Dan Gilgoff at CNN's Belief Blog:
Columnist and gay-rights advocate Dan Savage is standing by his comment that “we can learn to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about gay people” at a recent conference for high school students, a line that prompted some to walk out and spurred intense online debate.
... Some Christian students walked out of the Seattle speech, prompting another controversial line from Savage: “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya**ed people react when you push back.”
... One of the teachers attending the speech with his students told CNN’s Carol Costello on Monday that he was taken aback by the speech and that he supported the decision of some of his students to walk out of it.
“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” said Rick Tuttle, a teacher at Sutter Union High School in Southern California. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.”
“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”
In case you missed it, here's the video of Savage's speech.
74 Comments
well said by Savage. he points out rightly that that if Christians can reasonably excuse themselves from those things that they ought to be able to to do the same regarding homosexuality. he's arguing that Christians have rightly decided that slavery isn't right despite the fact that Bible (Old or New) seems supportive of the institution. he's arguing that Christians could make the same distinction about homosexuality, and yet many are resisting doing so, which begs the question of why.
Bullying, bullying, bullying,
He bullies she and she bullies he and everyone bullies and get bullied.
Bullying has become politicized. That is, everyone is accusing everyone else of bullying. It is the latest tin word, thoughtlessly shot across to the other side's ranks.
Well, I'll tell you something, I was really bullied, at school, many years ago and there only way yo cure it is not to have lectures and diversity meetings and talk, the only way to cure bullying is to hang the bullies from lampposts with a sign around their neck, I am a rotten bully and deserve worse.
Any survivor of bullying can tell you this, if you are willing to listen.
Stop talking about it and get something done.
Unless of course, you see nothing wrong with bullying.
Wait wait wait. Hostility toward Christianity? The Bible calls for the execution of gay people and a gay man calling that b.s. is the one being hostile? Wow. So please, clarify, NOM. If the organization doesn't believe it's b.s., does that mean that it stands behind the death penalty for gay people as outlined in Bible? I'm looking for a yes or no answer here.
Who invited the performance of that foolish rant at that high school conference? Idiocy.
Savage is a turd. I would hardly consider him a theologian, expert in biblical studies nor ancient language apologist. Any half brain Christian can shoot down his argument in minutes. This is why no one takes his arguments seriously only the dim-witted. If gay men are trying to shake the sterotype that gay men are minicing, hyper-emotional, sex-crazed narcissists you couldn't do worse than Savage.
Well, we all understand why some of the misjustices in the Bible have been remedied in Christianity, but frankly, there's no good reason for Christianity to change its views on homosexual behavior. The only reason I hear is that because people who participate in homosexual acts think that the Bible is wrong about them. I'm sure pedophiles could make the same argument. Or unrepentant adulterers, thieves, or murderers, right?
That's exactly Savage's point. You can't claim you're condemning gays simply because it's in the Bible. You are choosing to condemn homosexuality because you've decided it's wrong.
Overcame: pedos, adulterers, thieves, and murderers all hurt someone directly. Two adult men wanting to commit does not.
Here's a great vacation possibility for Dan when he's ready for a general 'its time to get real, grow up and be a man' health cure.
These are comments from the President of one of the many countries around the world that have a clearer and more healthy approach to this issue than does the good old USA. . (Found on the web. Distracting details omitted; the general message being the point of interest.)
"In the face of U.S. threats to cut off foreign aid to his country, and after Hillary Clinton declared in Geneva early this year that gay rights and human rights were one and the same and that all countries had better get on board. The President of this country said :
If you want us to be ungodly for you to give us aid, take your aid away, we will survive... We will rather eat grass than accept this... evil attitude that is ... anti-human and anti-creation. Acceptance of homosexual acts would compromise the nation's dignity.
He noted that his country had already lost many of its traditional practices to the influence of western culture, but said that this was an issue where the country would stand firm. We lost our traditional head scarf for a necktie, but we will not lose our humanity for the so-called human rights. We will respect human rights where a human being behaves like a human being. And he added: Let me make it very clear that if you want me to offend God for you to give me aid, you are making a great mistake. You will not bribe me to do what is evil and ungodly."
Someone can tell the homo he can come back into the blog now, I'm done with today's lesson on our rich and valuable world diversity.
GZeus -
Well a pedo will tell you that the age of consent should be lowered; and a thief will tell you that he hasn't hurt anyone, just taken some property from one who unjustly had more than he does. I say a man who gives up the complementary union with a reproductive partner hurts himself (not to mention the anatomical harm that comes with some forms a male-male so-called "sex"), hurts his parents, and hurts society.
About half of all marriages end in divorce. Many married people are on their second, third, forth marriages. Many people get married for financial reasons. Many people get married for companionship. Many people get married for a variety of reasons. Many people get married and do not or are not able to procreate. Many marriages last less than a year. How one cannot see that the biggest marriage corruptors are heterosexuals is alarming. How can anyone possibly believe that allowing gays to marry is going to corrupt marriage any worse than it already is isn't dealing with reality. Gay haters are going after the wrong people which proves who created the hate the gays agenda.
First of all, God did not condone slavery for everyone, just heathens, which meant that if you practiced idolitry, being a slave was one of your punishments, He said that if anyone else was made a slave, you had to let them go after 1 year and give them provisions enough to survive. Secondly, allowing men to marry will lead to long term genocide and indoctrination of innocent children into believeing that marrying a same sex partner is a viable option. We keep hearing about how they were "born that way" but what about children who know nothing about it but now, because of laws like SB48 in California, they are going to be taught 'gay histpry". Everyday, we see a futher erosion of the rights of Christians regarding homosexuality and it is through this door that Satan will wage his last battle on earth.
wow. just when you think you've heard it all, someone compares two gay people who want to commit to each other as "long term genocide."
it amazes me how fragile and tenuous the anti-gay folk find their heterosexuality, like it's a baby bird with a broken wing.
nova; two gay people who want to commit is their business.
Redefining marriage is ours.
See you in NC.
Overcame: Since you've already made it clear you are homosexual, you must believe you deserve to die. Maybe you should lobby the government to institute Biblical law and then be first in line to receive your rightful punishment. What method of execution do you think would be appropriate?
@nova #1
I am nominally Catholic (don’t practice my faith) but I’ll try to answer your question with what I can remember. Of course, I'm assuming you are asking in good faith
The laws in the old testament can be divided in to three categories:
Moral, civil and ritual/purity.
The passages in Leviticus that speak to sexual immorality implicate sodomy, fornication, incest, adultery and bestiality.
All Orthodox Abrahamic faiths still consider these sins in the present day.
Thousands of years ago the civil penalties for these sins was severe. Today, thankfully, people are no longer stoned for adultery, just as people no longer have their hands cut off for theft. The civil punishment for the acts have changed but the morality of the act remains the same.
As for as the ritual/purity laws such as dietary restrictions, circumcision, etc- those laws are for Jews. St. Paul relieved the gentiles (Christians) from any duty to those laws.
Rick, don't you mean change what you have decided constitutes a marriage? The Constitution of the United States of America has no reference to marriage whatsoever. At least until 2004 when the anti-gay people legislated to define marriage to fit their own narrow minded definitions.
Ms. Broker, being exposed to homosexuality does not make one gay. Either you are or you are not or you are somewhere inbetween. If your pov were correct, the whole World would be gay because there is homosexuality in every aspect of Life just like it has always been and always will be. Allowing gay-marriage is not going to change anyone or anything. Perfect example are all the places on this planet where gay-marriage is legal or homosexuality is acknowledged, nothing has changed. Your life will not change.
Homosexuality is a habit forming enterprise. The 80 to 97 percent of the children who are 'not' born that way can grow to develop a taste for that way. Those are the people that we are concerned about. And those are the people that the economic market is interested in.
Some one tell Dan that stigmatizing homosexuality is an educational thing. And he'll be happy to know that it can be done without bullying. There's something he can teach the kids.
The headline is not quite right...it's about selective following of what the bible says not that the bible itself is b********.
Good news: Get some education.
Bravo to Dan Savage!
Of course, he's merely pointing out what all Christians know: selectively drawing on the bible to support your hate beliefs is highly unChristian. No wonder Mark Twain uttered those famous words: "If Jesus Christ were alive today, one thing he wouldn't be is a Christian!"
I i say let savage and all the trolls continue their insults..all it does is alienate anyone they are trying to convince. Its all they can do since they have no argument. Thats fine. Let them. We'll just keep winning.
"Everyday [sic], we see a futher [sic] erosion of the rights of Christians regarding homosexuality..."
What "rights" do Christians have regarding homosexuality? Is someone forcing you to have gay sex or something? I think your rights end where someone else's begin. It's called, "equal protection under the law"!
John, what, precisely, are you winning? The right to look foolish? The right to hate a minority group?
So Robert, are you saying it is permissible to selectively draw from the Bible in order to justify your hate for Christian's?
You do know Christ was not Jesus' last name don't you?
Here are a few selected verses for you to ponder:
Corinthians 6:18-20
1 Corinthians 6:8-10
Revelation 21:8
Romans 1:18-27
Romans 1:26-27
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Liviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Another question:
How many times do you have to be told your proclivity is a Biblical sin before you believe it? My readings tell me that though you afforded the opportunity to repent you will not becuase you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the depth of your depravity; that your proclivity is one of the few ways where man can sin against himself.
Corrected:
How many times do you have to be told your proclivity is a Biblical sin before you believe it? My readings tell me that though you are afforded the opportunity to repent you will not because you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the depth of your depravity; that your proclivity is one of the few ways where man can sin against himself.
Randy, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with US laws, or rights given by the Constitution.
Pete,
Quoting what is written while citing title and verse when making a point has absolutley nothing to do with a belief and everthing to do with proving the point that the rational for Christian beliefs are easily verified; while simultaneously proving that it was that silly Savage that took Biblical text out of context with the intent of lending a greater appearance of acceptability for is position than was warranted.
FYI:
The Ten Commandments is the source of our laws - i.e. the laws of nature and natures God.
Randy, How many times do you have to be told your religious beliefs are the beliefs you have chosen to believe. YOU believe it is fact and truth. It is fact and truth TO YOU. It is not fact and truth for everybody. Just because YOU have chosen to believe it, does not make it fact or truth. And as Pete said, YOUR religious beliefs do not trump the law.
Your sweeping denial suggests a lack of historical awareness on your part.
Consider, for example, the following excerpt from a Library of Congress article, "....the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."
For details see the Library of Congress article at: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
eliasasm,
The right of conscience and free exercise thereof as expressly provided for under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution dictates my faith be afforded recognition of immutability; whereas your depravity does not even merit an honorable mention.
Your insistance on refusing to acknowledge this well known fact will not make these truths we hold to be self evident disappear.
bman, we don't make laws in this country based on fairy tales, ok? If you believe otherwise, cite some laws that are religion-based, and have withstood constitutional scrutiny.
Robert, Don't you know... equal protection under the law only applies to Christians and their right to bully everyone while forcing their religion them? They're the victims Robert.
"the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution dictates my faith be afforded recognition of immutability"
The 1st Amendment makes no such claim, and can't make such a claim, since people are often able to overcome religious addiction through therapy and/or willpower and reason, or change religions. Religion is addictive, like heroin, but not immutable.
Robert,
It is a simple as Heightened Scrutiny and Rational Basis; as in:
Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one women pairings.
Faith has been afforded Heightened Scrutiny protection since this nations founding; whereas sexual depravity only ranks the protections afforded all bottom feeders - Rational Basis.
Marriage corruption supporters hold their professed ignorance in high regards.
Bret,
"Cannot be denied equal protection without due process of law."
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Come on folks; give me something. "No it isn't" and "So what" responses just are not working out to well for ya'all.
Our laws come from the Ten Comaments? Really, which ones? Honor thy mother and thy father is found where in our laws? How about worshiping other Gods, can't seem to find that in our laws?
Pete,
You are embarassing yourself.
It's only bulling if it's toward them. In their minds it's ok to do it to us.
I bet his son is rolling over in his grave right now. Imagine how it would be if a person did that to gay students...
@pete, *Commandments. *gods.
One thing I have learned is when someone wants to do something wrong and do not want anyone to get in their way. They will justify their reason for doing it and make it seem right. Dan Savage has no understanding of what the bible says. He is so deceiving.
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one women pairings."
It what way is it rational? That's like saying that only women can have jobs, because men can't give birth. Finding a characteristic that distinguishes one group from another has never been the basis for legalized discrimination. If it were, we could easily deny driver's licenses to women, medical licenses to black people and yes, marriage licenses to gay people.
What matters under law is the concept of being "similarly situated" not the same or different. Maggie Gallagher, of NOM, likes to say that it's not discrimination to treat different things differently. She is unequivocally wrong, legally. Men are different from women, and yet we don't get to treat women with lower status or fewer legal rights because of it.
Dan Savage is a bully and anyone who disagrees with that need only to put in Santorum into a search engine. Disagreeing with someone does not justify aggressively attacking them by publicly mocking like that. I don't agree with Santorum, but the moment I saw the bullying campaign spearheaded by Savage all I could think of was that he's the definition of a media bully.
This sort of unprofessionalism by him is not surprising. His anti-bullying campaign is only to benefit the gay kids out there. The rest of them can be shamed and spat at from his behavior.
'Rational basis' as the appropriate level to protect sexual orientation, or more specifically, non-heterosexual orientation, has not made it as a challenege to SCOTUS since before Lawrence v Texas.
The basis of 'Rational Basis' pre-Lawrence v Texas was at least partially founded on the premise that private consenual sex between adults could be constitutionally criminalized. This aspect has been overturned by Lawrence v Texas.
While various lower level courts have both challeneged and used the 'rational basis' level of review since Lawrence v Texas. Given the main leg that 'rational basis' for evaluating homosexual activity stood on was the allowable criminalization, I wouldn't want to bet that will hold up when SCOTUS is inevitably called on to re-examine that. (in fact, as noted in Scalia's scathing dissent in Lawrence v Texas, he's pretty sure that with that precedent, and despite his personal distaste for the concept, SSM will be required constitutionally too)
Wow! Lots of confused, non bible reading people. Trying to say what the bible says and haven't even read it. Facts are facts, homosexuality is wrong and a sin! You can't change it, I can't change it! Until you have read and studied the word of God, and witnessed the things that He is still doing today. Don't pass judgement, because His word has already passed it! Christians, true christians are only trying ti help those who don't know Him from meeting that judgement. It's not us as Christians you need to worry about. It's the one who created you! His name is Jesus!
Robert,
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one women pairings."
This is the quoted finding of the Supreme Court of the United States in four seperate findings dating back to 1853; in addition to the guiding principle in the finding from over a dozen appelate court findings.
Did you truly not know this well documented fact?
our laws are grounded in the laws of nature; not the laws of what you want.
I've read a lot of posts here that sound like legal briefs. Let me break it down into plain english.
The laws of the old Testament were for the Jews and ger tzedek (converted Gentiless) to follow. They didn't stone goyym (non Jews) for breaking dietary, moral and purity laws. This was done in the Jewish community by the Jewish people towards other Jews. Not Gentiles. Jesus fullfilled the law. No longer was sin punishible by physical death, but by spiritual death.
With the death and ressurection of Christ, salvation is available to all without having to follow all 600+ precepts of the law. This still doens't mean it's ok to kill, steal, to be sexually immoral or commit homosexuality.
Christ was not in any way shape or form One who promoted biggotry or hatred. He does however promote the truth. That is there is only one way into heaven, and it is by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior. But here's the great thing. You can choose to believe or not.
Get angry, call me a biggot say whatever you like, but it will not change the truth.
The bible 'slave' was someone who wanted to buy a parcel of land. He went to the seller and worked for him a given period of time to purchase said property. The bible slave wasn't the same definition as we think of here.
If you learn the culture, you understand the book. Good news, Dan Savage's ignorance is forgiven.
If exposing one to homosexuality does not endanger someone to becoming gay, then teaching/reading the Bible in schools will not endanger a reprobate from being proselytized or convterted.
Spiritual battles people, and those whom are living this lie that homosexuality is ok, well...may God open up their eyes to the enemy's lies!! But, GOD is in control! Pray for those whom are lost in this lifestyle, Father God heal their minds for those whom are living this lie of the enemy, in the name of Jesus... God Bless you!!
If you are ignorant of the laws of this country and still break them, can you still be prosecuted and found guilty? And if found guilty, will you still receive a sentence?
Ignorance and/or willing defiance do NOT exclude you from law & order in this country, or any other for that matter. How much more before Almighty God?
To those of you who proudly boast of your disrespect, unbelief, and stubborn disobedience to God's Word, ignorance will do you no good in the end. I strongly, with a heart of love, urge you to reconsider your ways. Not for our sake, but your own.
To those of you who state "we are a nation of laws", you are absolutely correct. We ARE a nation of laws, and if states want to have laws on their books defining one man/one woman as marriage & nothing else, then by your own standard we can have that.
Frankly, I find it funny that one group (the pro-SSM) can scoff at one group's beliefs and mandate that their standard (the Bible) is faulty/non-existant/irrelevant, and in the next breath state what they believe is "right" and "wrong". Ha! Based on what? They throw out absolute morality and replace it with what? Their own conjecture?
I believe Pete implied that US law and Biblical are not the same, and there is a much wider gap between them than this country has ever seen. I would recommend that all of you at least, go to You Tube and watch Rabbi Jonathan Cahn's Harbenger series.
When Dan Savage talks about things he doesn't understand or knows very little about, like Christianity and the Bible... It just make's him look ignorant and stupid.
@ Brett 73
“Good news: Get some education.”
You mean one of those thorough, from public school to ivy league 40,000 dollar a year brainwashes? Did you mean, “good news: get stupid”?
As for your suggestion of using the death penalty. The bible is not my reference, nor is Christianity or religion my boundaries, but now that you mention it; the death penalty, at opportune times in way of deterrent (educational), might be apropos in our day. What do you think? Maybe we should put it up for a vote: “death penalty for visibly active homosexuality in front of children and society – Yes or No”. Or, as I hear they're teaching in the Ivy towers for such basic subjects of human social structure, we should forgo the vote and simply put this educational tool into application. So that we could then all, 'get some education'.
Of course this is much unacceptable and valueless sarcasm; but I'm just responding in Danny boy's language. I'm sure you understand the humor, no bullying intended. Dan should find himself a trashy comedy night club audience to mouth off to, and not a group of students. A country that allows and encourages him to do so, is a country in dire need of education, from leaders and role models of value.
Lets start from scratch: 1 + 1 = 2, and marriage is a man and a woman (and in the States our laws limit that to one man and one woman). Man-man, woman-woman, what is that? Well lets start by simple deduction: it is not marriage...
PS. Good use of the colon Brett. Why don't you go and teach our students the proper use of the colon. It is one of those things that people (and educators) can easily get confused about.
Robert,
"It what way is it rational? "
Since the union of a man and woman, whether in bed or in a petri dish, is how children are created, it is rational to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This relationship is unique.
"That's like saying that only women can have jobs, because men can't give birth."
How so? Both men and women are allowed to marry.
"Finding a characteristic that distinguishes one group from another has never been the basis for legalized discrimination."
There is no distinguishing between "groups." The state is distinguishing between relationships, which it does all the time.
"If it were, we could easily deny driver's licenses to women, medical licenses to black people and yes, marriage licenses to gay people."
Marriage licenses are made available to gay people.
"What matters under law is the concept of being 'similarly situated' not the same or different."
And most courts have found that same-sex couples are not "similarly situated" to opposite-sex couples. Since opposite-sex couples can create children by accident with each other, that is of considerable import to society.
Both couples might love each other, cooperate financially, and raise kids, but that criteria would make pairs of relatives, and groups of more than two, "similarly situated."
"Maggie Gallagher, of NOM, likes to say that it's not discrimination to treat different things differently. She is unequivocally wrong, legally. Men are different from women, and yet we don't get to treat women with lower status or fewer legal rights because of it."
Men and women are treated differently all the time. Women and men are not allowed to use the public bathrooms of the opposite sex. Men have to register for the selective service and women don't. Women can't have vasectomies, and men can't get hysterectomies.
Discrimination is inappropriate when you treat people differently for irrelevant reasons. When you make a person sit in the back of the bus because of their skin color. When you prevent a man and woman from forming a marriage, or even living together, because they are of different races.
And still, no "person" is being treated differently with regards to marriage. Relationships are being treated differently.
Ash - nice post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Yunno, it seems so blantantly absurd to me to go after a segment of society that wants to be a part of the marriage institution, to support and strengthen that institution instead of the segment of society that has made a mockery and a joke of that same insitution, namely heterosexuals. Divorce rate is about 50%! Why isn't there an outrage against heterosexuals and what they have done to the institution of marriage instead of homosexuals? Makes no sense.
The students were prudent to walk out. They were not cowardly. Bullies are cowards--what Dan Savage was doing, bullying a group of students in an assembly, was cowardly and despicable. Added to his bullying, you can hear from the video that he incited similar behavior from many of the students, who applauded his words. How will the mocked students fare as a result of this assembly? If Dan Savage can do it with the endorsement of the school, why can't they?
This is the worst, most counter-productive example of an anti-bullying presentation I have ever seen!
50% Divorce rate. Laughable. Nobody can ever point to staitstics that actually prove that. Only 1 study ever showed a correlation, and that is from 1979. Several dozen have come around that show it to be less than 30%. Many states don't even report their divorce statistics.
It is about as provable as "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." Both are cliches.
elias -
There is outrage over divorce and Illegitimacy. But the homosexuals keep spending money to attack marriage's very definition and its important link to procreation. We have to fight the well-financed attacks on marriage; once we win that fight, we can work on fixing the practical issues with marriage that lead to divorce and/or women have illegitimate children.
There is a world out there that exists far and away, above and beyond what you people don't seem to be aware of. You see the world in the way you choose to see it. And you choose what not to see. That's fine, that's your choice and there is absolutely no one telling you that you cannot have that choice, as you choose to see that that is what is happening. It isn't from another perspective like the bigger picture. Those that choose to see the bigger picture understand this. Having a bigger perspective allows one to see how things work in the grander scale of things and what is actually happening in the world around us. That is not a threat to you as much as you choose to believe it is. We all are part of the grander scale of which you choose not to see. That does not make you wrong nor does it make you right either. What you choose to see is what is right for you. From a bigger perspective you might see that where your anger is mis-directed. It seems that from a religious perspective, if you have a problem with some aspect of Life, that logically you would take that issue up with the one you say is the creator of all things, not with the creation itself. Could that maybe why it is said do not judge cause by doing so you have judged the creator?
The point is, that you will choose not to see, is that you can live in your world and others can live in theirs. How ever you choose to see YOUR world, live in it and live your life accordingly along with all the others that actually are in your world and allow others that do not live in YOUR world to live their lives according to how they choose to see their world. A bigger perspective would allow you to see that your world is not the only one. It's the only one to YOU.
A strawman argument since I never claimed laws were based on fairy tales.
Its rational to manage different things differently, and to call different things by different names.
Marital law is designed to regulate and morally approve the procreative sexual relationship of a man and woman for the good of society. The word for that is marriage.
By contrast, gay sexual relationships are not morally acceptable to society and should not be treated as morally acceptable in name, benefits, or public discourse.
I just can't find any logic at all in being afraid that by giving two consenting adults a legal document that somehow people's lives are going to change. You seem to think that people are going to start living their lives differently, that there is going to be an increasing number of gay people, that you are going to be forced into gay sex, that acknowledging homosexuality as a fact of life is going to turn people gay. Why don't you want to acknowledge that where gay-marriage is legal and homosexuality is accepted as a contributing part of society, Nothing Has Happened. No ones lives changed, gays didn't come flying out of every closet in town, nobody's religious beliefs changed, Richard Simmons didn't become anymore flaming than he already is, the Earth didn't shake, need I go on? Seriously people, if you truly were concerned about marriage and children, heterosexual divorces where children are involved have done more damage to children and society for centuries than gay-marriages could even come close to. How you all can claim that all this isn't hate towards gays, when you take a step back and see a larger picture, it's pretty obvious.
eliasasm,
So your point is that even though you know changing the meaning of marriage in the United States will be harmful to the institution you do not believe it will be any more harmful than no fault divorce has been?
No, Randy, that's not my point, read it again. It's only the point you would like me to have so you can attack me for it. Typical NOMulan strategy.
I’m just curious as to why none of my intelligent pro-marriage friends haven’t brought up a point yet. I mean, religion is a great point, but gay “marriage” supporters don’t seem to like accepting that beliefs play a part to some people. So here goes:
In all of its different appearances, biology states that from a complete organism down to an organelle, all forms have and fit their function. Now, structure in a body goes like this: organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism. A Golgi apparatus within a cell is not going to create new DNA strands. Or, if it somehow did, they wouldn’t be nearly as good as how they would be with the right organelle and its function, the nucleus. Golgi apparatus’ forms fit their functions, which is to package and transport proteins inside the cell; their form does not allow for DNA replication, transcription, or translation. “Form fits function” applies to all living things at all levels, including humans.
We all know that no homosexual couple can produce a child. “Form fits function” has it down perfectly: penis + vagina = possibility at fertilization = baby. The female sexual organs even _work_ to help sperm fertilize(stiffening and lubrication of walls, suction, etc.). Penis + anus = difficult simulation of sex and sperm wondering where the egg was moved to. Lesbian “sex” is masturbation of oneself or a partner, with “toys” included to simulate how sex is supposed to be. Is there a function for the latter two? Mind you, biology does not support sexual desire or need to dominate as a function or need for humans(female ferrets are another story). All homosexual activities ignore the function while having the forms, and “form fits function” requires both form and function.
If homosexuality is really natural and should be positively enforced in society, why can’t two men or two women reproduce together? Wouldn’t homosexual reproduction be possible through evolution/ God’s plans/etc. if it was functional? We’ve been estimated at being the result of millions of years of evolution and development, so wouldn’t we have gained that sort of ability if it helped us survive?
And please don’t go nitpicking, twisting, or name-calling. It's really immature. If you refuse to be open-minded/tolerant and listen to the religious perspective, then don’t deny “hard” facts like science or history. My point has been on science, which allows for research and will replace theories when new discoveries are made, all by facts. Denying the existence of gravity when it keeps you from floating to your death in the vacuum of space is plain stupid.
You must first remove the blindfold.
In divorce two people are also given a legal document.
Look at all the harm no fault divorce law has caused society and children, however.
The harm just keeps increasing with no end in sight, as well.
And how do you think the harm to children caused by divorce law can be stopped?
Are you "unable to find" any changed lives caused by that?
In much the same way that divorce law has eroded the morality of marriage and caused suffering to children and society, a gay marriage law would erode the morality of marriage more deeply.
We must look ahead in our imagination to what society would be like 50 years from now. After fifty years of marriage-morality being gone, what harm would that cause?
Once a generation of children have been taught to accept gay marriage in the schools, how many would believe in the "old fashioned" morality of marriage when reaching adulthood?
And, once a generation no longer believed in the old fashioned morality of marriage, why marry?
In general, increases in teen pregnancy, single parent households, welfare, juvenile delinquency, poverty, crime, school dropouts, abortion and such have been the result of a decrease in morality concerning marriage in society.
Whoever votes for gay sex marriage effectively votes to decrease marriage morality and to increase the harms mentioned beyond current day levels, with no apparent means to reverse course.
.
There is an old saying, "raise no more devils than you can knock down."
That is, don't start troubles that you can't solve.
People who vote for gay sex marriage have no way to stop the troubles they are about to start.
They need to consider that fact before they vote.
bman, the bottom line is that you are concerned about what MIGHT happen even though there is nothing to show that what you think might happen is going to happen. Everywhere on this planet where gay-marriage is legal and homosexuality is acknowledged as a fact of life, the only thing that has happened is that the troubles the anti-gay marriage people started have gone away. It is absolutely ridulous and absurd to think that anyone is going to be living their lives any differently.
I don't need to prove what "will" happen to overcome your objections. I only need to offer arguments that are more credible than yours regarding that. And that much has already been done.
There are two claims on the table
(1) SSM would have no harmful affect on future society
and
(2) SSM would have a harmful affect on future society"
Now ask yourself, "which claim has the most credibility based on the arguments offered?"
Do not demand that absolute proof be given before you will "see." That is merely the same thing as refusing to see.
You are looking for credibility, not absolute proof. Of course if absolute proof becomes available you should recognize it. In cases where the future behavior of society is concerned, however, the most we can do is judge which arguments about the future are the most credible.
I have also answered your challenge of how a legal document given two adults can cause harmful change to the lives of others by the fact divorce law harmed society when it undermined the the morality of marriage.
And if anything is credible, its that a gay sex marriage law would greatly undermine public respect for traditional morality regarding marriage.
The burden is on you to offer something with greater credibility than that.
You certainly have not done so as yet.