The Marriage Meltdown

For every high-profile celebrity wedding that makes headlines, it seems we are treated to at least two high-profile celebrity divorces. I am praying for people like Kim Kardashian whose marriage problems seem to suggest that there should be a public exam for marriage prior to the issuance of a license. Unfortunately, celebrities are not the only folks whose marriages are caving in under the cultural pressures of our generation. The depressing state of marriage in our nation today provides more fuel for the fire for those that advocate redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. After all, as the joke goes, how can homosexuals make more of a mess of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals already have?

On the surface, same-sex “marriage” advocates appear to have a point. And I would be among the first to admit that marriage as an institution was terribly weakened by both the no-fault divorce laws first passed in the 1970s and by a general willingness of our culture to separate marriage from childbearing. Neither of these factors had anything to do with homosexuality, and both dealt severe blows to the strength of American families. However, these are not reasons to further weaken marriage by defining it out of existence. (I am not the first to observe that words that mean everything mean nothing, and “marriage” is headed down that very road.) The enfeebled state of marriage today is all the more reason to fight to preserve it and hopefully to restore it to its former strength.

At the heart of the marriage argument is whether marriage exists primarily to satisfy the needs and wants of adults, or to provide the optimal environment for nurturing the next generation. If marriage is only for individual gratification, then there is no reason to restrict it to opposite sex couples. Marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman because children need one mother and one father.

Multiple studies confirm that children raised by married biological parents have by far the best outcomes in terms of physical and emotional health, educational achievement and long term success in life.

As a black man, I take particular objection to the claim that not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is akin to approving of past bans on interracial marriage. This reasoning is flawed in several respects: first of all, “race” has always been a cultural designation more than a biological reality. A pure “white” person in American may have ancestors who hailed from the tribes of the Ostrogoths, Vandals, Celts, Burgundians, Franks, Slavs or any number of “white” people groups that began to populate Europe in the waning days of the Roman Empire. A native-born “black” American most certainly has an ancestry that includes multiple African tribes, American Indian nations, and yes, probably “white” people as well.

Second, interracial couples provide children with both a father and a mother, which is the point of a family. Third, bans on interracial marriage were implemented to reinforce the supposed inferiority of blacks and thus justify their continued oppression. Gays and lesbians are legally free to live as they please; they just should not be allowed to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

What have the effects of redefining marriage been around the world? Denmark was among the first nations in the world to introduce “registered partnerships” which conferred marriage-like rights on gay couples in 1989. Other Scandinavian countries soon followed suit. The result was not so much a change in the behavior of gays and lesbians (Scandinavian countries report between 1 and 7 registered partnerships per thousand marriages), but a dramatic shift in heterosexual behavior. Rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing rose (about 60% of firstborn babies in Denmark are born to unmarried parents) as did the rates of family dissolution, including both divorces and breakups between cohabiting parents. It seems that when a society no longer holds the institution of marriage to be sacred, people simply stop bothering to get married at all, and break up when it pleases them.

In the few states where marriage has been redefined to include same-sex couples, various churches and ministries have already been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refused to perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Earlier this year, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill mandating that public schools teach their students “the role and contributions of” homosexual American historical figures, and forbade the use of any resources that “contain any matter reflecting adversely” upon gays on the basis of sexual orientation. The legislation also urged charter schools and private schools “take notice of the provisions of this act.” It does not take much imagination to see that if marriage is redefined nation-wide, such pro-homosexual propaganda will be mandated in every public school in the country.

Lastly, we are fools if we think that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is the end of the story. To the contrary, it is only the beginning. Groups advocating polygamy and polyamory have their arguments prepared and will begin advocating for the definition of marriage to be relaxed further to accommodate their preferences. Children may then be born to and even adopted by any number of “families” with any number of mothers and fathers, sleeping with whomever they depending in their whims. Redefining marriage will be the beginning of the end of the family as we know it.

This January, the Maryland state legislature will once again be bombarded by both local and national same sex marriage advocates. Movie stars, members of the DNC, political luminaries like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and even members of the administration will once again cajole, arm twist, and intimidate the state legislature. Millions of dollars will flow into the state in an attempt by these zealots to further affirm, in their minds, that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Fortunately, for the citizens of the state there is a coalition of coalitions that currently represents over 250,000 Maryland voters, over 500 churches (including Southern Baptist, Orthodox Jews, Multiple Baptist, Maryland Catholic Diocese, the Latter Day Saints community and a large portion of Maryland’s mega- churches).

Please join us in protecting the nation's greatest institution. Get involved! Three simple things will make a difference: 1. Tell your state and federal representatives that you are in favor of maintaining the definition of marriage. 2. Contact your friends and family in Maryland and let them know about the battle. 3. Log onto the Maryland Marriage Alliance’s website and make a significant donation today.

sjpatejak Wrote: Jan 05, 2012 3:43 PM

Male celibacy seems to increase the liklihood of prostate problems

Flag as Offensive

Michael1639 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:24 AM

Want to talk about marriage in Maryland Batshit? Here are some Census Bureau Statistics on the Black community in Maryland from 2009: In Maryland, only 14.5% of black children are born to families that are married. 31% of black households have married couples. 47% of the population has never been married. 38% are currently married (but not necessarily living together). 9% have a graduate degree or higher. 33% have been in the criminal justice system. 48% are foreign born. Median Household income 54K. Per capita income 26K. 13.9% live in poverty. 20% of children live in poverty. If Batshit wants to get into someone's business, I think he needs to work in his own community before disparaging ours.

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:53 PM

"...various churches and ministries have already been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refused to perform ceremonies for same sex couples" That's a flat out lie Jackson knows it. If there was even a shred of truth to that claim, he would jump at the chance to list specific examples and back it up with proof. Massachusetts (a very Catholic state) has had marriage equality for nearly eight years and NOT ONE Catholic Church has been forced to perform a same-sex ceremony, lost its tax exempt status, or been threatened with a lawsuit. Jews can marry a Protestants and the CC can refuse to sanction them without impacting their tax exempt status - same goes for same-sex marriage. All the anti-gay lobby has left is lies.

BORN FREE Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:06 PM

Polymorphous Perversity?
It's one of the tools from the socialists political correctness tool box to undermine society!

Read the following by Bill Lind, "The Origin Of Political Correctness".
http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/index2.htm
Or view the video by Bill Lind, "The Origin Of Political Correctness".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Michael1639 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:30 AM

If you want to talk about polymorphous perversity just look to your Old Testament.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:17 PM

Even the Old Testament sanctioned only sex between a man and a woman.

Robert1824 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:41 PM

More of the same old tired right-wing baloney. There is absolutely NO evidence that being raised by a homosexual couple is in any way harmful to children . The problems with divorce and children being raised by single parents in America are not the result of some imaginary sinister plot by liberals to "undermine" marriage and society as a whole, but due to difficult socio-economic conditions in society which are far too complex to discuss in detail here.
If I were a child I'd rather be brought up by a loving and caring gay couple than a straight couple who abused and neglected me. This kind of situation happens,too.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:16 AM

Maybe there have been no official studies saying so, but anecdotes exist. My friend is a therapist who treated a man raised by lesbians who was having trouble relating sexually to his wife due to the lack of a male role model in the household (i.e., one who related sexually to either of his mothers such that he could imprint). And I've heard from several gay couples who have admitted to having to make sure an opposite-sex-from-them role model is in their kids' lives, thus attesting to the natural deficiency a gay couple has of providing role models of both genders from within the context of the nuclear family itself.

Michael1639 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:54 AM

There are official studies http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html Lesbians raise the most well adjusted children.

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Michael1639 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:56 AM

There are official studies http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html Lesbians raise the most well adjusted children. Here is the testimony of one of the success stories directly from the mouth of the child: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:23 PM

Well, this man my friend treated wasn't one of the sample, I guess.

"Data on such families are sparse...." Huh.

"...were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression." Probably from of the lack of testosterone in the home. But what happens later when, like the man my friend treated, the lack of a male role model comes home to roost?

"...children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together." And why not? There was no natural "I'm a product of my mother and father" pairing in which the child could establish its identity in the first place.

Read the study "My Daddy's Name is Donor." The kids are not all right.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:19 PM

MIchael, there are many, MANY family situations that have challenges. Such as disparity in physical abilities of the parents, to their children. Or children of different ethnicity from their parents. Adjustments are made all the time to fill whatever void that connects the child to his needs. Gay couples are not SO profoundly disassociated from the opposite sex, their children won't have ANY idea what they are like or do. I wish people would give it a rest and quit acting like having ss parents is the WORST thing that could happen to a child. I mean seriously, people have decided already that NO gay person can make a good parent and that there is absolute deficiency where gender is concerned and that's NEVER the case in reality.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:22 PM

what's MOST important here, is that these deficiencies (if you can call them that) are HARDLY grounds for profound discrimination against gay people. It's the meanest, most harmful excuse of all to treat gay parents and their children this way. Because the bottom line is, that their children ARE being cared for, and their parents ARE responsible for them and GLADLY. There are millions of hetero parents who couldn't care less about the children they have and the anti gay can't make them. It's all too easy and COWARDLY to target loving gay parents, than to attack the heteros who are not. THAT is what's important to this discussion and the dishonesty about that fact is frustrating beyond belief.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:31 PM

I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against for their orientation, but orientation and behavior are two different things. You might not help what you feel, but you can always help what you do. When people CHOOSE to behave in a way that isn't normal, normal society shouldn't be obligated to respect or condone or approve that behavior. I myself never had a problem with gays forming civil unions if they wanted because civil unions, even thought they might have all the legalities of marriage, aren't conceptually marriages. Marriage is the affirmation of the natural order -- that there are men & women, and that a man & a woman in sexual union make babies -- whereas civil unions are a concession to a disorder. They should be separate.

Michael1639 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:58 AM

Heterosupremacy is at epic proportions in your deluded world. Get over yourself and get an education, www,kinseyinstitute.org. Learn the science behind sexual orientation and stop relying on a 2000 year old POS to tell you how to live. BTW, marriage is a civil contract sanctioned by the state. Any religious ceremony that accompanies it is purely for your own sick deviance.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:32 PM

I can easily get over myself, what I can't get over is the fact that heterosexual couples can produce babies and homosexual couples can't, and that defines how human beings should behave. There is such a thing as normal, and heterosexuality is it. Homosexuality will never be normal because men aren't built to screw men and women aren't built to screw women. Homosexuals ought to get over their own feelings and start acting according to what their biological form dictates is normal. People deserve to live in a world that doesn't have the sexual confusion that homosexuality has wrought and is continuing to wreak on our children who are today being taught in schools that everyone around them should be a potential sexual partner for them.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:27 PM

You just spoke out of two sides of your face Michael. Marriage is the affirmation of two NON RELATED consenting adults, forming a primary kinship and promise of care and custody of each other. It's the children that are optional and parent and non parent couples are BOTH legally considered in the state's interests. Your post is an example of someone trying to make separate standards that CANNOT exist, and shouldn't for the sake of your prejudices. Gay adults participate in the SAME civil responsibility , accountability in taxation, law abiding and responsible BEHAVIOR towards the public welfare as EVERYONE else is expected to. Changing up the standards so that they receive LESS access towards that is unfair and wrong on it's face. Period.

K'ssandra Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 4:49 PM

So your argument is we should limit legal marriage only to couples who have a biological child together? This would mean that individuals past the age of child bearing couldn't get married, that infertile individuals couldn't get married, that couples who simply don't want to have children couldn't get married. It would also mean that couples would have to produce a child before they could legally marry, requireing pre-marital sex. And what do you do with couples once their children are grown and there is no longer a necessity for their marriage to exist, force them to divorce? Since we don't require fertility for a marriage to exist, the "marriage is about children" argument is, a crock, and invalid for denying marriage to homosexuals.

Not to mention that many homoseuxals are actually raising children.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:35 PM

Society doesn't have to provide marriage as an institution at all. It does so because marriages produce children, which serve the society by enabling the society to continue to exist. But society can't tell about a heterosexual couple on its face whether they can produce children, and to do so would be an invasion of privacy, so it doesn't bother trying to find out. But society knows on its face that a gay couple won't produce children, so it has no rational need to bind gay couples together for life. (Indeed, it would be against society's interest to establish that binding, for if one of the couple changes orientation someday -- yestergays and hasbians do exist -- they would be morally bound to a non-reproductive relationship.)

Frank391 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:45 PM

The government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments of Judiasm and Christianity and should not be a government function at all. IMHO

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:59 PM

"But society can't tell about a heterosexual couple on its face whether they can produce children, and to do so would be an invasion of privacy, so it doesn't bother trying to find out."

Are you sure about that? http://eldercarenews.org/couple-meet-court-and-get-married-at-plymouth-nursing-home/

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:01 PM

People that share your view should act accordingly, forgo state-issued marriage licenses and the rights, privileges, benefits and protections it provides. I won't hold my breath though.

Hey, miracles can happen! :)

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:31 PM

Michael, you really don't have any argument that supports discrimination against gay people. NONE. Society's interests is in an individual being able to provide for themselves AND their progeny. There are biological gay parents, adoptive, foster and step parents. The SAME situation as hetero couples. To differentiate the children of gay couples through disqualifying THEIR support because of their parent's orientation, would be as wrong as doing so because the children's parents are paraplegic or suffering from a genetic disorder. Or because a couple is infertile and can't have children. Cruel, right? The state can support a gay AND hetero couple under the same standards of marriage, the way it does parent and non parent couples. And DOES.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 4:15 PM

con't: I'm someone who is black, someone who is educated, experienced and there isn't an anti gay person here who has any cred to talk about what gay people know or feel. Any more than what a segregationist knew about blacks. And it figures a phony Christian would forget Jesus dictum about treating another the way you'd want to be treated. Even if only to avoid being hypocrites. The only thing that would do that, is to insist that gay people be treated the way everyone else is. For real.
Deeds will always matter the most.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:36 PM

"The only thing that would do that, is to insist that gay people be treated the way everyone else is." That's all opponents of gay marriage are asking. That gay men shouldn't be allowed to marry men any more than straight men are allowed to marry men -- and the same for women.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:35 PM

No they aren't Michael. They are demanding NON EXISTENT and separate standards in the law against gay people, for being in the SAME situation as heteros are. One marries a person of their SAME ORIENTATION, not just the same gender. The point is orientation compatibility, not just gender compatibility. It's wrong, and unworkable to make orientation a point of profound discrimination for one group and not for the other, yet demand that gay people be as accountable to their state as taxpayers, law abiding and responsible as everyone else. The state encourages INDEPENDENCE of it's citizens, discrimination confines gay people to uncertainty about their legal independence FROM the state if restricted in work, family, education and other rights.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:38 PM

the opponents of marriage equality are demanding a whole set of laws and restrictions that are not only in the law NOW, but are unworkable and wrong to ENFORCE only against gay people.
Infertile people are not restricted from marrying. Neither are those with genetic diseases they can pass onto children. The state's interest in the support of children, MUST be extended to the children of GAY parents too. Children are children, aren't they? The demands that opponents to this are making, are IRRATIONAL and UNREASONABLE, because it's punishing the children for the condition of their parents. AND punishing gays who DON'T have children for NO legal reason that exists. And in all of this, what good has come of it?

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:41 PM

Jim Crow satisfied the prejudices of white people, but did it make a better society or white people BETTER people? Well discriminating against gay people is the same result. It satisfies the prejudices of straight people, but it doesn't improve their character, society or their morals. It's not the attributes that are the same. But the irrational injustice that is. Gender only mattered in marriage when women were treated as inferiors to men. Creating laws that FORCE inferiority, doesn't mean the target of it is actually inferior. Learn from bad history, instead of repeating or maintaining it.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 4:10 PM

con't: WE know that danger in a SUPREMACIST'S unfounded values. Jackson is a liar. And the typical comments generated on gay related issues, demonstrates the very supremacist fictions that REAL justice warriors fight against. As a black person, it's Jackson who offends what that means. There are NO results of detriment to anyone because of the expansion of equal rights to gay people. Anymore than the SAME predictions whites assumed would happen when people of color were considered equals too. Resent it all you want. But the truth is in the results that Jackson's assertions are dangerous, and gay people's purpose of equality is not. I have more cred than Jackson because I actually DO something that's unpopular and dangerous, he doesn't.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 4:05 PM

I'm a black person. I'm also a black person VERY educated in the history of Jim Crow, and other laws against gays and lesbians. Not just in America, but internationally. I volunteer at an educational center founded for the purpose of teaching such history. It's called the Simon Weisenthal Center, or Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Look it up. Jackson is an embarrassment to blacks anywhere who have been in the trenches for civil rights. Some very distinguished Civil Rights activists, and those of us who respect their legacy, are not comparing the ATTRIBUTES of skin color and sexual orientation, but the cruel INJUSTICES wrought against people for having them. WE know that difference.

buster8 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:09 PM

A report just came out that suggests that gay men who are married enjoy better health than gay men who are single. So now there is evidence that marriage is good for straight, and for gay people. And campaigns to deny gay couples marriage equality can have harmful effects to the health and well being of gays.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:38 PM

Most likely the health benefits are incurred from not boinking every guy in sight. 1 in 5 gay men in the U.S. are HIV-positive, and gay men have more sexual partners on average than straight men. If gay men could just stay celibate they'd have the same health benefits. Why not a gay men's celibacy campaign instead of a redefinition of marriage?

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:05 PM

Your fabricated statistics aside, if heterosexuals could just stay celibate, they're health would also benefit (heterosexuals also contract HIV, along with herp**s, gono****a, chlam***a, syphilis, a virus which we know can lead to cervical cancer in women. So why not a heterosexual celibacy campaign instead of encouraging men and women to marry each other?

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:39 AM

Those aren't fabricated statistics. Those are CDC statistics repeated by a gay man in an article on CNN. 1 in 5 gay men (or more properly, men who have sex with men, or MSM -- so I suppose this includes prison inmates, male prostitutes who aren't gay by orientation, etc.) in the U.S. have HIV, and around 70% of new HIV infections occur in MSM. The general rate of HIV infection in the public is around 1 in 300. (That means if you take MSM out of the picture, the general rate of HIV infection in the population would drop to 1 in 1000.)

"Why not a heterosexual celibacy campaign instead of encouraging men and women to marry each other?" Either way is fine by me. I don't think the government should be in the business of encouraging sex

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 7:24 PM

So you have somehow managed to come to the conclusion that prohibiting same-sex marriage will actually REDUCE the amount of same-gender sexual activity occurring AND the increase the practice of safer sex (i.e. condoms) being used? When you say "take MSM out of the picture", are you honestly suggesting that it's somehow possible to get all gay men to be celibate, even though gays and lesbians have existed throughout the entire history of the human race? Do you think that banning man-woman marriage would reduce sexual activity among heterosexuals? And if you don't think the government should in the business of encouraging sex, does that mean you don't think the government should be issuing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples either?

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:45 PM

Michael, you seriously love to omit socio/political context into this and make accurate comparisons. MEN are more promiscuous than women because the onus of pregnancy isn't on them. Gay men, for the same reason. There is no spectre of pregnancy to restrain. Blacks suffer higher infection rates than whites. In fact, blacks have ALWAYS suffered higher health problems than their white counterparts because of the lack of access to health care, and betrayals by the medical establishment. This is also true of gays and lesbians. Systemic prejudice against minorities like blacks and gays, endangers their health and welfare. And marriage isn't as much of an option for them either. So your ignorant posts serve nothing but prejudice.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:48 PM

YOUR remedy is to maintain the same social marginalization that CREATED the problem in the first place. As Einstein said: the important problems of the day won't be solved by the consciousness that created them." The prejudices that follow gay people weren't created by gay people. Therefore the LOGICAL remedy for the problems gay people have would be to lessen that prejudice. But of course, from YOUR fat seat, you have no empirical experience or evidence to inform your posts like those of us more educated, experienced and willing to be.

DaveInPhilly Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:17 PM

"In the few states where marriage has been redefined to include same-sex couples, various churches and ministries have already been threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refused to perform ceremonies for same sex couples."

This is just an outright lie.

Prove it.

Show us any piece of correspondence from any governmental entity threatening to revoke tax-exempt status from a ministry based on its marriage practices. This lie annoys me because arguments should be won based on their merits, not based on speaking lies which only fan paranoia and fear.

David in Houston Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:21 PM

Exactly. The first amendment guarantees that churches will NEVER have to sanctify marriages they don't approve of. --- I thought Bishops weren't suppose to lie. I guess if you're lying for God, that makes it okay. Nice.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:38 PM

It is not surprising to find a bogus claim in a Jackson column - great scare tactic. I believe what he is referring to is a case in Ocean Grove, NJ (a state which does not allow gay marriage) where a beach side pavilion property owned by a Methodist organization lost tax exempt status (although this may still be under dispute) because it refused a request from 2 lesbian couples to hold a civil union ceremony on the property. The property is the sight of many weddings that are not sanctioned by the Methodist Church. The couples did not request the Methodist Church to officiate at their ceremony. Anti-marriage equality folks have used this case without all the information to scare people into thinking Churches will have to perform SSm's.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:40 PM

As a gay Catholic, to my knowledge, my Church has never been sanctioned by the government for failing to marry divorced people even though civil divorce is legal nor has my Church been forced to ordain women to its priesthood even though discrimination based on sex is not legal.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:03 PM

'Gay Catholic"?

So you continue in your sin because...? Isn't that hypocritical, unless you are celibate?

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:08 PM

Thanks guys. Jackson IS lying. Telling a WHOPPER. In fact, virtually NONE of the predicted problems that were supposed to result from equal rights for gay people has happened. Even the FEW cases of litigation by gay couples, wasn't about CEREMONIES, but public access and non discrimination policies. NOT about HOUSES OF WORSHIP, but businesses who had a principality contract to not discriminate with taxpaying or paying patrons. The opposition to equality inevitably will deny, revise or contradict the reality of the situation. Let alone be held accountable to the damage they are doing with their lying and deceit.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:12 PM

con't, one of the biggest deceits is that there is a wide spread TREND going on, of a Christian specifically losing a basic Constitutional right, for their beliefs because of gay people. If they lost a job, it's because they expressed bigotry or some other form of incompetence BECAUSE of their refusal to DO their jobs. Or they were an embarrassment to their corporate culture. The fact still remains, one's religion is a choice, and there is no entity required to enforce it. Especially the government. But here the religious are, expecting the force of government to restrict gay people from THEIR basic rights. It's impossible for a religious person to not be a hypocrite on this.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:26 PM

What do you mean by my sin? I was born gay and am always gay. I am not just gay at certain times. The Lord made my gay.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:21 PM

As long as you understand that "the Lord made you gay" (the same way another person might say "the Lord made me bipolar") isn't an excuse for you to indulge in homosexual behavior, which is condemned outright in Scripture.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:55 PM

AliveInHim:
Um WHERE did you BUY God and decide you OWN God and God is ONLY to be shared with those you approve of?
How much have you PAID for God, and how many other people have paid dearly because of YOUR interpretation of God?

God is up for anyone who believes. ANYONE. Why should I have to remind you of that? Oh right, you rely on meddlesome middlemen to do your thinking about God FOR you. Just remember that God is for all of us, and gave us a world of much diversity, variance, abundance and variety. God created gay and hetero, bi and asexual with all the other variation in existence. God apparently loves lots of all kinds of difference and change. Gay got here the same way YOU did and God has made that VERY plain.

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:08 PM

If there was one single example to prove his claim, he would have provided it. The anti-gay lobby knows this is a lie, they're just hoping enough people will be stupid enough to buy it and to be scared by it. Eight years of marriage equality in Massachusetts, not one Catholic church paying taxes.

Robert97 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:04 PM

One of the arguments for "gay marriage" is that "civil union" is forcing gays to use a different term than heterosexuals for the same relationship. Unfortunately the term "gay marriage" does the same thing.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:53 PM

Marriage is marriage. The argument against civil unions is that civil unions are not the same as marriage in terms of benefits. What is most needed is recognition by the federal government.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:23 PM

If creating an institution called "civil unions" at the federal level and state level that has all the legalities of marriage but isn't called marriage -- something that is truly "separate but equal" -- were sufficient to satisfy gays, I think they would have gotten it by now. What they want is the social approval that comes with being "married" so that they can pretend there's nothing wrong with being gay and desiring a gay relationship -- something biology puts the lie to by not granting gay couples natural offspring.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 1:59 PM

Michael, cu's are inefficient and unenforceable. They were designed to NOT have the same purpose whatsoever. This isn't simply about NAME or WORDS.
This is about what is understood by each citizen AND the state in which to optimize access and protections for all citizens engaged in our common laws. CU's are NOT common. The are of EXTREME limitations, and exclusively deny gay couples the PROTECTIONS and support that marriage provides. There is NO POINT in cu's to exist except to do that. Therefore, they shouldn't exist at all. Marriage can be the only option for the laws to work fairly for everyone.

K'ssandra Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 4:52 PM

Couples who have civil unions are still colloquially referred to as "married" so the legal term really doesn't matter so long as all of the rights and responsibilities attached to legal marriage are identical to those attached to a civil union.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:39 PM

Heh. At my office they actually put out an announcement saying, "If you are married or coupled in a union."

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 1:08 PM

Jackson's hypocritical statement "bans on interracial marriage was to reinforce the supposed inferiority of blacks and thus justify their oppression." Well how conveniently he dismisses the history of gay people here and elsewhere, and the clear parallels ALL systems of bigotry and discrimination inevitably have. I'm a black person too. Who isn't so willfully stupid and without empathy as Jackson is. I'm not now, nor EVER compared the attributes of color and orientation with one another. But the injustice and discrimination on in part, the basis of black sexuality was the reason for Jim Crow. Myth and misinformation fostered that system. Jackson is trying to justify a similar one against gay people for a similar reason and won't own that.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 1:21 PM

These bans against gay people have solely been for the purpose of reinforcing the supposed inferiority of gay people.
Jim Crow never made white people better or more moral, what makes Jackson or anyone think similar laws against gays is going to make straights better people?
Well?
Fair question. I'd LOVE to hear the answer.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 1:32 PM

You won't hear an answer because there is none to that. Jackson and others simply do not like gay people and wish they did not exist.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:44 PM

OK Du. Here's your answer.

Marriage is defined by two individuals of complementary sexes becoming ONE FLESH. In other words, 1 + 1 = 1.

It matters not how like-minded two homosexuals may be, nor how fond of each other they are, they cannot ever become 'one flesh' because it simply is not possible to have a groomless wedding or a brideless marriage.

Until you can prove from history or any other discipline that the definition of marriage CAN include anything other than one man/one woman (even polygamous unions involve a man/woman consummation), you have nothing but paranoia, a guilty conscience, and anger akin to that of a two year old's tantrum because the world doesn't mold itself to fit your preferences.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:27 PM

Um, not to overstate the obvious, but isn't a perfect world a world in which homosexuality doesn't exist?

Frank391 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:50 PM

No, the ban against gay people is because marriage is one of the 7 sacraments of Judiasm and Christianity. The bible is very clear that homosexuality is an abomination for which one will be condemned to hell.

I believe the mistake for governments usurping marriage at all. The government should can marriage and have every due civil unions. Now if I'm a Jew or a Christian I could go to my church/synagog and ask for a marriage in the eyes of God.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:05 PM

AliveInHim: That's not an answer. That's a claim based on archaic and limited reasoning. And there isn't a lot you can qualify about an INDIVIDUAL, by your simple minded criteria. You have absolutely NO way of knowing the qualities they have whatsoever. You're not entitled to the proof of the CHARACTER of a person to qualify to marry. The state doesn't require it at all. As far as proof from history, it's a sure sign of a person with only superficial interests to deny the history of a marginalized and maligned minority to be judged by the same standards as a group that has not. The field hasn't been level so don't demand proof of it having been so.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:12 PM

typically, you respond with 'if I say it's so, it's so'. Some of us, of our species, understand MOVING FORWARD, expanding experience and compassionately working towards, righting injustice and inviting knowledge through integration of otherwise maligned people to get at the truth. Reject it all you want as an individual, but the state cannot and should not follow your attitude. You don't get to demand an entire group of people live by primitive standards you yourself would not accept. Besides, men and women DON'T get along so well. Mankind's history is full of brutality against women and the gender variant and it's STILL that way. Intellectual dishonestly and cowardice serves nothing good. You're not as high minded as you think you are.

du2 Wrote: Jan 10, 2012 6:42 AM

A cheap dig. Typical. Why should the world mold to your prejudices, AlHim? Well? The paranoia, is firmly entrenched in each and every article written in TH about gay people. That believers will be shut down and forced to perform ceremonies and civilization is doomed. THOSE are the paranoia and hysteria inducing assertions that scared and stupid people still believe, regardless none of it has happened. Proven by the fact that the world's worst wholesale human rights abuses have been committed by believers and not gay people. And gay people predate any of the world's religions or cultural organization. It's not a preference to be gay, it's a preference to be a believer. Ignorance and fear are the tools of the evil. Know that.

du2 Wrote: Jan 10, 2012 6:47 AM

con't: None of our laws should be based on ignorance and fear, but reason and rationality and justice. Your insults are a sure sign you're not up on the fact that gay people are working hard at EDUCATING people like you and living in peace with you. Evidenced by utilizing all the things each citizen has a right to, like DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Even litigation is still a civilized means of attaining rights, and NOT violence. But gay people are victims of violence,regardless of their innocence of orientation and can prove serious undeserved harm from religiously induced distrust and threat. It's not even natural for you to feel that way. You were trained to. Because most of what you know, you are TOLD from people who only know gays abstractly.

tncdel Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:53 AM

A homosexual man has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT as does a heterosexual man to marry a woman.
The fact that he does not wish to do so doesn't create a new constitutional right to do something else, then call it the same thing.

Bottomline: Homosexuals have no constitutional right to change the heterosexual definition of marriage handed down to us by our ancestors.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:10 AM

Or, to put it another way: no desire, however strong and irresistible, automatically creates a right.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:24 PM

Very true DCM.
That goes for BIGOTRY, that goes for systemic prejudice against a single group for a single attribute that differentiates them, but doesn't make them inferior or dangerous. Making bigotry a matter of a Constitutional amendment threatens justice and equality for everyone. What creates a right, is one's HUMANITY first, then one's potential for contribution, responsibility and common purpose. Gay people are making a contribution, are responsible, tax payers and work towards the common purpose of supporting each other and their children and families through marriage. THAT is why denying them because of their orientation isn't any more right than denying someone because of their gender.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:27 PM

cont: as I said Jim Crow never made white people better people, did it? It didn't create a better society and it's enforcement an example for the world. Why would similar laws and enforcement against gay people make straight people better or more worthy of Constitutional protection?
Well?
It's been the EXPANSION of justice, equal rights and protections that makes a better society. What society was ever harmed by that policy?
Well?

Frank391 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 5:51 PM

No. What creates a right is something passed to us by God because we are his children. Governments can't create rights, only permissions.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:43 AM

"What creates a right, is one's HUMANITY first, then one's potential for contribution, responsibility and common purpose." If you're going to make rights a function of one's humanity, then you have to look at how humanity works, don't you? And humanity works in this way: A man and a woman have sex, and out comes a baby. No other combination works this way. And therefore marriage ought to be defined according to how our humanity works. As for contributions, what does homosexuality contribute to the world except sexual confusion, higher disease rates in men, and less natural babies? If a perfect world is one in which homosexuality doesn't exist, why encourage it by subsidizing it and inventing paths to "familyhood" that don't naturally exist?

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:22 PM

LOL....Frank. God is an individual choice in believing God exists. None of us needs GOD'S permission to be treated fairly, rightly and morally. Using God as a means of dictatorship, abuse and marginalizing would be wrong, because God is unenforceable in this country.
Did you have to ASK PERMISSION to be accorded the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Did you demand that you live by the dictum of the Bible, instead of the Constitution. Your post is yet another example of the hypocrisy of some believers. You can even pervert anything, including God AND the Constitution to rationalize the abuse of others.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:26 PM

Michael, DOGS and roaches make babies too. We are not accorded our human and CIVIL rights on condition of making babies.
We are accorded our CIVIL and HUMAN rights based on the critical and enlightened belief in the potential of each person to make a contribution of ONE'S CHOOSING. To take responsibility and adhere to the accountability our society requires of us. Gay people are NOT excluded from taxation, law abiding and common welfare accountability, therefore it's unfair to exclude them from the equal rights and protections accorded others doing the same. Gay people HAVE families. They ARE supporting children, millions of them. Some of whom had NO ONE to love them.
You are so full of it, it's a wonder you don't explode from it.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 1:15 PM

@tncdel: of course you'd repeat something so patently without merit. No for a gay man to have the same rights, he'd be able to marry another person WITH HIS SAME ORIENTATION.
Heteros get to marry heteros, therefore a gay person should marry another who is as well.
THAT is what equal treatment under the law is. The definition of marriage is to marry a person who is unrelated, and unmarried, creating the primary first of kin, with all the responsibility of custody. It's not important for the marriage to be defined by GENDER because the laws have been REDEFINED to give females more autonomy and independence. The STATE no longer is interested, only the individuals are.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 1:18 PM

con't: gay couples can and must and DO meet already established standards of marriage. Which are limited to minimum age, mutual consent and non married and non close related. Period.
Parent and non parent couples live in legal and societal coexistence under these same standards. There is no reason and NO OBJECTION from gay couples, that hetero and gay couples cannot also coexist with these standards. Jackson's straw man, and yours, is ever so tiresome. You got NO case. So quit trying to use evidence that isn't. And information that's not true or has nothing to do with gay people.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:47 AM

"No for a gay man to have the same rights, he'd be able to marry another person WITH HIS SAME ORIENTATION. Heteros get to marry heteros, therefore a gay person should marry another who is as well." But gays only want to marry gays because there's something wrong with them that makes them sexually attracted to other gays instead of to people of the opposite sex. Plus, orientation can change. Anecdotes abound of people who started out straight and went gay, or started out gay and went straight. It might not be true that every gay can change, but even if only some people's orientation is fluid, why shouldn't society prompt people toward a normal sexual orientation, if not through the application of punishment then withholding of benefits?

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:30 PM

You are incredible. Really. Incredibly ignorant. Orientation CANNOT change. AFFECT on condition of losing everything, isn't a matter of choice, but COERCION to enforce that affect. That is NOT change. THAT is passing to fool and lie to you so you don't do harm to that gay person. Passing was done all the time to avoid the brutality of prejudice. Jews have done it, light skinned blacks. ANYONE who could pass for a white, hetero, Christian. Even some women disguised themselves as men to avoid being treated badly in a misogynist situation. And I guess you're not too clued in about FOUR normal sexual orientations that are strictly about gender attraction or NONE at all.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:34 PM

There is the orientation of ASEXUALITY. Where a person has NO interest in sex whatsoever. However there is a variation of gender attraction in that as well. Would you consider isolating the asexual from marriage, and forcing them into therapy to accept having sex? Would you want the state to discriminate against them because they don't want to make babies through having sex? Do you want to punish them for not producing babies or having sex the way you think they SHOULD? In this big world of many kinds of normal, of diversity and variance. You really think there is only ONE normal sexual orientation with regard to gender? No laws should be based on your level of ignorance and fear.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:39 PM

And are you willing to POLICE and enforce only the BABY MAKING kind of sex? And want all the statistics and information on who is having that kind of sex and who is not?
In so many ways, there is this inevitable reduction of everyone to their sexual organs and privacy. You think it's right to either invade that of gay people or differentiate them by force of government in that regard in ways you wouldn't to hetero people. Thus exploding the lie that you prefer gay people keep their private behavior private. No such option for gay folks and there never has been. Suspicion follows them wherever they go, thanks to busybodies like you. You reveal how little imagination you have for the sex lives of heteros...and yourself.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:20 PM

@tncd: repetition does not make facts. If one cannot marry the person one chooses, it's not a choice and not a right. A gay person deserves to marry someone with their SAME ORIENTATION as heteros do. What would be the point of a STRAIGHT person marrying someone gay?
Well?
Bottom line: gay people aren't changing the definition of marriage in such a way as to be detrimental or a threat. Your ancestors handed down a definition of marriage that any woman alive wouldn't want.
Nobody should want. It's been a GOOD thing to redefine marriage to be more egalitarian along gender lines. Just don't try and make that and this kind out to be a BAD redefinition, any more than making woman more autonomous in marriage was.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:51 AM

"A gay person deserves to marry someone with their SAME ORIENTATION as heteros do. What would be the point of a STRAIGHT person marrying someone gay?"

You're missing the point: Marriage isn't performed with respect to sexual orientation but with respect to sex. A man is a man, regardless of orientation, and a woman is a woman, regardless of orientation. Autonomy has nothing to do with it, either. And our ancestors handed down a definition of marriage that many people DO want, or else couples the world over wouldn't be repeating the same traditional vows day after day. You are trying remove the natural meaning of marriage and dilute marriage into less than it has always traditionally been, and consequently you are lessening it for everyone.

du2 Wrote: Jan 06, 2012 2:45 PM

LOL...Michael. Truly, maybe to YOU it's all about sex. But to the state, no it's not. The state doesn't discriminate against those of disparate or the same physical ability to even HAVE sex, or limited sex. This is about INDIVIDUAL choice in who one wants to have a life with. The state can't choose, and neither can you. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING in a gay couples marrying diminishes the meaning of it, or the integrity of it for others. Proof of that is that heteros are marrying and making babies apace, regardless. With 7 billion and counting on this shrinking planet, a time might come when there will finally be some respect for the 'natural order' of limiting overpopulation.

T115 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 8:15 AM

Mother of 4 - Let me add a criteria for both Men and Women -
Can He/She hold a conversation with you? What are his/her likes and dislikes, opinions, wants, desires, etc...? Can you hold a conversation about sex? I've found the ability to talk to one another as probably the single most important - especially about difficulties. When you can talk about everything, everything life throws at you becomes a team exercise.

BTW: This has worked for more than 31 years and four (4) married daughters... Thank God only one has been touched by divorce, but is able to handle it through her faith in God and family.

obama delenda est

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:17 AM

Works for heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:25 AM

In other words, you're trying to bolster the old myth that gay "couples" work just the same as normal ones. As if most of us around here don't already know better.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:43 AM

I am trying to inform those here that it is not a myth. I like to educate the misinformed.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:40 AM

You can't make people un-know what they already know that you don't want them to know, merely by accusing them of being "misinformed."

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:41 AM

P.S.: I'd like to know just how much depth of understanding you actually have about how real marriage works. Perhaps you're not so much in denial as simply lacking understanding.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:55 AM

I have 6 sisters who I am very close to who are married. I have watched their kids, I spend time with them at the beach, take the nephews to sporting events etc. My own parents married for nearly 50 years until my dad's death. I am confused about all I read here about gay couples. I am told they make up less than 1% of the population and that in the few places they can legally marry less than1 % of them do, yet everyone on TH seems to be an expert on who those miniscule # of married gay couples live their lives. No one knows what really happens behind the closed doors of any home.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:04 AM

I see. Then it sounds like your apparent failure to grasp the differences between normal and "gay" relationships has more to do with your misunderstanding the latter than the former. Wasn't sure just where you were coming from.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:30 AM

I have observed both heterosexual and homosexual relationships which is more than most who post here can say. I have observed both with children and both without children. I see all of these relationships as normal in the sense that they are right for the individuals involved.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:37 AM

Judgmental, much?

Tell us, who among us hasn't seen homosexuals in 'relationships', or couples without kids?

Geez!

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:52 AM

So you have gay friends/neighbors/work colleagues/family members in relationships which gives you a good insight into gay relationships? I am curious. If so, what about these relationships do you not like?

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:55 AM

What does it matter what someone "does not like" about gay relationships?

I've seen the lives of "happily gay" men. It was like seeing someone living in a cave with a 4-watt bulb thinking it was the brightest place they ever needed to be, because it was the brightest place they'd ever been.

I have no doubt you have basically observed these things, though I doubt it's "more than most who post here can say." Nonetheless, it's clear you have come away from your experiences without learning some crucial things about the nature of homosexuality. Nothing unusual about that, unfortunately.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:35 PM

What are these crucial things? I simply believe a gay relationship is best for those born gay and a heterosexual relationship best for those born heterosexual.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:33 PM

You don't know better, DCM. In fact, your posts have been consistently ignorant and devoid of anything factual or evident consistent with what's already acceptable and consistent with gay or hetero people, let alone couples. Considering that het couples have ALWAYS had such support for being married in all these centuries, heteros STILL aren't doing too well by it. So your judgement of gay people who haven't had such support or credit for what they accomplish DESPITE every effort to thwart them, is unfair on it's face. So rather than trying to think up excuses for keeping gay people FROM what is considered expected adult duties to each other and their families, what is YOUR excuse for not being able to MAKE heteros do what they should?

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:54 AM

How can being in a gay relationship be best for anyone when being gay is itself not best for anyone? If you really cared about a gay person, you'd hope that someday, if it were in any way possible, they'd become straight, right? So how can you then endorse a gay relationship when the continuance of that relationship requires the individuals in it to remain gay? You're not really wishing them the best -- you're wishing them what you think is the best they can do. And the anecdotes that abound of people who have changed orientation over time show that it is not necessarily true that a gay relationship is the best they can hope for. You shouldn't lock people into what's less than best for them. That helps no one.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 8:10 AM

A problem with same-sex "marriage" that doesn't get discussed much:

Think of all the things that are required to make a marriage work -- all the work and character growth that are necessary in living intimately with an opposite person. It's no wonder that marriage is so often failed at, because so many people are too selfish to do what it takes to make it succeed.

Contrast that with a same-sex arrangement, which asks very little of its participants. It inherently does *not* require them to grow, change or work in any way remotely resembling what it takes to make a normal marriage succeed. Indeed -- and this is one of those things gays know is true but are slow to admit -- it generally doesn't even ask them to be sexually faithful.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 8:12 AM

(cont'd) It's not just cheap name-calling to say same-sex "marriage" is a counterfeit of the real thing. It is inherently, unavoidably, less valuable -- so much less that it's difficult to express fully.

Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:08 AM

most homo "marriages" are OPEN "marriages",thus not truly any union between two people.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:14 AM

How many gay married couples do you know in order for you to make such a statement?

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:19 AM

It's not about how many "gay married couples" someone knows. It's about how much one knows about the gay community overall -- particularly the things that gays don't want others to know but that others have found out anyway.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:44 AM

And how have you found these things out?

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:39 AM

From various views into the gay community, directly or indirectly, via both recovered and unrecovered gays.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:57 AM

Directly into the gay community? How many gay friends do you have? DO you summer on Fire Island or in Provicetown or winter in Pam Springs. What is a recovered gay. I have yet to meet anyone who says they used to be gay. But I know several older male gays who were married to women and had children and now have a same sex partner.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:08 AM

My direct personal knowledge of gays hasn't involved a large number of people, but it has given me opportunities to see behind the "curtain" of the real gay world such as few people seem to get. And what I've seen doesn't line up with the things gays (including those whose lives I've seen close up) want people to believe about them.

A recovered gay is someone who has successfully overcome the sexual addiction/abnormality that is homosexuality. I have known several personally -- including one who seemed as "born gay" as could be asked for -- and learned much from them.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:31 AM

So are these "recovered gays" now heterosexual or asexual people now. Or are they just celibate gay people?

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:39 AM

What does it matter?

In Christ, all things are possible. Nobody ever said those things would be easy.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:52 AM

Heterosexual. And "recovered gays" doesn't need to be in quotes because, regardless of your opinion, it's a reality.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:53 AM

The recovered gays I've known are not celibate or lonely. You're still buying the myth that homosexuality is inborn, normal, healthy and unchangeable. You are unaware of (if not simply denying) that a person attracted to their own gender -- like anyone bound by a sexual addiction or paraphilia -- is that way because something has gone seriously wrong in their life and needs to be addressed. Love does not call someone OK when they're not.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:54 AM

It matters because we are all called to love. We are all made in the image of the Lord who has made a very diversified world. To say that someone is a recovered gay because they are now celibate and lonely is not a positive thing to say.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:14 PM

So is a recovered alcoholic by definition a prig who is no longer fun to have at a party? Really? You've a mighty shrunken definition of 'recovered', friend.

The Lord is not about evil, that is, about things which are contrary to His nature. Does He love us? Yes. Does that mean that if we're OK with our shortcomings, inferiority complexes or perversions, then He's OK with them? No. That is why Christ came into the world-to live the perfect life we cannot, and to take the punishment for sin that we alone deserve. This is what life in Christ is: a very keen awareness of our sin, repentance for it, gratitude that in Him we have an Advocate before the Father, and a humble life lived in gratitude to Him Who loves us and died and rose for us.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:38 PM

The Lord has made and continues to make a certain percentage of the population all over the world gay. Some people have trouble accepting that.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:54 PM

you are personifying what Jackson said about reinforcing the fiction that heteros are superior to gay people.
Even all those heteros who wrote that down somewhere don't have evidence to back it up. Anymore than white people had any proof of their supposed superiority to people of color.
After abusing both minorities in this country and elsewhere, it figures you'd be on the side of that abuse, rather than considering how wrong the people who implemented it might have been wrong, as history has proven.
That is the definition of bigotry, not the proof you're right just because you believe it.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:58 AM

"How many gay married couples do you know in order for you to make such a statement?" Google "open secret" and a few other keywords sometime. There was a study done in England that said a far larger percentage of gay male couples than heterosexual couples in "committed" relationships akin to marriage experienced cheating within 5 years. And an opinion column was written by a gay man recently saying that maybe sexual fidelity shouldn't be a component of marriage at all. Another gay man just wrote a column saying marriage should drop "till death do us part" as unrealistic and antithetical to "choosing" your relationship (apparently not understanding that marriage is supposed to be a permanent commitment, or else what's the point).

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 11:59 AM

Sorry, double post.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:00 PM

"I have yet to meet anyone who says they used to be gay."

Go online and look up "yestergays" and "hasbians" -- they're out there.

"But I know several older male gays who were married to women and had children and now have a same sex partner."

And you think that's an improvementjQuery15209785984633490443_1325693811281? That they sacrificed their marriages and the happiness of their natural children for the sake of their sex drives? More glorification of personal desire over social commitment.

"I have yet to meet anyone who says they used to be gay."

Go online and look up "yestergays" and "hasbians" -- they're out there.

"But I know several older male gays who were married to women and had children and now have a same sex partner."

And you think that's an improvementjQuery15209785984633490443_1325693811282? That they sacrificed their marriages and the happiness of their natural children for the sake of their sex drives? More glorification of personal desire over social commitment.

David in Houston Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:12 PM

"It inherently does *not* require them to grow, change or work in any way remotely resembling what it takes to make a normal marriage succeed."

100% FALSE. I've been in a same-sex relationship for over 17 years... and legally married for 3 years. Any kind of lifetime commitment requires both people to grow, change and work together. I'd put my relationship with my husband up against Newt Gingrich's sham of a marriage, any day. That man has made a mockery out of the institution of marriage, and has the audacity to condemn gay Americans that want the same right that he has. He cheated on two of his wives, AND married the women he cheated with. I don't see him and his current wife kicking out children anytime soon....

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:01 PM

You're mocking marriage, too, just after your own fashion. You're taking something that nature has affirmed only between a man and a woman with the validation of children and expanding it to include relationships that ought not to exist and in a perfect world wouldn't exist, and making the world a less perfect place on account of it. Newt Gingrich has done wrongs against marriage, too, but his wrongs don't excuse your wrongs.

David in Houston Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:15 PM

(cont)
...so why should he have the right to get married if children aren't involved? I thought marriage was all about men and women coming together to raise children, right? The level of hypocrisy that Newt is spewing is beyond dumbfounding. It's insulting; and so is your "opinion" about same-sex relationships. Something you know absolutely nothing about.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:38 PM

DCM: how do you spend so much time figuring out to be THIS ignorant? To your first paragraph, I agree. As to your second, if you're saying that a man won't make much demand of another man, the same with a lesbian, so therefore they don't have to try as hard to get along as hets do. I firmly believe that if het men listened to gay men about how to treat women, and vice versa, ALL men and women would get along better and succeed in their relationships better than they are. Gay people are a very good tempering factor where gender is concerned, but het men ignore that and are hostile to it. Much to the detriment in their own lives. We're supposed to be ALLIES all around, the way the thumb works with the fingers on the hand.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:51 PM

con't: you apparently don't know any gay people very well (if at all). Let alone committed gay couples and what they offer to any given community. Your logic, is absolutely NO kind of justification for discrimination. You're in no position to judge the qualities of individual relationships and certainly the government can't do it or enforce it. There is no state competence, morality or fertility test for marriage. Yet you're expecting those standards for gay people when no one is required to live up to them. Once again, you dismiss the humanity of gay people, in favor of assuming they aren't supposed to actually behave like humans.

Johnny L. Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 7:35 AM

Thank you for this inspired article Mr. Jackson. This is a critical issue to the morality of this country. Sadly, the gay sex = race myth has been used to justify outright hostility and discrimination against Christians. Have you ever heard of identical twins of different races? Eye color? Sex? Yet if one identical twin is gay there is only a 50% chance of the other being gay. Have you heard of someone's skin color changing from seeing a psychiatrist? Yet more than 50% of people who try ex-gay therapy successfully change orientation.

We need to educate people when they express ignorance or Christians will end up being shoved into the closet as is happening while we speak.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 8:02 AM

Generally agree with you, but are you speaking of homosexuality as if you do or don't believe it's genetic?

And, sorry to nitpick on terminology, but no one "changes orientation" because "sexual orientation" is a myth. What 50% of people who try "ex-gay" therapy successfully do is overcome a sexual addiction/dysfunction. "Sexual orientation" is a bogus term invented to support the myth of homosexuality being genetic. It's actually only "genetic" to the extent that the environmental factors that lead to it would not affect everyone the same way.

Alice153 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:54 AM

It takes one generation to change the thought processes about any issue. In the fifties, homosexua behavior existed; but, everyone understood that is was abberant behavior. In the fifties, killing babies was a crime and everyone knew that it happened; but, no one condoned it. In the sixties, the liberal views began to be espoused by drop outs, as they became adults, most of them dropped back in but they brought their liberal drivel with them. After fifty years, the youth have been taught that homosexuality is natural and abortion is not only acceptable, it is better than having children. No amount of social pressure can make what is unnatural natural. Just because the names have been changed, the guilt still destroys lives.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:56 AM

Abortion is a completely separate issue. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time because people are born gay.

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:37 AM

I love a good "wishful thinking" post.

Larue4 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:14 PM

The heck they are. Recent twin studies showed that a propensity towards homosexual behavior was found to be at least a THIRD enviromental, and less than 30 percent atributable to genetics. No one is "born" gay, although there is some evidence to show that how you are raised-, i.e. the enviroment, plays a much larger role in determining sexual identity.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 1:37 PM

Then why do so many gay people have heterosexual siblings of a similar age? Are not the gay children and the heterosexual children both raised in the same environment. My partner has a brother 2 1/2 years younger than my partner. My partner and his brother attended the same college. This past summer we attended the heterosexual wedding of my partner's brother. My partner and his brother were raised in very similar environment.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:12 PM

Not all people are born gay. Some children develop normally until experiencing sexual abuse that messes them up.

Homosexuality can have a biological cause, but that doesn't justify the behavior anymore than having a violent temper justifies violence. What if it there were a biological cause for pedophilia? Should we lower the age of consent? What if some people had a biological inclination for incest? Should we then allow brothers and sisters to marry? Just because there is a biological basis for something doesn't make it moral. There are ways human beings are supposed to act, as defined by what is normal human biology. Homosexual behavior isn't among those ways, as men can't make babies with men, nor women with women. It is only because people refuse to be rational and instead choose to obey their animal impulses that homosexuality has gained ground.

Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:01 AM

homosexuality is a mental disorder. no one is "born that way".
thus,it is no choice,just the development of a mental illness.
It IS all in their mind.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:15 AM

Is heterosexuality all in your mind?

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:17 AM

Nope.

James2517 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:45 AM

Well then homosexuality is not all in my mind. It is an innate characteristic of mind just as I am right handed (except I bat lefty and I can swing a mean bat).

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:18 PM

What is in your mind is your willful decision to engage in homosexual behavior -- to express your feelings rather than repress them. Don't pretend you aren't making choices, or that you're not morally accountable for those choices.

du2 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:57 PM

LOL...boy, that persecution complex is ripe for a psychiatric consult, there Johnny L.
NOBODY changes sexual orientation. NOBODY. Know the difference between AFFECT, or passing. NOT changing!
How can someone INSIST that homosexuality stems from some kind of sexual abuse, but DENY that systemic bigotry and constant prejudice and discrimination ISN'T abuse at all?
The someones who are determined to be stupid, but make someone else pay for it.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:20 PM

"NOBODY changes sexual orientation. NOBODY." That's simply not true. Anecdotes abound of people who at one time lived as homosexuals and then lived as heterosexuals. The idea that no one can change sexual orientation is just as false and deluded and against the evidence as the idea that everyone can change sexual orientation.

Michael2502 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 12:11 PM

I think the percentage of successful "ex-gays" is actually only 5%, according to a recent study. The twin studies show that genetics alone can't be the answer for why homosexuality exists, but there is also the possibility that identical twins express the same genes in different ways during development in the womb, so the root cause might still be biological. Even so, it's a willful and morality-based decision to go from "I'm attracted to people of the same sex" to "I should physically express my desires through gay sex that my body isn't designed for" and further still to "I should have the right to marry a person I'm not designed to have sex with," in contradiction to nature and tradition.

Dancing Bear Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 3:06 AM

Right on. Another excellent article.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:03 AM

Marriage is about service to your spouse.

It is not primarily about 'felt needs', though of course every effort should be made by each spouse to meet the other's need for loving attention. This includes supporting the other's interests even if you don't share them.

It especially includes maintaining a unified front in child-raising; you should NEVER disagree about your spouse's handling of a given disciplinary situation (absent abuse, of course) in front of the children.Such action undercuts your spouse and gives kids the idea they can play you against each other. Wait until the crisis has passed, re-assess and negotiate privately with your spouse, then you can revisit the situation with Junior and adjust the consequences.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:22 AM

If you both work outside the home, you both contribute to the running of the home. There's no such thing as 'women's work'; single men have to do these things too, and really, God isn't picky about who cooks and who takes out the trash or manages the family finances!

If one of you stays at home, it isn't unreasonable for the other spouse to expect a neat home, decent meals, and reasonably well-behaved kids. The spouse who is the breadwinner will of course volunteer to help with chores nonetheless, and perform those tasks which are beyond the ability or the time available of the other but might not demand the services of a contractor.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 12:28 AM

Marriage also means you defend your spouse against unreasonable or downright toxic family members, even if it means cutting off contact with the relative in question. Nobody has the right to abuse others, and a loving spouse will not permit any other family member to treat himself or his wife with disrespect. Your first loyalty is to your spouse, not your parents. That's why in the Bible it's called 'leaving' and 'cleaving'. You leave your parents to cleave to your spouse. Period!

Alice153 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:02 AM

The roles of men and women in marriage have been blurred so much that the arguments have become about who does the dishes. Before a couple marries, they need to sit down and decide what it is that they expect from marriage. Otherwise, they might as well just take in a room mate. The arguments will be the same. Women redefined the roles and men have been struggling to figure it out for decades. So far, I cannot see that women are more fulfilled.

AliveInHim Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 11:34 AM

No, they aren't. I just shake my head at the women who claim that their being happy at work means their kids will be happier in daycare. Riiiggghht....

I try so hard not to judge, for each must make his own path and learn his own lessons, but gee, you only get one shot at raising your kids. I'm danged if I can figure out how any mother could be more bored with her kids than with working in an office.

du2 Wrote: Jan 07, 2012 12:39 PM

Well, gee AIH: you just made the case FOR gay couples marrying. Because all the noise created by the opposition was the expectation that the government can define what men and women do in their marriage ACCORDING to their gender, and not their individual abilities or personal organization. You've just posted a gender neutral scenario and THAT is exactly why there is NO rational reason to deny gay couples the ability to do exactly what you described. They already DO these duties. Gay couples understand the meaning and importance marriage.THEY have been raised by straight married parents, like most people. Gay people are defending the loves of their lives. Their spouse AND children, what any NORMAL person WOULD do.

chipsmydog Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 9:29 PM

Marriage is an invention of God Almighty.
Marriage is good in His eyes as a union between a man and a woman: as He designed.
God is good and He does all things perfectly.
"Complementary" is the word for understanding marriage in a simple and pure definition.
A marriage between an man and a woman is complementary. In the words of God," Two become one."
A relationship between two people of the same gender is actually incompatible and unnatural and can never be a marriage in the eyes of God.

Johnny L. Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 7:36 AM

Amen!

David in Houston Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 2:07 PM

Then why are non-religious straight couples permitted to marry? Why are marriage licenses issued by the state and not the church? Why are people allowed to marry at the city court house instead of a church?

Marriage is a secular institution in our country. The "marriage ceremony" is optional. When you can prove to me that Newt Gingrich's THIRD till-death-do-us-part marriage is more sacred that a gay couple that have been together for decades, then I'll listen to what you have to say.

Andy440 Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:47 PM

Mother of 4: some wise and thoughtful words in your many posts. Sincerely, I think you may even possibly have it in you to write a book on the subject. Please give it some thought.

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:54 PM

Thank you.

I am not sure that I would like to subject my family to the insanity that would come their way if I published these opinions under my real name.

I have gotten death threats in response to some of these posts in times past.

Andy440 Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 7:53 PM

no doubt... probably from the group who claim 'tolerance' and 'diversity of opinion' is what they are 'all about'

Alice153 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:08 AM

Ture, ever notice that it is the liberal who turns to threats of violence when thwarted? They accuse conservatives of being unkind; but, I never saw more vindictive behavior than that of committed liberals. Meanwhile conervatives give to charity and help their neighbors while liberals are protesting.

miketurnerusa Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:34 PM

Jackson's discussion of marriage is helpful. What's not helpful is any additional government intrusion into who can get married. For example, race, or orientation or ability to have children...

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:50 PM

I believe, along with the Founders that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Rights can only be secured in a civilized society. Marriage is the primary tool that defends civilization against barbarism. And we are never more than one generation from barbarism.

...

Troglodite Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 9:09 PM

mo4:
A slight quibble, but one that actually strengthens your main point. A barbarian is someone who wears trousers instead of a toga, or a kilt instead of trousers, or eats peas with his knife. We are now approaching not barbarism, but a pseudo-civilized savagery. I wonder how many "conservatives" who can bring themselves to refer to "our fighting men and women" without shuddering realize how close they themselves have come to that.

Mo4, God Bless you for not only for daring to speak the truth, but even for daring to think it. Even the latter has become uncommon.

Alice153 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:14 AM

I don't understand the conservative reference. If the necessity arises, I will gladly fight for our country. I am an old woman; but, I have the privilege of remembering when most Amercans respected each other and the country. When men worked for a living instead of trying to wrest the wages of others out of their bank accounts. When life was precious and marriage was a lifelong endeavor. A barbarian is one who destroys the civilization he invades. His lifestyle may appeal to him; but, he must force others to live his way in order to take their wealth. We in America should protect our way of life against such invasion, or we must say our founders were wrong.

du2 Wrote: Jan 07, 2012 12:48 PM

Yeah, so...there isn't anything uncivilized about gay people. Or gay people marrying. Gays and lesbians are already taxpaying, contributing, responsible and accountable...as any other civilized citizens are. They can benefit society by being married as much as anyone else has the potential to. Our society doesn't try to make marriage a matter of who is worthy of being married. But it's open to anyone to improve their lives. That's why the diseased, the disabled, the INCARCERATED, the elderly...the very poor. It's OPEN to anyone except for a quartet of standard restrictions that gay people meet too.
So if you really believed what you said, and understood what governs gay people as well, you'd agree that gay people SHOULD marry.

This is why government have always recognized marriages, defined who was eligible for marriage, established consequences for failing to uphold marriage vows, and enacted policies favoring marriage over other possible human relationships.

This is why marriage has never been a private matter but has always been a matter of the public interest. Even the ancient Egyptians, who had no religious or civil marriage ceremony, nevertheless recognized a marriage as essentially different from other relationships and punished adultery.

...

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:51 PM

A government that does not, first and foremost, defend civilization against barbarism is an illegitimate government. Policies encouraging -- not mandating, but encouraging and rewarding -- marriage are not merely legitimate but are actively desirable because of the primary role that marriage plays in the continuation of civilization.

Johnny L. Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 7:42 AM

Mike. No one stops people from marrying anyone (or anything) they want and making private contracts. You can go to a universalist church and marry a rock for all anyone cares. The question is whether or not the state should extend policies designed to subsidize and encourage marriage to non-marriages. Should we allow same-sex spouses to refuse to testify in court because we value their marital harmony more than the truth? Should same sex couples be allowed to adopt when up to 58% of kids raised by such couples become gay? Should same sex couple be allowed to get special tax benefits designed to encourage their marriage?

To the extent that you take a libertarian position, you should oppose gov. in both homo and hetero marriage.

Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:05 AM

Right now,two homos can get married legally,they just have to be man-woman,the sole definition of "marriage"
or a homo can marry a normal person of the opposite sex.
that IS "equal".

Mike1076 Wrote: Jan 04, 2012 7:39 PM

Talk about circular reasoning. When a straight couple is dating, their relationship is a "non-marriage" - when they go to apply for a marriage license, should the state not grant them one because it encourages marriage to a non-marriage. Is that your logic?. Q: Should we allow same-sex spouses to refuse to testify in court because we value their marital harmony more than the truth? A: Yes, all legally married people should have the rights that come with being legally married. Q: Should same sex couples be allowed to adopt...?" A: Yes. And not that it should matter, but your 58% statistic is false. Q: Should same sex couple be allowed to get special tax benefits... A: No, all legally married couples should get the same benefits.

You're an idiot.

Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 9:03 AM

Homos already HAVE "equal" right to marriage;
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.

This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.

Of course,some people IGNORE the second part of Article IV,sec 1;
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:19 PM

Here's some advice out of a marriage that's lasted nearly 23 years and is still counting.

Don't make singleness a bad habit! That is, marry before you've gotten so attached to having everything your way and being accountable to no one that its a great sacrifice to have to take into account someone else's feelings, priorities, and needs with every decision you make.

I believe that's one of the major strains on today's marriages. People wait until they're in their 30's to marry. They've been on their own for half their lives. And they have a hard time giving up that freedom. Even though they want to make the sacrifice, its hard -- like quitting smoking or giving up caffeine.
...

Make your choice of partner with your head rather than your hormones. Being "in love" is all well and good, but down the road you'll regret it if you don't take the time to think about what kind of life partner and parent the person is going to be. What are your values? What kind of lifestyle do you plan on leading? When do you want to start having kids and what if nature doesn't cooperate with those plans?

Start with compatibility, develop friendship, and love follows.

Real love, which exceeds "in love" the way a home-made meal by the best cook you know exceeds grabbing a not-too-wilted sub from a convenience store's fridge, can only develop in a relationship of long-term, mutual commitment. ...

Chries Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:36 PM

Good words, Mother of 4. As one who waited to marry until my late thirties, I can tell you that character is the key for anyone of any age. Selfish people should never marry, no matter how old - or young - they happen to be.

BTW, my bride was in her mid-thirties when we married. She was, and is, a woman of quality and character and has proven to be a wonderful wife and mother.

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:56 PM

Thank you. It is indeed almost impossible for a marriage to overcome selfishness.

And congratulations on having overcome the challenges to form a solid relationship.

Recovered Lib Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 10:22 PM

Ohhhh, how I know that to be so sadly true! Selfish, narcissistic people are simply NOT marriage material. No matter what you do or how hard you may try to make a marriage work, if one or both partners are thoroughly self-absorbed, then it is guaranteed doomed from the start.

Alice153 Wrote: Jan 03, 2012 10:25 AM

I have been married forty-four years. There have been good and bad times. But, when we married there was no consideration of divorce no matter what we encountered. Of course, neither my husband nor myself countenanced physical or mental abuse. We deliberately determined to meet all of life together and overcome our difficulties. We did have the privilege of growing up when men knew that they were men and women were not constantly complaining that they were not fulfilled. We fulfiled ourselves. No government program was required for us to take our places in our society and do our part. Our parents taught us how to be men and women. Our three children also have a firm grasp on their individulality.

du2 Wrote: Jan 07, 2012 12:44 PM

Plenty of gay couples have accomplished that momof4, and are just as qualified to give advice on enduring relationships, commitment, parental responsibility and contribution to the general welfare of one's community. Gay adults recognize all of what you said, what's impossible to accept is why anyone would KEEP them from optimizing these commitments they so obviously WANT and NEED.
THAT is what has NEVER been explained here without those explanations being utterly hypocritical, cruel or contradictory. Inevitably so.
And WHAT death threats? I haven't seen any on the TH threads and I've been posting here longer than you have. Something like that would concern me of course, being in law enforcement.
Care to elucidate?

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:20 PM

... And it develops as a consequence of the active choice to love and partner one's spouse through good times and bad.

Those who are "in love" but who don't apply the mental effort to take a good look at the relationship and ask the hard questions about "Can I not only stand but enjoy this person for the next 50 years?" are very lucky indeed if things turn out well. Those who are willing to put their heads where their hearts and hormones have gone increase their odds dramatically.

For the women:

#1 Does he have a job? A man who is always mooching off you, off his mom, off his sisters, etc. has neither the maturity or the character to be your partner in life's journey. Yes, he's charming and attentive. Yes, he's amusing and fun. Con artists always are. But one day you'll need him for something important and he'll be gone -- generally leaving you with a baby in the cradle and an overdraft at the bank.
...

#2 Does he respect you? A man who thinks that your life and your interests are irrelevant, that you should take part in his activities but who doesn't show when you ask him to join you for something you like is too self-centered to make a good partner. And likewise for a guy who thinks its his right to take you to bed and who pressures you to have sex when you don't want to, whether its the first time or whether you've done it before.

#3 If he hits you, leave forever. Even if its just once. Even if he was drunk. Even if you actually did do something to make him mad. Even if he says he's sorry.
...

Recovered Lib Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 10:26 PM

#1 and #2 are IMPERATIVE!! Good sound advice, Mother.

#3 too!!!!

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:21 PM

For the men:

#1 Does she have a life? Job or no job, the important thing is whether she has an identity and interests beyond just needing to hang onto a guy and leech off his identity. A girl who can't stand on her own two feet and be a person without you will drain away your physical and mental energy like a vampire.

#2 Does she respect you? Does she respect men in general? Does she laugh at you when she's with her friends? Is her main form of humor the put-down -- generally directed at you? Any girl who thinks that all guys are losers, that all guys are idiots, or, in the unlikely case that a radical feminist actually agrees to go out with you, that all guys are tyrannical oppressors, doesn't have the maturity and character to form ...

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:22 PM

... a lifelong partnership. You might charm her into temporarily thinking that you're an exception, but if in the back of her mind she "knows" that guys don't deserve any respect that attitude will come out in time and poison your relationship.

#3 Is she a mooch/golddigger? Does she demand presents all the time? Does she expect you to pay her bills as a natural right? If you pick her a daisy does she gripe that it wasn't a long-stem rose? If you buy her a long-stem rose does she complain that it wasn't a dozen? Does her happiness, and her passion, depend on a constant flow of your cash? Does every gift have to be bigger and better than the last? Run, don't walk. ...

... The only difference between one of these girls and a wh*re is that the wh*re is more honest.

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:17 PM

The state has a legitimate interest in enacting social policies that favor behaviors which the favor the survival of civilization. This is not the same thing as mandating those behaviors -- which would be a violation of America's founding principles of freedom. People remain free to choose non-optimal behaviors.

Not all that is immoral needs to be illegal. Not all that is beneficial needs to be imposed by government force.

Freedom *permits* people to engage in non-optimal relationships and to form non-optimal, unstable, "families" that fail to transmit, on a individual and social level, culture and prosperity to the next generation. But there is no reason for society to *encourage,* via the enactment of policies, non-optimal behavior. ...

Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 02, 2012 6:18 PM

Left-liberals often operate on the principle that anything which is not explicitly permitted must be forbidden and anything that is explicitly permitted must be mandatory.

Freedom is a little messier.

In a free society people have the right to be wrong. And people who are right retain the right to tell people who are exercising their right to be wrong that they are, indeed, wrong. Freedom does not obligate anyone to pretend that immoral behavior is moral merely because it is legal.

And it does not obligate governments to pretend that behaviors which act against the continuation of civilization are the same as the behaviors that favor the continuation of civilization.

du2 Wrote: Jan 07, 2012 12:57 PM

Momof 4: the BEHAVIORS that created systemic bigotry, like Jim Crow...ARE to be eliminated. Those principles of discrimination based on fear, ignorance that fuels animus, ARE wrongful, harmful and restrict contributions that can otherwise be made. The BEHAVIORS that fuel distrust and hostility against gay people ISN'T natural. It's an acquired behavior, it's training to abuse other human beings for a SINGULAR attribute. An attribute that is difficult to distinguish in anyone actually. Whereas truly dangerous behavior always does. So again, it's UNCIVILIZED to form brutal systems of hypocritical government to satisfy prejudice and bigotry. Behavior that's brutal to gay people is uncivilized towards civil gay people. So why support it?

du2 Wrote: Jan 07, 2012 12:59 PM

You think you have all the answers and you're not stupid. But below is a very simple question of ethics and the behavior YOU and you ilk should be accountable for. But refuse to be. So answer my post and then we're having a conversation about examining YOUR behavior instead of pointing fingers elsewhere to deflect the lack of ethics your beliefs actually have.

du2 Wrote: Jan 07, 2012 12:53 PM

You left out the fact that COMMON behaviors, such as contributing to the general welfare of society through law abiding and professional endeavors, paying taxes and forming committed relationships are something gay people are doing too. As gay people, they are NOT harmful, nor is their behavior so without potential to do societal good, your words are empty. They are dismissive of this simple reality. Gay people are not a religion or culture. They are members of the human race neutral to all of that, the same as you are. Your words are meaningless because you exclude that. You sound good, but you don't MEAN a word of it.

Allahpundit	Quotes of the day
Karl	Is the Obama campaign really incompetent?
Ed Morrissey	Video: Why the Euro has stalled
Ed Morrissey	Power Line turns 10
Ed Morrissey	Matalin: Religious liberty is the issue at stake in the HHS mandate
Jazz Shaw	The legend of the Battle Saint

The Marriage Meltdown

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Breaking on TOWNHALL

Political Cartoon of the Day

Chuck Asay

Video

FACEBOOK ACTIVITY

Townhall Regular Contributors