you are thinking about passing a law you should ask yourself if would you feel safe with Joseph Stalin administering that law. If you see a huge potential for the abuse of power then the law should not be passed.
There may not be a Stalin here now, but with enough un-Constitutional laws that allow power hungry individuals to wreck havoc, you can be sure that a Stalin will appear soon enough.
|
|
This is the problem with you liberals. I assume by "a movement to take away rights that gays in one state already have" you are referring to Prop 8 in California. Just because one or two liberal judges decide it is their role to create legislation from the bench, doesn't mean that their one time rule can't be overturned.
We live in a representative democracy and the laws should come from those representatives of the people, not appointed judges, whose job it is to interpret the laws.
Gays are not denied any rights that I or anyone else have. It is the right of the people not to change the definition of what a marriage is, and overwhelmingly, in every election where the people get to decide, they want to protect the definition of one man, one woman. |
|
You misrepresent those who take issue with this choice of Warren. It's his use of ugly rhetoric and high-profile leadership in a movement to take away rights that gays in one state already have. Merely opposing the extension of rights was not the basis of opposition.
And from that distortion you want to raise the fear that gay marriage will be forced upon all churches? What a disgusting display of propagandizing an issue from someone who recently wrote about improving the tone of political discourse. It seems you just can't help yourself, MM. |
|
|
The homosexual agenda will not end until all things christian or judeo christian have been completely made illegal. The joke is on them because as muslims begin to increase in numbers and political influence, the homosexuals will realize judeo-christians were their best friends - at least in our beliefs, we are asked to love our enemies. In the muslim religion, it's simple convert or kill the infidel and homosexuals are abhored as the worst infidels of them all.......wouldn't it be grand to have homosexual agenda-driven people living under sharia law......mmmmmmm |
|
|
|