Dear Friends of Marriage,
The attack on DOMA has begun.
Today, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act -- the only federal law protecting the marriage statutes of 44 states. Reports indicate he has at least 69 co-sponsors in this effort to undercut state marriage laws.
We've known this day would come. President Obama has been advocating the repeal of DOMA since his first day in office. Gay marriage activists have debated the strategy and timing for pushing the bill in Congress.
And we're ready. Already, we are more than 500,000 strong as Americans from every walk of life have joined our ranks to stand firm against radical efforts to force same-sex marriage in every state. Our goal is 2 million Americans by the end of 2010. If each of us were to tell just three friends about TwoMillionforMarriage.com, we'd reach our goal in mere days.
Now it's time to speak truth to power! Gay marriage advocates are divided on DOMA -- even Rep. Barney Frank thinks the DOMA repeal bill is overreaching and has refused to support it. Now is our chance to send a clear message to Congress that will galvanize opposition to the DOMA repeal, and help sway those who are on the fence. The message is simple: Don't mess with marriage.
Just a few years ago, gay marriage advocates spoke of "state's rights" and a "gay marriage experiment" in a handful of states. Obviously, they didn't believe a word of it, and today they want to force same-sex marriage on every state in the nation, "like it or not."
Marriage isn't about inside-the-Beltway opportunism, or scoring political points. It's about honesty and integrity. Protecting children and religious liberty.
The need is urgent. I'm asking you to do three things right now:
1) Visit www.TwoMillionforMarriage.com and send a message to Washington. Use our online form to contact your Senators, Congressman, as well as congressional leadership, and tell them "Don't Mess with Marriage." Even if you've emailed before, let's flood the Capitol with phone calls and emails today, urging our congressmen to oppose Rep. Nadler's DOMA repeal bill.
2) Tell three friends about this new threat to DOMA, and ask them to join us at TwoMillionforMarriage.com today! Or just forward this email to people in your address book -- it's simple, fast, and amazingly effective. We're already 500,000 strong, and together we can stop this bill in its tracks!
3) Help support our TwoMillionforMarriage campaign today. Over the next six months, we need to raise another $1.5 million to fully fund our multi-faceted campaign to recruit 2 million Americans to join us in protecting DOMA. Using TV, radio, internet, telephone, email and direct mail efforts, we are identifying tens of thousands of new marriage activists who have never before been politically involved, but who care about marriage and are willing to do what it takes to stop courts and politicians from trampling the will of the American people. Your gift of $25, $50, or even $1000 if you're able, will help ensure that we reach our goal. Click here to make a secure online donation today.
I'm simply in awe at the outpouring of encouragement and new supporters we keep seeing every day. To those of you who have been with us for a long time -- thank you! And keep up the good work. Together we're getting the message out and making a difference all across the country. And for those of you new to our efforts -- Welcome! We're so glad you've joined us, and look forward to working together in this fight for marriage.
The threat is real, and increasingly urgent. Please take action right now. Don't put it off. Let's make sure Congress gets our message loud and clear today.
Blessings,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
281 Comments
Fantastic, let Equal rights for all Americans move forward!!!!!!
Dont Missquote Senator. B. Frank. He did not say what you are saying above....
Its about time, to rebeal DOMA,
As usual, this issue has nothing to do with Children or Religious issue's it is a constitutional issue, as a footnote: As an Episcopalian, it is against my religious freedom not to offer same sex marriage.
Protecting marriage in the individual states is going to be much harder if the Defense of Marriage Act goes down at the federal level. This is just like this congress, trying to take away the power of the states from being able to choose their own laws without interference.
Congratulations Mr. Nadler! This is certainly a step in the right direction for tolerance and equality!
Finally the bill to repeal DOMA was introduced!!! I'm so happy!!! I can't wait for this bill to pass.
NOM is spreading lies about the Respect for Marriage Act. This bill will only recognize at the federal level same-sex marriages performed in a state where it's legal. It won't force states that have DOMA at the state level (e.g. Florida, CA) to recognize same-sex marriages.
Later, DOMA. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
LoL. The "Respect" for Marriage Act? How does gutting marriage respect it?
LoL. The “Respect” for Marriage Act? How does gutting marriage respect it?
Easy, by freeing our laws of respecting some but not all.
Actually, the bill is "Respect for Families Act."
Gutting marriage doesn't respect it OR families.
it does make sense if the point of gay activists is to force everyone to respect their lifestyle choices. For me, I'd rather not have my children taught about gay relationships in the schools, that is something that ought to be taught at home. Respect my family, respect my choices and my parental rights. Save the DOMA.
We knew this was coming. Obama, what a rat. He let everyone think he was one way and now he's out the other way.
Oppose Nadler! http://www.TwoMillionforMarriage.com and send a message to Washington. Use our online form to contact your Senators, Congressman, as well as congressional leadership, and tell them "Don't Mess with Marriage."
Dittos! Done!
Sally, isn't the Christians that are doing the forcing? Seem like equality scares you?
Life is hard in all aspects not just marriage, some people can't work, some can't see, some can't walk, some can't hear, we all come from different walks of life. We all have our shortcomings. Some are more athletically inclined than others. some are better cooks, some are better listeners and some are better leaders.
. If you are gay, please know that you can change. People have done it. Sure its hard, but don't give up. You don't have to be gay, don't give into the gay mentality. Its your choice not theirs. Do not define yourself with one aspect of your life. Go out and make a difference. Help others over come being gay. Go out and develop a new talent, meet a new person, volunteer for something. You can make a difference.
Adam, stop reading the propaganda. Seek out credible reports on gay reparation.... it's all a myth.
Step out of the darkness of myths, lies and distortions. No real medical or psychiatric association believes in this hogwash. Trust me, do the research, it goes against everything you mentioned.
Sorry Bill, I know personally many friends that have changed ok, its is not a myth. The only darkness is when you give up. Don't give up.
"Many?" That's hard to swallow, good try. I doubt that you know anyone gay, former or present.
Bill, many is overstated I 3 would be exact. I ask you to do what others have done. Don't doubt yourself. You didn't learn to ride a bike on the first try.
I'm against the repeal of DOMA. Why would we want to repeal the one thing that's keeping a handful of Massachusetts state judges from deciding the marriage question for the entire nation?
I know many personally who have. The ex-gay movement is the stuff of nightmares for the gay movement. We're proof that we exist and that gay behavior is just that....behavior. You always have a choice.
Hello to all,
I ask that all start praying, each in his/her own way for this effort to stop the repeal of the DOMA law.
An appeal for prayers should be on every email that NOM sends out. We need the help of Almighty God to do His work here on earth. Let's not hesitate to ask others to pray when we ask them to donate. I suggest putting a "comment space or field " on each request for funds so that each person can add their prayer or indicate that they will pray for this cause. Let's have the child-like confidence in the Lord's Providence to answer our prayers for the prevention of the repeal of the DOMA law.
Thank you very much for listeing to my plea for prayer and prayer requests with each request for funds. God be with you all!
"Sally, isn’t the Christians that are doing the forcing? Seem like equality scares you?"
The only forcing going on is the gay agenda being forced down our throats. We are all people here Bill, the issue isn't equality of people, it's equality of ideas and Ideas are NOT equal.
Samantha,
Here's the secret. The gay agenda is to treated with the same respect and dignity as everyone else.
And what up with the "forced down our throats" bit. Other than be very Freudian, it's kind of a childish exaggeration.
"The gay agenda is to treated with the same respect and dignity as everyone else."
Last I checked the gay agenda wasn't a person, and it's not a secret.
You talk about wanting me to respect YOUR family yet you won't respect mine and give me the same rights that you enjoy. I DON'T WANT MY KIDS TAUGHT ABOUT HETEROSEXUALITY! That is a matter for me to teach them.
"I DON'T WANT MY KIDS TAUGHT ABOUT HETEROSEXUALITY!"
LoL Vito, good luck with that.
What exactly is the "gay agenda" according to its opponents?
NOM defends marriage. The DOMA is a federalist measure that defends good governance as well as marriage.
The SSM campaign is a nationwide attack on marriage and on freedom of conscience. It is blatant assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics.
When we respond to the attackers, we are told that it is our defence of marriage that is forcing something on society.
If they really believed that, then, they wouldn't be so reliant on the abuse of judicial review; they wouldn't use standards of argumentation to declare what marriage is not but then abandon those standards to evade stating what SSM actually is.
Marriage is not SSM. And SSM is indistinguishable from the rest of the nonmarriage category. But the SSM campaign is really not about marriage anyway.
Contact your elected representatives and let them know that the historical analogy is the spread of slavery. The SSM merger must be contained and its peculiar sectarianisms defeated by pluralism.
As a teacher for the past 5 years and currently on my sixth year, I have never had to define or teach my students about marriage. My job is to be sensitive and respectful to the many differences we share and not make any one individual, be it an adult or child, who chooses to live their life to the best of their ability or who may have two loving and caring parents that are of the same sex, feel less than deserving or of equal respect. At our school we have had numerous students who come from same sex families, so is it my job to define marriage between a man and a women and possibly send a direct attack on my student(s) who may have two same sex parents making them feel ashamed and embarrassed of their home and up bringing? Absolutely NOT! I am for love and be it between the opposite sex or same sex, I am for love. I embrace differences and I feel that it is not my job to pass judgment on any other individual. If we all do our jobs at home to guide and teach our children then we should not be so concerned with the life styles of others. Only God has the right to pass judgment not the state and certainly not YOU! I voted No on 8. There is so much more going on in the world: child abuse, child prostitution, hunger, and the list goes on. Is this really what we should be exerting so much energy on? Absolutely NOT! Keep your own families safe, well loved, and instill in them what your beliefs and values are; Do not concern yourself with what is going in your neighbors home. Just as so many would like to preach to the masses "But it says in the bible..... It also states "nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor" Leviticus 19:16
As we can all see, too often money talks louder than integrity.
Please continue to support marriage and our children from exploitation by homosexual extremists.
"Mommy, why don't I have a Daddy?"
"Because sweetie, Mummy doesn't really like boys very much. Now go outside and play."
Respect for Families? Smells like sexist bigotry to me.
“Mommy, why don’t I have a Daddy?”
“Because sweetie, Mummy doesn’t really like boys very much. Now go outside and play.”
Is this silly example aimed at same-sex couples, or single mothers?
does it matter whether the example is same sex couples or single mothers?? It's still one sex denying the other access to children...how is that showing respect for families?
Roxy, it's great to hear real-world experiences. It really can put fears to rest. Thanks!
If Roxy were representing the role of a teacher honestly, she would have to acknowledge the teaching of family structure in everyday application.
Roxy's bias is clear, and this has clearly affected her view of the subject. There are several states that are actively teaching about homosexual issues in the classroom, including California and Massachusetts. And it's not just highschool. This is happening in grades as young as kindergarten.
Roxy,
I hope you agree that love is not a justification for pedophilia or other crimes. So, why should it be a justification for child exploitation by homosexuals who play parents in order to legitimize their lifestyles?
Children raised by homosexuals are ALWAYS deprived, BY DESIGN, of a mom or dad. That is fundamentally wrong and cruel. This is not a child who lost a parent to illness or whose parents are divorced. That child, at least knows he has or has had BOTH parents. MOM and DAD.
To make very bad matters more horrific, mainstream homosexual media encourage and sugarcoat pedophilia. Please read some of the material Samantha cited on this site. This is something you should know if you teach children from homosexual homes. Sadly, this is not invented stuff, however unreal and sick it is.
As a teacher, you have an obligation to care for your students to the best of your abilities. The children raised by homosexuals deserve unique kindness and attention. They are victims, objects of cruel social experimentation. Despite all the material "stuff" they get from their "parents" and despite any great "parenting" efforts, these are kids with permanent emotional scars and whom this society has failed.
"I embrace differences and I feel that it is not my job to pass judgment on any other individual."
Roxy, there's a common mistake that SSMers make when talking about moral issues and that is to confuse the person with the action. Love the sinner, not the sin is twisted into hate the sinner.
That's not acceptable whether you're talking about religious teachings OR homosexual activist doctrine. It is common practice to "hate the sinner" when that person believes in the natural family. True tolerance requires that we treat each other well whether we agree with them or not. That covers both sides of the issue, including yours.
You've framed the argument falsely.
"I embrace differences and I feel it is not my job to pass judgment on any other individual. [...] Only God has the right to pass judgment, not the state, and certainly not YOU."
Roxy,
Nice cliche with an innocent caveat -- except when the "YOU" are radical homosexual activists. They are free to pass judgment, pander to religious hate and bigotry, smear, harass, intimidate, boycott and do everything and anything in their power to advance their extremist agenda.
I hope you keep your short-sighted, at best, views to yourself in the classroom. That is, if indeed you are a teacher.
Wow, very interesting responses to Roxy.
Yeah, see if this real world experience really puts your fears to rest.....
"City: Hayward, CA October 22, 2008
Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten.
The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that “Coming Out Day” will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time, but it is in the midst of celebrating “Ally Week,” a pro-homosexual push typically aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, “We’re learning to be allies.” The mother also learned that her daughter’s kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.
Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”
These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that (the gay agenda) has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.”"
Disgusting and appalling, Samantha. The fact that parents weren't notified speaks VOLUMES.
Samantha - about that old Faith Ringgold story - the only "news source" it ever appeared was on WordNutDaily and a bunch of breathless Christian Conservative sites that cluelessly recycle WND's bizarro conspiracy theories. It's not only old "news" its old hatemongering that was trumped up to scare chuckleheads into voting for Prop 8. Amazing how you had it right at your fingertips to dust off and post up for this very special occasion. Get a life, babe . . . you have more to fear from WordNutDaily than a whole village full of married gays.
"about that old Faith Ringgold story - the only “news source” it ever appeared was....a bunch of breathless Christian Conservative sites"
Better catch your breath for a second there and double check your facts Kate. A simple google search turns up story hits for the LA Times, Fox News, Mercury News in SF and CBS, that's only the first page of hits...which is actually pretty good since the mainstream media Obots can't even seem to find the ACORN scoop of the year yet. lol.
Equal Rights For All Americans!!!! Down with DOMA!!
"Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten."
Kate, it's interesting that you'd fight to discredit "Christian Conservative" sites, but you didn't address the story itself. Are you saying it didn't happen? There is no question that it happened, nor that it's the first time, nor is there any speculation that parents kept from being notified of the event beforehand. It's all public record. As are others like it. The only question is whether that's acceptable or not. Apparently Kate, you think it's acceptable. Fortunately most Americans, including a good number of Californians, disagree with you whole heartedly.
As Marty said, "The fact that parents weren’t notified speaks VOLUMES."
Just have to tell all you fear pushers....If you are so worried about your children being exposed to "The Gays" it is entirely too late...it is Legal in several states and has been in one other...it is already in the history books...for years and years and years and probobly forever your sheltered children will learn that there is (and if for some odd reason which I don't see as possible gay marriage does not go out to all states, all of your precious sheltered children that you were hoping to keep closeminded will know that Gay Marriage existed) Gay Marriage and is accepted in many other countries and within the US. People...that argument is now invalid...it is too too late...you cannot erase history. So pick some other scare tactic.
Richard, the fact that people with same sex orientation exist is not the issue. It's teaching that the lifestyle some of those people choose to live is good and right. That is the issue.
"all you fear pushers"
Is it fear pushers you're refering to? or truth tellers? In the case of Faith Ringgold, preaching activist homosexual doctrine in school, without parental consent....already happened. That's just not acceptable.
Kevin posted September 16, 2009 at 10:40 am |
[“Mommy, why don’t I have a Daddy?”
“Because sweetie, Mummy doesn’t really like boys very much. Now go outside and play.”
Is this silly example aimed at same-sex couples, or single mothers?]
Actually, it sounds a lot like an excerpt from Time magazine:
[Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home. "As a feminist, I didn't want to believe it," says Maria Kefalas, a sociologist who studies marriage and family issues and co-authored a seminal book on low-income mothers called Promises I Can Keep: Why
Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. "Women always tell me, 'I can be a mother and a father to a child,' but it's not true." Growing
up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. "The mom may not need that man," Kefalas says, "but her children still do."]
Read the full article, "Is There Hope for the American Marriage?," here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243-1,00.html
Amazing. You can use scientific reason and evidence to prove that children do best raised by a Mom and Dad.
And you don't even have to bring up religion.
"el rio" The fact AGAIN is that if you want you children to never hear aboutr same sex marriage....it is too late! period. It happened...you can't burn the history books or bury your head in the sand.
Besides that. I know my lifes IS good and right and i know alot of Heteros who live lifestyles that are not good nor right.
I have to also laugh...lol. You think there is a "homosexual doctine" LOL LOL too funny I forgot there are still those out there that think homosexuality is something learned or tought LOL.
Stephen Lee
Posted September 15, 2009 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
[I know many personally who have. The ex-gay movement is the stuff of nightmares for the gay movement. We’re proof that we exist and that gay behavior is just that….behavior. You always have a choice.]
That's the truth. Even gay activists aren't immune to going straight. Read this excerpt from an email I got from Protect Marriage:
[In 2005, The Advocate, a national homosexual magazine, named 17 year-old Kerry Pacer their “Person of the Year” after she successfully took her fight to a U.S. District court to permit the formation of a gay-straight alliance club at her Georgia high school. She claimed it was needed to teach tolerance of lesbians, gays and transgender kids because she had been bullied after having “come out” when she was 12.
Fast-forward four years, and we now learn that Ms. Pacer is living happily with…. her boyfriend and their baby daughter. This real life story doesn’t help the genetic argument for homosexuality. The champion of homosexual tolerance in Georgia high schools, self-declared lesbian and The Advocate’s youngest “Person of the Year” is straight. See the full story here.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/07/19/whoops-lesbian-person-year-gay-press-goes-straight-baby
And this is yet another reason many Black Democrats don't buy the "civil rights = 'gay marriage rights'" argument.
Fred! Good posts!
One confused girl does not make the argument at all...or unless of course you are saying since many many men who were happily married with kids and came out gay means that ALL men can be gay...hmmm intersting thought....Maybe I can marry that NFL quarterback after all
Richard Cortijo
Posted September 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
[Besides that. I know my lifes IS good and right and i know alot of Heteros who live lifestyles that are not good nor right.[/quote]
Drug addicts also say the same thing until they wind up in prison, the insane asylum, or the morgue.
[I have to also laugh…lol. You think there is a “homosexual doctine” LOL LOL too funny I forgot there are still those out there that think homosexuality is something learned or tought LOL.]
Online Version of the Gay Doctrine:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda?page=1
"You think there is a “homosexual doctine” LOL LOL too funny I forgot there are still those out there that think homosexuality is something learned or tought LOL."
Richard, actually yes. There is a homosexual doctrine as is completely obvious from the plethora of posts from the activist gay opinion who follow the same talking points post after post.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion or world view that is different, it's just preaching that world view from the bully pulpit of the schoolroom that I think is completely inappropriate.
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on that one since you and I do not share the same world view. I believe social change ought to come by honest means, where people can weigh the costs and benefits and see what is best by choice. It shouldn't be forced, imposed or usurped through indoctrinating the next generation before they're old enough to weigh the consequences for themselves.
Richard Cortijo
Posted September 16, 2009 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
One confused girl does not make the argument at all…or unless of course you are saying since many many men who were happily married with kids and came out gay means that ALL men can be gay…hmmm intersting thought….Maybe I can marry that NFL quarterback after all
]
Actually, it's further proof that homosexuality is a choice and not something immutable like skin color.
Even some gay activists like Peter Tatchell admit that there is no natural basis for homosexuality:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5375/
So it doesn't shock me that everyone from singers (e.g., Donnie McClurkin) to gay activists (e.g., Kerry Pacer) keep leaving homosexuality behind. That's normal.
"One confused girl does not make the argument at all…"
On the contrary, that one confused girl did what no black person has ever done....changed races.
History is History my friend. Life happens as you would say.."like it or not"
And there is a right wing fear mongored agenda too then I suppose since all post i read seem to read exactly the same way. hmmm do we both have agenda's or doctrines or simply do not have a change of heart?
Fred2 wow....don't know how to say this other than to equate homosexuality to being a drug addict is appalling!! Is that why you guys wear those white hoods when your are outside?
Rachel, She changed the appearence of her orientation...kinda like Michael Jackson changed the appearence of his race...same thing. So I would have to disagree.
I've got 3 people I know who have had feelings of homosexual behavior who have dealt with those feelings and now enjoy heterosexual behavior. Richard, don't give up, you can change. Just don't give up, keep looking for answers and asking for help. Every person on this board would offer their moral support. Its not an easy life having homosexual thoughts and behaviors. Just like many other problems in life. There is a way to overcome life's problems. People have recovered from Alcohol and drug abuse and all kinds of behavior. Your not alone, but please don't give up.
Thanks for your thoughts and prayers Adam...I am very sure their are sincere...that is what scares me about you and others like you....you really do not get it...it is not a "chosen behavior" just as you (possibly) chosing to be str8 is something you decided. It really is amazing..that is why I come to these kind of sites to try to understand why you people do and say the things you do.....i continue to be bewildered...I will just say, I am so sorry that your mind is so closed and I will pray for your soul that one day you will be free from your tightly closed mind and can finally love others that are not like you and stop obcessing on how others live their lives...and Adam, try not to be jealous of others being happy...it is not good for you and will make you an even unhappier person..it eats at you jealousy does. xo
"white hoods"
Ok, are you SERIOUS man? White Hoods?! What are you even talking about? The gay movement has NOTHING to do with the civil rights movement. I can't even BELIEVE you just said that.
You know, everyone thinks since MLK was a great man they can go ahead and equate, but you can't, and it don't.
Richard, I see things differently. 3 people who are gay change their behavior that I know of. It offers hope to you. Don't say you can't change. You are only hurting yourself. Saying you can't change when others have is perhaps the first correction you can make. Saying I can will give you the positive start. Its the way anyone who has a problem in life starts. It is I Can attitude that will help. Should we say to all who have problems in life just give up and accept that your an Alcholoic or you just have to accept diabetes and not work on a cure. Do we just give up on our loved one with cancer I hope this helps.
Whit Hoods is a metaphore for how he equates homosexuality with drug adicts that land in prison...that kind of hate talk sounds like stuff people with the white hoods would and did say..so yes "drew" I did just say that so you can go ahead and beleive it. Those white hood warers didn't just hate people in teh civil rights movement they hate everyone that is not liek them...so that metaphore fits like a glove!!!!!!
"Rachel, She changed the appearence of her orientation…kinda like Michael Jackson changed the appearence of his race…same thing."
Who made you God? Who are you to say that her feelings are fake Richard?
so now Adam...homosexuality is like Cancer??? or Alcoholism??? OMG LOL wow! See drew....that is why I said that earlier..
and same goes to you Adam...have the I Can attitude..you can change, you dno't have to be a stone thrower you whole life...you don't ahve to hate people or try to change everyone whos is not like you...there are groups that can help...don't give in to the sin of hating your brothers and sisters adn fellow man..we can help!! Don't give up...there are those that can pray with you. We forgive you for being so closeminded and self righteous.
No, ok. See the difference here is you just disagree. Disagreement is different than racism ok?
Rachel and who are you to say mine are not real either./..so guess you are god?
Dissagree with what Drew? That people should be treated equally no matter their orientation...or that people shoulod not be be discriminated against...or that people orientation should not be equated to cancer, drug adict prisoners or alcoholics?? which one?
I have to agree with annalee, Richard. You're not being consistent. You can't ask us to take your account of how you feel being gay and then discount how this ex-lesbian feels when she says she's happy even though she's chosen not to live the gay lifestyle anymore.
Orientation is not the same as race.
Richard, your avoiding the point. So I imagine you had a wonderful gay life your entire life was blissful eh? You loved being gay, Not a single care in the world. You move from CA and NY just to fit in. You were just excited to tell everyone you were gays.
There is no hate here. You know the movie industry sure is a good place for you to work. You can live in your fantasy world in never face reality.
When I wake up in the morning, there's no changing who I am. Even Michael Jackson was black to the end. People change orientation all the time, they're just looking for a good time and that's fine, that's what they want, that's ok but how they act is their choice man.
you have no right using the civil rights movement to justify what you're doing, cause everyone has a choice. Hold a gun to my head, I'm still black. Born black, die black.
Adam, you're full of hope man. I like that. Thanks. We've all got things we can do better.
No actuallyAdam....I did not have a wonderful time of it at all. I new at 3rd grade on...I fought it all throught high school..resorting to pot at 16 to distance myself from any sexual feeling..i stopped that at 17 and tried to jusst deal...it got so bad i thoguht about sucide daily hoping it would just stop...hoping one day it would ll be behind me..that it was just a faze (a 11 year one at that point) i tried to be with women but did not like it at all..(i tried many) and hurty everyone of them when i ended it...i decided maybe the marine core would change me or at least it would be an escape for a while and by then who knows...i would be "normal". It did not work..i did my four and got out..with no gay sex in teh corps...I worked at a factory in sac. and had to drive a bridge each day to and from work...and thoguht each time..i can just drive off and all the pain of being an outcast and feeling less than and hated would be over. I mentally flipped a coin..and decided i did not want to die...but i coudl not live a lie anylonger..it was killing me inside. I came out at 26...it was not easy...lots almost all my marine friends and some relatives. But now I walk with my head high...i do not entertain sucide or drugs and am a happier person...now I want to help others that have those sucidal thgouhts and painful lives that you can be normal and gay. Yes I do live in LA as opposed the Sac and I am in the Ent. Ind. maybe alot of us do this to avoid being treated unfairly???
I am fullof Hope too...I hope you all will let go of your discriminatory feelings and love one another and accept them as you would like to be accepted.
GAY RIGHTS IS THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT! . i do not care how anyone feels about it...it is what it is! you can not change your "true" orientation just as you cannot change your race.
"Dissagree with what...That people should be treated equally no matter their orientation…or that people shoulod not be be discriminated against…or that people orientation should not be equated to cancer, drug adict prisoners or alcoholics?? which one?"
I think the disagreement is that you think people who have same gender attraction must act gay and must be given allowances in society so that the gay behavior is accepted by all.
Adam's view (and mine) is that people who have same gender attraction have a choice in how to act. No one is denying the reality of the feelings, just the opposite.
I like what Drew said too. Skin color never changes, but orientation change is possible, and actions can always change. That makes "gayness" different from "race" and more like people who are predisposed to alcoholism or smoking or drugs. Bodily desires can be channeled and controlled, race can't.
By claiming discrimination, you're impugning the motive behind my point of view. I've explained my point of view pretty well I thought. Hate has no part in it, only reason.
So i guess you can be happy with a woamn and possibly marrying her??? since you can change it off and on right??
Or Drew...you can go out this weekend...meet a man...fall in love and get married (or eqivilient) I mean you may or may not feel like it but you can and would be happy doing it hu?
Or is it you were "made" by God to be heterosexual and can love the opposite sex as a result?
Let be honest folks...you cannot just fall in love with someone of one sex or the other on a wim.
"true" orientation cannot be changed as race cannot.
Thanks for being honest about it. I know its hard , not by personal experience but people around me, although your circumstances are more severe. I can say I understand why you don't like gays being associated with drugs. I do feel sorry for the life you had to live. But lets pick an example and there are many, I won't choose alchol or durg or disease example. Lets choose a professional sports athlete who has a terrible accident which ends his career. Now what are the chances of that happening. There was no choice. The only choice is how to react. You needed more support at age 3. You didn't have to go on pot. You were let down by the world. You felt alone scared. But at the same time in life people live they go over the same problem time and time again. Its always knew to the individual, but its not new to the world. You had a tough life, but you had a choice, you fought the desires for along time, but you were being held back with other forces besides the homosexual thoughts. People face those tests all there life, how many people have felt shy or like they don't fit in, like they don't have any friends. They are fat, or can't run well, can speak well, or don't have parents, or their parents abuse them, or a host of troubling issues that face teenagers and young children. Its not any easy road as you know. But I tell you at some point you went ahead and gave in to the wrong desire. Just the star athlete who was a start until the 3rd grade. Then a disaster happens. How you respond to it is the choice. You can't choose the circumstances you get, but you can choose how you react.
Richard, reading your account of your experiences with the range of frustration and emotion and even suicide, I don't know. Feeling same sex feelings sounds a lot like what I've seen my friend go through with his drug addiction. You never know until you walk in their shoes, but from the outside, it looks very much the same. I am sorry it is difficult.
For the record..first thank youf or your compassion...but for the recod it is not difficult now...it was difficult. and Adam I appreciate your words believe me...very nice. I will tell you though..when you say I chose the wrong choice when i finally chose...i think you missed the part...I was at a crossroads..teh other road was to not live...I know I made the right choice...for me there was no other. As I said I could not be with a woman...ever...and nor would I want to...not for me...for her. I think all people str8 or gay deserve to live a PERCECT happy everything life as life is short and I have no right to steal weeks, months, years from a woman of a life she could have had with a man that truly loved her as a str8 man could..that was the selfless part...then of course I felt life is short and I too deserve the same opportunity for true life lon love.
"I think all people str8 or gay deserve to live a PERCECT happy everything life as life is short "
No one's life is perfect and free from trials though. That's just the nature of the mortal beast. We all struggle with something or other.
"I could not be with a woman…ever…and nor would I want to…not for me…for her."
I agree with this decision. For me, I would choose to be celibate if I could not marry. Everyone makes their own choices in life, but for me, that's the only choice that makes sense given my beliefs on morality.
"Today, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
I'm appalled and shocked, never thought the day would come when, marriage, families, religious freedoms and liberty would be under attack.
Richard, there are so many wonderful organizations, LoveWonOut and Evergreen that are helping folks change into fully functional heterosexual beings. After a few short months of atonement though Christ, you too can experience the joy and freedom from this Same Gender Attraction Disorder.
Paul, from what I understand through the work of JONAH, Same-Sex Attraction can take years to overcome, and that it is a gradual process. The ex-gay movement has made some good progress in the understanding of ssa. Rather than view sexual orientation as a switch that is either on or off, many people see it as more of a continuum stretching from one attraction to the other. The general idea is that there are emotional wounds that interfere with our development and create ssa in some people. Addressing those underlying wounds helps allow emotional healing that fills the void ssa tried to fill. The homosexual lifestyle can never fill those needs. It does get easier, but for some, the struggle for complete change is lifelong, even with the best intentions and efforts. It's important not to minimize the difficulty involved. My utmost respect goes out to those who are struggling through ssa. It's not an easy road.
Richard,
So what your saying is that you didn't know your "true" orientation until you gave in to it. So "ex-gays" are they in denial of their "true self?" Are all heterosexuals denying who they really are by not giving themselves over to wanton abandonment? As humans, are we not more than just the sum of our parts? If not, do we have any recourse in fighting against whatever may beset us? I mean, from the way I understood what you have been saying, our wants, needs, desires, etc. are greater than the totality of our being, and therefore, resistance is futile. Yet, in your own words, you spoke of how you overcame smoking pot and thoughts of suicide. How was this possible if we can't say no to our urges?
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed not one-sexed, its procreation is opposite-sexed not same-sexed, and its community is both-sexed -- not sex-segregative.
The supposed racist analogy more closely aligns with the pro-SSM campaign's dependance upon the assertion of supremacy in the name of identity politics. The SSMers are the current political version of racial supremists.
There is no objective criteria for "true race" nor for racial purity; just as there is no objective criteria for "true orientation" nor for purity of sexual proclivity.
But marriage is not about race and it is not about sexual orientation.
Marriage integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. Sex differentiation is a fact of marriage; and sex differentiation is not a fact that the SSMers can reject given their argumentation's emphasis on "same-sex sexual attraction and romance".
The SSM campaign tries very hard to turn the marriage issue into a platform for the gay identity politics. They would use race like dynamite. That is simply irresponsible.
Trollish behavior in comment sections, like in this one here, is meant to change the topic to gayness and to take the discussion away from marriage itself. The original topic is DOMA but look where things have been driven.
Marriage defenders understand that marriage is being abused by the SSM campaign. We'd rather stick with defending marriage itself, but we also know that the real objective of the SSM campaign is not "gay marriage" but the innoculation of their version of identity politics.
So while trollish behavior might bate marriage defenders, typically we place talk of homosexuality in the context of the central purpose of the SSM campaign. It is not really a marriage issue. It is quite different.
But SSMers emphasize gayness and defenders have been responding frankly on that other issue. This is because the SSM campaign is using marriage like a massive shield as they push their way into every nook and cranny and demand government endorsement.
If gayness is of such great societal significance, then, the SSMers ought to plainly state how they will have the law determine who is and who is not gay and, thus eligible for a license for "gay marriage".
Otherwise, their emphasis on gayness speaks to something else than even a license for "gay marriage". It has zilch to do with equality, by the way, and more to do with false equivalencies.
There is no legal requirement for straightness in the marriage law -- not in DOMA and not in any state's eligibility rules.
An all-male straight scenario is ineligible to marry. That cannot be due to anti-straight discrimination, right?
A gay man and woman can be eligible. That cannot be due to pro-gay discrimination, right?
Right?
SSMers pretend that "same-sex" is definitively gay. Not so. They pretend that "opposite-sex" is definitively straight. Not so.
But when they disparage so-called "mixed-orientation" marriages, they invoke the same sort of segregative assertions and talk of purity that the racialists did when they entrenched racism into the marriage laws and the anti-miscegenation system.
And, like the racialists, the hockers of gay identity politics seek to press their supremacy over the marriage law and its core meaning. Both views rely on selective sex-segregation -- the racialists through a race filter and the SSMers through a gay filter. Also, both disparage responsible procreation -- the racialist by outlawing the intermixing of genes, ancestory, and the like and deligitimizing children -- and the SSMers by seeking to abolish in the law and in the marriage culture the cental importance of responsible procreation.
Mr. Loving would today be astonished to learn that people, in his name, argue that, in effect, he is not the presumptive father of the children born to he and his wife. Sure, the racialists criminalized his marriage and deligitimized his children, but today the SSMers deny that the Loving marriage and children are connected by the core meaning of marriage.
DOMA is good federal law. It makes sense in terms of governance on a state-level area of regulation. It also has been reaffirmed by 40 state marriage measures approved by direct local votes.
The federal marriage amendment was left short of votes in Congress only because a large portion of the pro-marriage elected representatives in House and Senate are support DOMA. John McCain, for example, supported both DOMA and Arizona's marriage amendment; but for federalist reasons he opposed the federal marriage amendment.
When the SSM campaign attacks DOMA, they attack federalism and marriage and the national consensus on state regulation of marriage. They seek a nation-wide imposition of their view.
The SSMers seek to merge marriage with SSM (whatever SSM is, they can't and don't actually say). This anti-marriage merger is recently entrenched in a handful of places, but it, like slavery, must be contained and encouraged to expire in due course. The local fights are fought in a national context -- even SSMers acknowledge that.
The localized merger is not a just imposition and eventually the nation must either reaffirm itself to be pro-marriage or surrender itself as anti-marriage.
All told, there is a close analogy with the irrationality of racialist identity politics and the emotivism of gay identity politics. It be unjust to press either form of identity politics into the marriage law -- and into our constitutional jurisprudence, and into our education systems, and into our overall system of governance local and national.
SSMers say otherwise, but they have yet to refute the basis for the repudiation of the anti-miscegenation system. White supremacy is a form of identity politics that may prove to be, or may prove not to be, less benign than gay identity politics. But given the SSM campaign's track record, I would not count on that.
Typo correction: "White supremacy is a form of identity politics that may prove to be less benign than gay identity politics. But given the SSM campaign’s track record, I would not count on that."
When it comes to marriage, race and sexual orientaion are the same: irrelevant.
We all have the same right to marry, regardless of race or orientation.
Just a note on the immutability myth. Doctors treating homosexual men (HIV/AIDS and other STDs) hear too many personal stories from their patients. Patients tend to open up when they are scared and have to face the consequences of their own actions.
The patients compare their homosexuality (and associated extreme risk-taking) to drug addiction. Something you try, just to see, or something you are pulled into at a particularly vulnerable time.
The homosexuality addiction becomes more severe and exciting because of its particularly "illicit" nature. It is no different than drug addiction or even alcoholism. If you are highly motivated, you can successfully overcome it.
Just one last thing about the addiction nature of homosexuality in men. Homosexual patients point out that the homosexuality addiction is particularly hard to overcome because homosexual culture does not support homosexuals who want to revert to heterosexuality. Indeed, ex-homosexuals are considered traitors and subversives, and treated as such. Drug addicts and alcoholics do not generally have that difficult shame and pressure element to deal with when they decide to fight their addiction.
just got back this morning and have read your posts...still in shock! wow ok...I think I will let your thoguhts of the denial of the homosexual rest...you all are a lost cause...until one day you wake up I think that there is no hope for you. We do not have an agenda we simply are...we do not think someone that thinks they can "change back" to being str8 are traitors or anything like that...we feel sorry for them that they would want to live a false life and we feel especially bad for whatever str8 partner they get because they too will have a false life. We gay men and women are proad because we were able to stand up and be who we are and not hide or force ouselves to conform and be who we are not. I thought about that women you spoke of earlier Rachel...I think she is either bisexual or heading down the road to disaster forcing herself to live a lie and i feel great simpathy for her, her husband and her kids if that is the case. I hope she is just bisexual with the woderful ability for monogamy and they all live hapily ever after. Noone wants your blessings, we don't want to "convert" anyone, all we want is the human respect and dignity we all deserve. I have family members in teh born again church adn I work with people that judge but even though i do not condone their lifestyle or condone their judging hateful downtalking behavier I still work with them, live around them and treat them with dignity and respect as each deserves..I do not tell them they are wrong but if they ask I tell them the truth that I am good and my life is as great and balanced as theirs (better in a lot of cases). either way...I do not try to put on the ballet something that would hurt their personal life I do not try to treat them as second class citizens..even as they enjoy our gay festivities or our bars or our resturants...we welcome people not chasitize them. You guys need to do the same...live your own life...stop trying to ruin or bring down other peoples...frankly this is all of our planet to live on...noone has more rights or is more deservning to live happpily here than the other. Frankly people, as I have said many many times. The marriage down the block in no way affects your own. You really should be happy that another couple would want to commit to one another start a family with one another for a lifetime rather than try to stop it. You all talk about gays permiscuity and many partners but do you think that maybe when society tells a class of people that they do not deserve to have a recognized relationship that their relationship does not count that maybe it might cause some to not settle down??? Maybe if you show that a relationship regardless if opposite or same deserve celebration people might just be happy to be in one? Celebrate love...don't do everything in your power to stop it...I seriously doubt Jesus smiles when you do. have a good day!
Laura, and Samantha too.
We need to stop and call a "foul" on these posting. We keep seeing myths about gays that are already debunked or made up stuff from the extremist, right-wing sites. Give us posting from one of the major medical or psychological sites or ANY credible site, then we'll pay attention. ˙
If you are going to take a stand, please do us a favor and take the high road. Please post only facts. Laura, your last two posts reeks of dishonesty. It's very unChristian-like to bear false witness. That includes gossip or hear-say.
"Laura, your last two posts reek of dishonest. It's very unChristian-like to bear false witness. That included gossip or hearsay."
Bob, you have convinced yourself that your homosexuality is immutable. Many smokers convince themselves that they can't quit and that smoking is actually good for their health. Indeed, we can convince ourselves of many things to make ourselves feel better.
The truth is often inconvenient, both personally and politically. But that doesn't mean it should not be told.
"When it comes to marriage, race and sexual orientaion are the same: irrelevant.
We all have the same right to marry, regardless of race or orientation."
Now that is an insightful comment! Right on Marty!
Richard, thank you for your guesses, but how does my private sexual life come into play here? Why are you even talking about it? My orientation doesn't matter to this conversation and it doesn't matter to the issue of marriage redefinition. I oppose redefining marriage to suit the gay agenda because marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the most productive, healthy relationship for society and families.
Also, Chairm, your post 2009/09/17 at 3:06am is probably the most insightful I've read on here. Thank you. I have been following your conversations with Kevin and it's taken me some time to understand what you're saying, but I had several points finally click in with that last post.
I think you're completely right. No wonder Kevin is so flustered that he can't remember which cancer his wife died of. (I'm still laughing over that one). You've nailed the point completely.
"gossip or hearsay."
I'd venture to say that the bulk of the SSM posters on here wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it hit them in the face. Even when their own direct quotes are used against them they try to wiggle out. (see Kevin's incredible credibility crisis last thread)
I don't see anything wrong with Samantha's articles, and more than that, I haven't seen you post any rebuttal other than your own opinion. Your saying it's hearsay doesn't make it so.
From my reading, the score is Samantha 3, Bob 0 on that.
I wasn't talking about you at all..don't know you don't want to especially anything at all about your private sex life!!!. We are not redefining marriage we are alowing others to also marry...that is not redefinition..that is progress!! Marriage is between two people not just a man & women as seen in Spain, Canada, Parts of the US etc etc...for YOU Raychel that is what it means that is YOUR opinion...but not for every single one out there...or is that your agenda??? to have everyone think like you because only your rights/beleifs matter. If you do not want to be in a same sex mariage do not marry somone of the same sex...you marriage definition will not change. Because they added electic cars to the type of cars available does that redefine what a car means? Of is there just more types of cars. It still means 4 wheel motorized transportation. There is no gay agends for the freakin last time!! is being treated with equality, dignity and respect an agenda??? Was womens rights an agenda? Was interacial marriage and agenda? Was outlawing slavery the slaves agenda? I think it is more like a hope, a wish , a dream and a need.
yeah, and what's with all the not so subtle Jesus jabs? Do what I want you to do or you hate me and Jesus doesn't smile? uhhhhhhhhh, sorry. Doesn't compute. I never did get the Jesus-is-my-weapon bit.
"Marriage is between two people not just a man & women…for YOU Raychel that is what it means that is YOUR opinion"
And this isn't evidence that you're trying to redefine marriage? Marriage has never been just between two random people of random gender. Get a grip, let's be honest here.
Laura, yet again, you're not giving facts, you're speaking from your prejudice. Facts are facts, you are giving us made up stuff again. Please post links to credible sources.
And el rio marcher, you have to be kidding, right? Samantha's article do not come from credible sites, no data, no research, nothing of substance.
It appears that the only agenda is smearing and the three of you are working overtime.
IF you plan on taking this stance, give us real facts.
Bob has called my opinion that homosexuality in men cannot be distinguished from other addictions "unChristian-like." The irony (and hypocrisy) is that radical homosexual activists label anybody who disagrees with their "marriage equality" ploy "Christian" and thus inherently bigoted and dumb. I guess I should be flattered.
Bob, repeating your opinion doesn't make your stance more credible, it only reinforces that you have nothing but FUD, Come on, put some effort into it Bob.
"[G]ive us real facts."
Bob,
You have real facts. And you know that everything I said is true. This is not hearsay or fantasy. But for you and your colleagues, it is called denial and reluctance to take responsibility for your decisions.
I will not cite the "source" of my data. Anybody can choose to believe or disbelieve what I had to say about the immutability myth.
CIVIL MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT
RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS RIGHT
If you do not beleive in same sex marrive do not marry somone of the same sex...problem solved.
If you're waiting for the "facts" to come from the APA, (who said pedophilia was normal btw) you may be waiting a very, very long time.
so, just put your morality in your pocket, put your nose to the grindstone and ignore the crumbling of society around you Richard? Thanks, but no. I'd rather speak up for marriage, the way it's always been defined, between a man and a woman. There is no reason to have marriage between any other set or group of people.
If you want a relationship with another man, go for it. That's fine, you're free to do that, it's just not marriage.
El rio marcher (bla bla bla) you are talking about marriage right? even when you put two things together you marry them...when i worked as a waiter when we combined two bottles of catsup together as one we married them. we are not redefining marrige...marriage is the act of combining two seperate entities. I am not re-defining marrriage when two (as you say) "random" people come together...it is and will always be the word marriage when two people come together..it is you that want to change marriage to make it something that goes along with your personal ideals as opposed to somehting inclusive. marriage already means the bringing together of two people in, as i already said, several countries and parts of the us...it is called Marriage...not sames sex or different sex..but marriage...just happens that gender does not have to play a role.
L. Marie honey it is marriage when two people come together as one...sorry you personally do not want to recognize it..but it is what it is... Two people come together as one = Marriage.
..........aaaaand you don't think this is redefining marriage?
If marriage were simply "coming together" then every shack-up one night stand would qualify.
If you think SSM is great, wonderful. Make your case to the people, but don't pretend that this is already the way it is and was. Sorry, that pig doesn't fly.
Richard, are two left shoes "a pair of shoes"?
No, two halves don't always make a whole. It takes two opposite halves.
The homosexual "marriage" advocates on this blog gave the following as justifications and/or practical applications of homosexual "marriage":
1) To decrease promiscuity among homosexuals.
2) To keep homosexual pedophiles from playgrounds and schools (fear of losing money in a divorce proceeding would accomplish that).
3) To pave way to "sexuality days" at public schools (with pamphlets and booths) where homosexuals can solicit children.
If I missed any other justifications or practical applications of the "marriage equality" movement, please let me know.
OK Laura...your true colors finally came out... "Sexuality days at schools"...you are kidding right? is there an age limit on this blog...please...we need one. I don't even want to rip you apart on this one...it doesn't even warent that.
homosexual pedophiles...hmm seems to me we hear about right wing bible stomping "str8" pedophiles all the time..cant remember reading about a homo one recently or at all.
To all gays: here is a *source* a book online written by an ex homosexual Check out the link and get back to me.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ENdFSu8U0W0C&dq=homosexual+discussion&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=66WySr2iIM3ulAeR5ZyUDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I'll find more resources as I get time.
Here guys, some stories you can relate to. over 80 people who have changed.
http://www.anotherway.com/menus/pages.html
Head to the source and check out these personal stories like many of you gay right here. These people share their stories of how they changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Source is not NOM btw.
Give it another try Richard. I know its hard. just read 3 of the stories.
I read 3 as you requested...and it exactly what I thought...they decided they were not going down teh righteous path and found god...the only thing missing I felt was B A N G and Alan the first one I read shot himself. I did think that but seriously lol..sorry to crack jokes...but hey...i am glad they found god and i hope they found happiness. good for them but I do not think it will last ... Dawn... str8 ..mmmhmmm. and the first girl...she was never gay...she was abused...i have heard this story a million times..girl get raped or abused and "turns gay" because actually she just hates or does not trust men...but she was never gay. I am not discounting your efforts and if that is how you believe it really works...well that's your beleif. I personlly found it to be sad...Alan's going to end up alone or married with kids with a wife he does not truely love...too bad..but hey...i guess not everyone has what it takes to be happy in their own skin.
You know what those stories remind me of...the born agains...you know how they "used to be in a rock band" or they "were a drub addict" or " child abuser" then they found god and now they run around preach preach preach.... as if they are the total bomb now. So annoying.
but....this article is about marriage not brainwashing/hyponitizing someone into barking like a dog or flapping like a chicken...it might seem to work for a minute but in reality..he's not a dog or a chicken...he is a gay man.
This article is about equal rights for commited relationships under civil law. Families with kids that can't share health care, social security, hospital visitation, parental rights, etc etc. this is not about which god you pray to or don't... Noone is asking for your god to sanction it..it is between them and their god to saction and of course the civil marriage law. My god loves to see loving commited families and blesses them.
LOL, Laura! Now your facts are your opinions? I'm getting whiplash following your falsehoods.
And Adam vonyines to post more, already debunked info.
This is better than reality TV. I can find an article on a woman that had an Martian baby. It has to be true, IRS on the internet.
Richard, Laura and the others have shown their true colors, a deep shade of hate.
Bob.....I am on the pro gay marriage side LOL actually should call it what it is Equal Marriage side.
Richard, your not being honest here. The stories are not born again Christians. However religion can help, the point is that people changed. The point is that you're not stuck. The point is there is a choice involved. Pointing out that your cause is civil rights issue is incorrect. Gays change, it is a behavior issue not a civil rights issue. How can you say what happened these people? They changed, that's one thing you can do too.
That's ok Richard, I'm sure he didn't mean that you were a hater, bob just kind of indiscriminately chooses who is going to be haters based on who disagrees with him. My question is, did he even read the comments?
They did not change..they were either not a true gay to begin with or they are doing what all gays have done before we came out...pretended to themselves adn others that they were str8 only to hurt themselves and otehrs in the long run...like the first story...he's just going for a second bout of pain for him and whomever he affects. It makes me sad for him and thoe others.
Change...such and interesting shoice of work Adam...sounds like it is so wonderful and sounds like it is easy...let's give it a shot..not with me...with you... you go out this weekend and force yourself to love another man...just for the weekend...then change back on monday...let me know how it goes...should be easy..people change from str8 to gay to srt8 again all teh time...right? and since it is just a physical act...and nothing more...you can do it...so go out there...fall in love with another mand..hold him or let him hold you...sorry about hmi..take care of him or he you...think about your future together...cry with him...laugh with him...make love to him..dream about him...think about growing old with him...then Monday..go back to you wife or girlfriend...tell her you were switching over for the weekend but now you are st8 again.
Tim...seriously lol i do not thin he read what I wrote or he would not have said that. LOL
"They did not change..they were either not a true gay to begin with or they are doing what all gays have done before we came out…pretended to themselves adn others that they were str8 only to hurt themselves and otehrs in the long run…"
Didn't you just say in an earlier comment Richard that you didn't look down on people who strayed from the gay reservation? Someone made you God?
interesting that you demand that all gays act gay, think like you and act like you or you pass judgment on them. Isn't that the true definition of a bigot?
Richard what you're doing is astroturfing. You're not being reasonable. I just tried to give you some resources to change, give you some hope. Others have done it so can you, You just dismiss it as religious brainwashing. If you want to be gay, so be it, but wanting to be gay is your choice.
I think it's "trolling" but yeah, the point is the same. He's not here to discuss, just to attack and distract.
I think if sexual orientation could seriously be changed we'd have therapy for rapists to change their sexual orientation to homosexual so as not to be a threat to women.
Richard,
If I may be so bold as to ask, is there something "wrong" with being "born again?" Do you understand what "born again" means? Is a relationship to God just superfluous and if so, why do so many believe otherwise? Also, why would the topic of "religion" keep popping up in the discussion of marriage if it wasn't pertinent to the discussion?
Kevin,
There is "therapy" to change our nature as sinners regardless of the sinful behavior we participate in-a relationship to God, plain and simple. With your oft-repeated Scripture references, surely you are aware of the difference a relationship to God can make, so why the oversight?
Marty, that was an excellent and most concise comment.
Mary said: "When it comes to marriage, race and sexual orientaion are the same: irrelevant."
* * *
Laura said: "Indeed, ex-homosexuals are considered traitors and subversives, and treated as such."
The groupthink is enforced in just that way.
However, I think there is a distinction to be made between homosexuality and gay identity. While homosexuallity (same-sex sexual feelings) may or may not be inborn, no socio-political identity is inborn nor immutable.
Gay identity is constructed by the individual -- often with assistance from advisers and from the "gay community". The talk of "true gay" is a throwback to the racialist talk of "true race". Gaycentrism, like racism, does exist, but these forms of identity politics lack objective criteria and rely on a fiction. Both depend on group identity and conformity to its favored group.
Both are known for claiming as "their own" people from history whose "race" or whose "sexual identity" they'd update to fit the current identity politics. I think there are plenty of such examples.
So they will denounce as "traitor" those who seem to have orientated themselves differently; they will appropriate the name and reputation of historical figures to give some false credibility for a modern identity group. Always it is enforced by ridicule, improbable accusations, poisoning the well, and general ill-behavior meant to intimidate rather than inform.
* * *
Raychel, thank you for your kinds words.
* * *
When the SSMer demands that society issue a license and accord it with special status, then, he demands endorsement from society. He demands also that the culture -- the nongovernmental part of society -- take special intererst for special reason.
But for the SSMer there is no special reason for a license for the relationship type he has in mind. He can offer nothing that would justify treating that type of arrangement differently from the rest of the nonmarriage category of living arrangements and types of relationships.
Nothing.
But that is why the SSMer must depend so utterly on gay identity politics rather than intellectually honest standards of argumentation.
Adam…it/is not my choice…it is/was Gods choice.
Tim wrote:
"That’s ok Richard, I’m sure he didn’t mean that you were a hater, bob just kind of indiscriminately chooses who is going to be haters based on who disagrees with him. My question is, did he even read the comments?"
Actually Tim, I love the misuse of the disagree, it's an interesting tactic. Had you read the postings, they really did make sense.
Why are the other posters dredging up already debunked myths, throwing in lies and made up stuff. Here os a list of organizations that have debunked the myths of "choice," reparative therapy, pedophilia, child molestation, etc.:
American Medical Association,
the American Psychiatric Association,
the World Health Organization,
American Law Institute,
American Bar Association,
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Counseling Association,
American Association of School Administrators,
American Federation of Teachers,
American Psychological Association,
American School Health Association,
Interfaith Alliance Foundation,
National Association of School Psychologists,
National Association of Social Workers and
National Education Association.
It's sad that Samantha would go out of the way to demean another human being with already defeated arguments. My choice of who to address is well justified.
Bob,
Whatever makes you feel better. Sadly, in today's culture, politics too often trumps science, the law, and common sense. The APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (and reclassify it as a sexual disorder) is a classic example. I am sure you have not even bothered to read any of the accounts of various individuals involved in the decision
Incredibly, homosexuals were "cured" overnight, with not a single clinical study to support the change. Then one of the psychiatrists who voted to declassify went ahead and CURED homosexuality in hundreds of homosexuals.
At the end of the day, it does not matter what we call homosexuality. The relevant thing is that every homosexual has a choice. If you are happy with who you are, don't change. If you are not, you have a very good chance (over 90% for women and close to 90% for men -- see Spitzer study) to become heterosexual. Ex-homosexuals are the proof. And, unlike your self-serving radical homosexual hysteria, their accounts are based on real life experience, not myths.
Laura, again with the lying. Homosexuality is not classified as a sexual disorder by the APA.
Why do you continue to do this?
Bob, how did you refute these quotes again?
Steve Baldwin, a former member of the California State Assembly and former chair of the Assembly Education Committee in the California legislature, wrote an article for a law journal in 2002 that is infinitely more relevant today than when it was written. This article is entitled, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” and it chronicles the homosexual community’s efforts to target children “both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement.” Here are some highlights:
An article in the Journal of Homosexuality stated that “parents should view the pedophile who loves their son ‘not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.’”
A homosexual magazine defended pedophilia with an article entitled, “Must Men Who Love Boys Be Guilty of Sexual Misconduct?” San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper similarly editorialized, “The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.”
Yet another homosexual magazine stated, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual, that they deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose…. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality…. We must do it for the children’s sake.”
When forced to pull pedophilia material, the owner of a gay book store said, “I think it’s a strange day for gay culture when we start banning… a foundation of gay literature. If we pulled all the books that had adult-youth sexual themes, we wouldn’t have many novels, memoirs, or biographies left.”
The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality acknowledges “the fact that until very recently man/boy love relationships were accepted as a part, and indeed were a major part, of male homosexuality.”
The American Psychological Association issued a bulletin arguing that child sexual abuse does not harm children, and that it should be referred to by the politically correct term "adult-child sex" or "adult-adolescent sex." Leaders of the homosexual movement were quick to defend the report and have advocated repealing all “age of sexual consent” laws. Could one reason for this be because “abused adolescents… [are] up to 7 times more likely to self-[identify] as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused”?
Homosexual culture is inextricably linked with pedophilia, or “adult-child sex,” to be politically correct. Not only does adult-child sex fulfill the sexual needs of the homosexuals who engage in it, it also enlarges their ranks. Obviously, homosexual culture is inconsistent with the environment that marriage fosters for children. Thus, same-sex marriage must be rejected.
http://www.understandtheconsequences.com/
Bob,
I recommend a reading comprehension course. I hope this helps for now: AT THE TIME (the 1970's)homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness, it was classified as a more politically correct sexual disorder. My comment did not deal with the politics of homosexuality classification thereafter (to educate yourself about this subject, you may want to read "Homosexuality. The Politics of Change", which got very good reviews, even among the more open-minded and less unsecure homosexuals.
Instead of seeing "homophobic" conspiracy and "lies" everywhere you turn, focus on facts in front of you. You may also benefit from an anatomy and biology lessons (particularly, reproductive and digestive systems) if you believe that homosexuality is the norm and should be treated as such.
Again, homosexuality, whatever we call it -- mental illness, addiction, sexual disorder or simply a lifestyle choice -- is not immutable. As one ex-homosexual described it, "homosexual behavior is just, well, behavior."
Samantha, oh boy.
I hardy think the writings of a political, especially
Steve Baldwin overrides thousands of doctors and years of study.
I also can tell that you don't know the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. With pedophilia, gender is irrelevant, age is the attraction.
I cannot find the article you reference in the Journal of Homosexuality but I find it interesting that their mission statement is "to confront homophobia through the encouragement of scholarly inquiry and the dissemination of sound research."
But you haven't touch upon anything that doesn't plaque heterosexuals. in fact even more so.
Dr. Carole Jenny writes, she and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.
More later.
Richard,
So you are absolved of any responsibility whatsoever because it was God's choice to "make you this way?" Do you still not have a choice to be who you are with? Can you change partners on a whim? I will ask again, are we not more than the sum of our parts? Does life have any meaning and purpose? Are we just going through the motions?
Bob,
Why do you think pedophilia exists across the gamut of "sexual expression?" For that matter, why does any detrimental behavior occur? Is it not symptomatic of a much deeper-seated issue?
"you haven’t touch upon anything that doesn’t plaque heterosexuals. in fact even more so."
The point is not only that pedophilia plagues homosexuals, but that pedophilia is championed by homosexual media. They're encouraging it, they're promoting it and even the APA said sex between adults and children was "normal". If that's not evidence of bias, what is?
What is the DOMA? this is the first I've heard of it.
Samantha
To say homosexual culture is inconsistant with children reveals that what you look at as homosexual culture are those MEN and I repeat MEN who sleep around and party. To say this is gay culture is heresey. It would be like me saying that all heterosexual couples are swingers some are but most are not. My partner has 3 sons who he loves and they love him and so I guess he must be a pedophile.
But you have an agenda and that agenda is to dispel lies about gay men and lump us all togather in a box much like Hitler did with the Jews. Your beliefs help to foster sterotypes, hatred, bigotry, violence and yes even death but I am sure you could care less because your right and no one will be able to disuade you.
One more bonus for family values coalition that says they only care and believe in families that have two parents male and female and everyghing else is discarded as not real and true,
Defense of Marriage Act
New evidence proves what we have known all along... Why won't our government leaders listen to the facts?
According to Saturdays Salt Lake Tribune..
"Homosexuality 'not in your DNA,' says LDS leader
People who are attracted to members of their own sex can change, an LDS general authority said Saturday, so they shouldn't let Satan persuade them they can't.
Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, spoke at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International, a nonprofit group that helps Mormons "overcome homosexual behavior" and "diminish same-sex attraction."
Samantha,
We had 6 people scout the internet to review your claims. What we found we the religious and right wing sites making these claims.
We called the SF Sentinel, the statement is false.
“Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" was written by Steve Baldwin (politician) while he attended the very anti-gay Regent University. As "Psychology Today" writes: Their work is rejected, not because publications are intolerant of their dissent, but because of their scientific misrepresentations.
Baldwin based his work on arguments of Dr. Paul Cameron. Dr. Cameron has been discredited and tossed from the APA. Baldwin's article is consider to be nothing more than right-wing propaganda.
The APA know of no homosexual group using the unfortunate article to support any cause or movement.
Nice Work Bill2! Let me just rain on your parade a bit here....So, you're going to point your fingers and say, "They're right wing" and that's your defense? Interesting. Also interesting that the APA (who is held in such impeccable esteem by gay activists) couldn't deny their unfortunate policy position advocating adult/child sex as normal... you couldn't defend the quotes so you attack the author and the school he went to. Interesting tactic. "Baldwin based his work on arguments of Dr. Paul Cameron."
And there's the sentinel. Which quote was from the sentinel again?
"Baldwin’s article is consider to be nothing more than right-wing propaganda. "
considered by who? you?
I can't imagine anyone is going to admit to publicly promoting these ideas. It would be political suicide to admit in mainstream circles. The question is, did you FIND the quotes? or are they fabricated?
quietone,
First, you'll notice that Samantha did not provide links for each claim. Did you the notice the vague references like, "A homosexual magazine," "San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper." Come on, it you have proof, give us names.
When we searched her posting we found word-for-word copy and paste bits from websites that we do not deem as credible. In fact, many a GOPer are trying to distance themselves from a few of these, including world net daily, which is well know for its wild distortions.
The quotes, or summations, could not be found on any accepted media outlet including FOX
The SF Sentinel is rumored to have editorialized: “The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.” They did not.
Google Baldwins' article for yourself, what does the legit medical community have to say?
We called the APA, they not issue a bulletin arguing that child sexual abuse does not harm children.
Samantha pasted: Leaders of the homosexual movement were quick to defend the report and have advocated repealing all “age of sexual consent” laws. Can't find this anywhere except for "those" sites and guess who, yep Baldwin.
I see nothing more than missing birth certificates and death panel buffoonery.
what do the GOP, birth certificates and death panels have to do with marriage?
"we found word-for-word copy and paste bits from websites that we do not deem as credible."
ah, I see. This is quite the high standard of scrutiny to be sure.
Facts beat fictions. Uncited claims are too often the work of fringe right-wing faith-oriented groups.
"An article in the Journal of Homosexuality stated that “parents should view the pedophile who loves their son ‘not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.’”"
this is the quote in the story cited earlier, but this is the full citation from WND:
"The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home." "
I looked up the name of the article and came up with this from IPCE http://www.ipce.info which includes the introduction page to this article, right in line with the quote--- http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/sbn90.htm
Who is IPCE? From their website: Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.
Perhaps your six volunteers need a better education in the art of google.
also this:
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Gay culture does not grant the pedophile movement general acceptance. It does, however, offer a peripheral credibility to this movement which pedophilia has never been granted in the culture at large. Members of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) march in some gay pride parades.
The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)
The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that "Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits...the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized...it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished." (p. 4)
Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer--Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that "the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way." (p.5)
Another article ("Boy-Lovers and their Influence on Boys," by Edward Brongersma) complains about the "bias" which labels man-boy sex as "abuse, molestation, assault, " etc. Dr. Brongersma complains that researchers are unable to remain objective about pedophilia, saying "...many people...exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own...pedophile impulses." (p. l53).
Dr. Brongersma goes on to cite cases in which social workers achieved "miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents--not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them." He describes how these sexual relationships "did far more good than years in reformatories." (p. l6l).
He advises that the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62) and goes on to say that parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."
more excerpts from this series of articles: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/arguecase.html
1. In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p. 133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164).
2. A.P.A. Published a study that found that not all pedophile relationships are harmful.
The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.
Here is the source: 2. Rind, Bruce, Tromovitch, Philip, and Bauserman, Robert. (Temple U. Dept. of Psychology, Phila., PA)., A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin, 1998 (July), vol. 124 (1), 22-53.
This latest article appears in the A.P.A.'s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.
The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like "child abuse," "molestation," and "victims," using instead neutral, value-free terms like "adult-child sex." Similarly, they say we should not talk about the "the severity of the abuse," but instead refer to "the level of sexual intimacy.
The authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship.
Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM--IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. The A.P.A. believes in the "psychologically normal" pedophile.
I don't have time to continue down the list, but I have to thank Samantha, Bill2 and Kevn for the informative articles. I learned a lot this afternoon about a subject that I wouldn't have otherwise cared enough about to look into.
cheers.
Maybe you’re right, quietone, maybe pedophilia is a good thing. Probably more research needs to be done, since we’re talking about the welfare of children. What about heterosexual pedophilia?
"maybe pedophilia is a good thing."
Kevn, I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. If you feel strongly about it though, I hear there are people that troll these sites looking for people like you. To each his own right?
Kevin,
You can't be serious-"maybe pedophilia is a good thing. Probably more research needs to be done..." I hope that statement was hyperbolic as otherwise, it could be misconstrued as you endorsing pedophilia as an acceptable behavior regardless of who commits such a heinous act against a child. If not, then it really isn't a stretch for you then to say some of the things that you have here about homosexuality and SSM.
If you were attempting to be sarcastic about such a serious matter as pedophilia, then I am at a loss as to why you would do so as pedophilia is not a laughing matter. For that matter neither is homosexuality nor SSM. Forgive me, though, if I misread what you were trying to say.
1. Does the absence of harm mean the absence of wrongfulness?
My answer is, No.
2. Are there moral standards beyond the attempted calculation of empirical evidence of physical or psychological harm?
My answer is, Yes.
The APA's political body has rejected such standards but even utilitarian calculations rely on moral intuitions to balance the evidence -- even if every effort is made to avoid admitting such reliance on moral intuitions.
The discussion of human sexuality is but one example of many from the APA's political body.
3. Can a psychologically healthy and therefore societally sanctioned family consist of a child and a stable, emotionally supportive pedophile?
My answer is, no.
A yes answer would be consistent with the APA's ideologically-consistent thinking on its major social policy positions during the past two decades.
But the APA backed away from giving the yes answer.
Why?
I think this provides the context for discussion of the role played by the APA in the SSM campaign.
It is in that context that the SSMer will snidely ask, how would merging SSM with marriage harm YOUR marriage?
Social institutions exist. SSMers often reject the very idea of marriage as a social institution. For them it is a license issued arbitarily by Government with no regard for the moral intutions that inform the society for which Government is servant rather than master.
The SSMer is prone to misrepresent even the pro-SSM court opinions (i.e. the legal reasoning offered) and to ignore the obvious contradictions in his own standards of argumentation.
The latter part of the above discussion provides an example of just that.
The APA has gone on the record as saying that a 13 year old can be competent to give consent to an abortion -- a medical procedure -- without or against parental authority -- and yet that would contradict its current political position that such a youngster can never provide consent for adult-child sex. It is further contradicted by the APA's position that the same youngster can consent to sex with another youngster. What is the significance, then, of consent?
Again, this provides context for the SSM campaign's superficial emphasis on adult consent.
Is there a legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior between those who'd show-up for a license to SSM? No. So it can't be a sexual type of relationship to which consent might be given, anyway. But suppose there was such a legal requirement for sexual behavior -- where is the line to be drawn if we go on the basis of the proposed evidence of "harm" standard that SSMers repeat over and over?
Just because something is considered illegal or immoral does not imply that it is wrong. Right? To the contrary, according to SSM argumentation, it probably means that the law and public morality must be inverted.
I don't think that the usual SSMer has thought these things through thoroughly and so I don't think he'd go so far as to condone, or to become indifferent to, adult-child sex or to drastic lowering of the age of consent to marry. But the reasoning offered certainly would take us most of the way to that outcome. What stands in the way if not moral intuition?
Likewise with the lines drawn against some related people.
you missed your cal as a fiction righter brian, where are the facts that support your stories? i mean the solid facts of who, when, and where, how do you expect people to take your newsletter Marriage and Liberty seriously when the only facts you use are the facts that certain states are bringing a marriage bill up for a vote? My favorite ubsubstanciated story... The Tyranny of "Tolerance" "insanely angry mob of gay-marriage activists descending on a tiny woman on a California street", "A big man led the mob, screaming in the ladies face until his" (i'll have to assume you meant his face) "turned purple", and the same angry horde "the big man" was leading " yanked away a cross she was wearing and trampled it".
ok boss, we know you can write fiction, we know you should have applied for a job with the national enquirer... my challenge to you, make me change my mind by using facts, place the names of the people these things happened to. document the refference material you used. make me see that some of the folks you represent don't deserve the treatment their getting. i doubt that will ever happen, cause you seem to be to lazy to do something like that. your one of those guys who doesnt seem to be happy unless your making others as unhappy as you. which makes you a pitiful man.
"Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard."
quietone,
First of all, we do not consider wnd a credible source, it’s very telling of you to to refer to them.
We are aware of the Jornal of Homosexuality articles, they do not however reflect the LGBT’s stance on pedophilia. No more than acts of cannibalism reflects the population of Africa or Dog fighting reflects on the African American community. We are waiting for The Haworth Press to comment. As to the IPCE, again, we see no ties to the general LGBT community.
There is no denial of pedophilia among any community, it’s the attempts here to label the entire gay community as child molesters that is a sham. In the case of our research, we can find no evidence of that.
Download the pamphlet, “Dispelling Myths of Homosexuality” its distributed by schools, colleges and other institutions. Much more accepted and credible than Baldwin’s article.
And again, regarding Samantha’s original post: Who are these “Leaders” that are advocating the repeal of “age of sexual consent” laws? How do you enact an act of congress and leave no footprint?
The proof is in the data, we have heard your accusations, now bring us the numbers.
Hey, you said you couldn't find the sources, I was just showing you that the sources were readily available and that you weren't being truthful. WND has nothing to do with it except that they also correctly gave the source material and yes the quotes were accurate from the source as well. Ditto with the APA quotes. It's all out there.
What you want to do with it after that, the conclusions you want to draw from those quotes, that's your business. I'm just saying the woman posted correct information.
I could find no sources that can verify Samantha’s postings. There’s nothing to cross check.
To make crazy accusatons and assoiciatons does not verify a thing. Using WND.com logic, after viewing “to catch a predator,” I could safely assume all hetrosexuals are pedophiles.
The burden of proof is still with who are pointing fingers.
“Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard.”
I don’t think those of use who support marriage equality are “raging” against people because they disagree with us, it’s because they’re supporting a discriminatory point of view. Anyone has the right to be heard but don’t expect those of us who oppose discrimination sit quietly by while you attempt to hurt people we care about.
"it’s the attempts here to label the entire gay community as child molesters that is a sham."
Bill 2
I think you misread her comment. That's not what she's saying. She's saying, and some of the other posters here also said that there is at worst the outright promotion of pedophilia, and best a blind eye to it from the homosexual community.
Let's keep the conversation honest shall we?
"I don’t think those of use who support marriage equality are “raging” against people because they disagree with us, it’s because they’re supporting a discriminatory point of view."
Are you really going to defend what those men did to that old lady Kevin??
LOL, L. Marie looks like a lesbian in her little icon picture.
Society can and does discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.
Marriage is not SSM. And SSMers cannot or will not distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relatiionship types and kinds of living arrangements. Yet they would demand that society discriminate between SSM and nonmarriage.
The best they have done is to demand that Government arbitrarily issue licenses. That is an open contradiction of the SSM campaign's complaint that the marriage law supposedly is arbitrary.
SSMers have no good reason to rage against the defenders of marriage. They may conjure up excuses. But they have no good reason.
Bill 2, your comments strongly suggest that you are here to speak for "the LGBT". Please confirm or clarify. Thanks.
* * *
If your stance (the stance of you personally or the stance of your identity group) is against adult-child sexual relations, please plainly state your reasoning.
See my previous comments for the context.
@ September 21, 2009 at 12:37 am
@ September 21, 2009 at 12:55 am
The reasoning offered in favor of the SSM merger with marriage -- as presented by the leaders of the HRC and GLAAD and so forth -- does not appear to provide the basis for the legal prohibition on adult-child sexual relations.
Rather than endgaming (i.e. starting with a conclusion) could you please describe your starting place in thinking through the topic on which you have posed as representing "the LGBT's stance"?
Thanks.
HRC need not take any stance against pedophila for the simple reason that pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether gays should have equal access to marriage.Address the issue at hand,and quit drawing attention to irrelevancies.For the last time, there is no evidence that homosexuality and pedophila are related.The mere fact that those who molest children can be straight or gay or bisexual should be proof enough of that.
Just viewed the video above of homosexuals assaulting that poor God fearing woman, ripping Gods Cross from her had. How can these animals do this? We need stand together to protect our religious freedoms.
That video is disappointing in the least, not a good example of tolerance at all. Basically pushing the woman off a public area and silencing her voice. The gay agenda goes way to far.
All this talk about pedophilia is so 1972. The man who raped me at age 11 was straight with 6 children.
I’d tell the woman…if you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen…you want to confront people and tell them they are nasty vile creatures and all that other JUNK you gay bashers push…expect retaliation…if ur an old bitty…I’d suggest stay out of the ring. NO MORE MR. NICE GAY!
"…you want to confront people and tell them they are nasty vile creatures and all that other JUNK you gay bashers push…expect retaliation…"
I didn't hear her say anything like that, did you?
There is no defending the action of that person who attacked that older lady. She probably didn't understand the emotions that run thru some of the people that she was trying to discriminate against based on her picking and choosing certain Bible passages, which isn't an excuse it is a reason.
I never understood excusing your own bad behavior because everybody's doing it. I don't buy that at all. Just because some people may act poorly doesn't everyone should. Maybe she was just out there expressing her free speech like everyone is entitled to. No one is entitled to assault.
What if she did understand the emotions involved? What if she had her own emotions involved in her position? Would the assault have been justified then?
Some people on here are awful quick to claim harassment and discrimination and hate, and then conveniently use that as an excuse to treat others poorly. Is that what is meant by "equality"?
I think the guy in the video behaved badly but he did just have a fundamental right, the right to marry, voted away by bigots. Gay people have been harassed, assaulted and beaten for years, and gay people never voted to take straight peoples’ rights away from them. At least this guy had a darn good reason to react the way he did. Straight people beat up gay people just for sport!
I didn't see any gays getting beat up in that video, only little old ladies. That's not right, I don't care WHO you are.
Man, you've got some kind of chip hangin on your shoulder thinking this is all good. Standing up for yourself doesn't involve beating on old ladies.
"LOL, L. Marie looks like a lesbian in her little icon picture."
Sounds to me like Matt here is doing his own brand of discrimination. You all don't even take yourselves seriously. How do you expect the rest of us to?
"but he did just have a fundamental right, the right to marry, voted away by bigots. "
Please. He never had any right, fundamental or otherwise. Rights come from the constitution, and they are ratified by votes of the people and the legislatures. They aren't invented out of thin air by judges.
I'll accept that there is a "right" to same-sex marriage when that right is ratified by the people or their elected representatives, and not a moment before.
And so far, it has never happened in this country.
So cry on about your non-existent "rights". Here's a kleenex.
right on.
Oh good lord, gays are beaten or killed almost everyday, but there's no compassion. Everone here is the victim because of the action of one guy.
Typical.
"gays are beaten or killed almost everyday"
even if your convenient exaggeration were true, would that make what this crowd did right? It wasn't just one guy either. Watch the video again. How can you justify what they did? I'm sorry Jan, you can't.
Where that lady went was an advertised gay rights demonstration in a HIGHLY densly populated gay community!!! Smart? Respectful? no to both!
Just listen to yourselves! I can beat, maim, hurt, thrash, intimidate, kill anyone I want to because that was once done to someone a friend of a friend of mine told me he heard about from his second cousin, who I had a drink in a bar with one time.
They freaking deserve what they get!
lol.
According to Marty,there is no such a thing as an inherent right to anything,but only priviledges extended to individuals by the consent of the majority.
"Where that lady went was an advertised gay rights demonstration in a HIGHLY densly populated gay community!!!"
putting your loyalties to a group of people above your loyalty to good morals and behavior is always a bad idea, I don't care what your age, sex, orientation or eye color is.
"Standing up for yourself doesn’t involve beating on old ladies."
Exactly right! Way to say it Drew.
Oh Marie….you wer there listening to her? ??? I’m saying we are done…done putting up with discrimination….and drew we don’t beat up old ladies…first there was on lady..and second she didn’t get beat up she got yelled at as she was yelling..I had friends there. and she got her sign/cross/crutch taken away….she was not “beat up”. She knew what she was getting herself into…If I belived in white only rights which i do not…would i be smart to hop in my red Miata and cruise down to South Central LA and hold up a white supremisist sign??? at any age?? What do you think might happen? I would just be promoting my own beleifs right? I have the right to my opinion…or is it just gays opinions/rights that do not matter to you BIGOTS!!!?
Seriously Richard? Like 150 guys to one old lady and you're defending what they did and saying she deserved it? Isn't that like those people who say that a gay guy walking into a straight bar deserves being beaten? Do you condone that? What's the difference? Do people have to be a member of your special club in order to get fair treatment?
And she should respect our moral unless she would like us shouting down her tea party events preaching our morals to her and her friends and family. Her morals, your morals and my morals are exacly that…our own…respect ours if you want respect for yours. You have no right shoving YOUR morals down our throuts. Do what ever you want in the privacy of your own room but keep it to your self…..I thoguht that was ur motto?
I'm sorry, come again? I didn't even catch what you were saying at all. It sounds like treating old ladies nicely, having respect for others who have different opinions than you do is not part of the gay community morals....
Quietone…(wish you were) …” Isn’t that like those people who say that a gay guy walking into a straight bar deserves being beaten? Do you condone that? What’s the difference?”
Walking in to a st8 bar alone and yelling at the str8s and saying they do not deserve rights or deserve their rights to be taken away while holding up something as protest against them when I know they are only there because they are upset adn rallying…is entiely different then just walking in and getting beaten (again the lady was not beaten! can you stop fabricating?)
We treat others as we are treated. Her intention going there was to hurt people…nothing else.
again. “marie” she was one lady and she was not beaten up!!! I have answered this a couple times (along with other responses I have entered) but apparently I am being sensored for fear that I might talk some sense into your guys’ heads. I like how what you people stand for you call “morals” as if you actually determine or could determine what morals are. LOL I guess that was morality protesting Mathew sheppards funeral while his mother weeps? or holding God hates F**s signs at marriage ceremonies…or how about this…I saw one of you people on San Vicente and La Cienega on Saturday night…in the heart of West Hollywood…holding a sign that read “We are sorry for the way we have treated you” I said how sweet..and said what exactly are you sorry for…for working to stop gays from Marrying…he said “no gays can marry, they can marry someone of the opposite sex” Then they chuckled….see if I did not have morals…I would have beaten him to a pulp…in the middle of West Hollywood…on a Saturday night…with a sign saying he is sorry..when in all actuality he could not tell us what he was sorry for…other than tell me I was wrong. hmmm morality or just plain being mean? see this is how your moralws work…state your opinion…and laugh as other get hurt by it. and……do you think it is moral for me to take him up on it…marry a woman…knowing full well I am gay…lead her on…take years of her happiness away conciously…hmm to me that would be immoral and hurtful and just plain mean! or did he mean to use marriage for the tax breaks? to get money by lying? So confusing…don’t really know what you people want…you want to take things away from us..for us to be quiet while doing so…want us to not call it marriage, but when we go for domestic partnerships like in WIS. you people want it stopped…even though all we were being offered is hospital visitation, right to care for a partner and end of life decisions. NOTHING IS EVER GOOD ENOUGH!! you just want to silence us and make us dissapear…admit it…you do not like homosexuals and will do anything in your power to make us live as second class citizens or dissapear.
Richard, stop ok, just stop. Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying here. I can't imagine you've really thought this through. You're using the same logic you say others who hate use against you. You see that right?
life is more than just "us" and "them". What about the human race? Don't we all live? breathe? hurt? Shouldn't we all be advocating treating each other well?
"According to Marty,there is no such a thing as an inherent right to anything,but only priviledges extended to individuals by the consent of the majority."
And according to Charles, rights were carved in stone by God on the mountaintop, and just happen to be whatever Charles says they are.
No, Rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and ratified by the various states.
I have yet to see a state that has ratified anything like a right to same-sex marriage. In fact, state after state after state has ratified the exact opposite.
Richard,
And how did this lady in the video "hurt" anyone? By standing up for what she believes? Really? So then, standing up for what you believe whatever it may be is grounds for retribution? Oh, right, when what I believe is deemed "discriminatory" retaliation is justified. Give me a break.
Charles, the reasoning used to argue in favor of the merger of SSM with marriage is at issue. As is its purpose as voiced by the leaders of the SSM campaign, including the leadership of the HRC.
That should be clear given the latter part of the discussion in this comment section.
That reasoning repeatedly invokes certain rules or standards of argumentation that, when used on the "adult-child" sex issue, produce outcomes from which SSM supporters tend to flee.
Please see my previous comments above for the context. You need not flee -- if you stand by the SSM argumentation displayed by the leadership of the HRC.
If you reject the reasoning of the pro-SSM campaign, then, you need not defend it; but if you endorse that reasoning, then, these two issues are very much related.
Please address the issue at hand -- the basis for the SSM complaint and for the proposed change that has been demanded in the name of "the LGBT". You can refer to the anti-DOMA arguments if you wish.
If you personally reject the anti-DOMA reasoning for one issue but not the other, then, you have the burden of reconciling the contradictions. If you don't recognize the contradictions, then, perhaps you have not thought it through well enough.
Thanks.
Jake, tragically, the childhood experiences of adults who identify themselves as gay, too-often includes history of adult-child sexual behavior.
The article that appeared in the Journal of Homosexuality reported that its review of many studies found that not all such experiences produced longterm physical or psychological harm. Indeed, a significant portion of those surveyed indicated that for them the experiences was not negative.
Does that ring true for you? Does the absence of harm mean the absence of wrongfulness?
See the following as reminder for how identity politics is expressed by the SSM campaign:
1. Revolting at the diner
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-you-want-revolution.html
Tearfully, she says that she will not recant. She will not renounce. Quietly, she will not be shamed.
Then she is told to dig into her pockets and to make restitution by contributing to the losing side of the referendum campaign. The side she opposed. When she refuses, courageously, in the face of the jeering mob, the boss steps forward and promises to make the payment instead.
But that's not enough. ...
* * *
2. Firsthand account of gays bashing church
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/firsthand-account-of-gays-bashing.html
Lansing congregation disrupted in the middle of Sunday worship by a group of about 30 gay radicals in Michigan.
* * *
3. "Anger at the gay community’s violent response"
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/anger-at-gay-communitys-violent.html
Not all who identify as "GLB" voted against the Protect Marriage amendment. And not all have endorsed the relatively small but very venomous protests.
* * *
4. The Disquiet of Identity Politics
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/disquiet-of-identity-politics.html
The crowd of protestors worked itself into a froth -- almost to the point of mass hysteria. One prominent leader, in front of many newscameras, falsely accused the LDS Church of illegalities. Yet the newsmedia representatives did not challenge her. She vented. That display speaks volumes.
Given the over-wrought spectacle, we should appreciate that most of the protestors did not resort to violence and that their collective frustrations did not transform their crowds into mobs.
That is important.
* * *
The Future?
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/future.html
* * *
Demonstration was explosive
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/protest-explodes.html
"It began peacefully," said protest leader Al Boutme. "We wanted to make our demonstration an ode to joy. But it was like a ticking bomb and we were up against it."
* * *
In the few instances when a pro-SSM court opinion served to impose the SSM merger, the defenders of marriage did not react in this way.
The old lady (in the video that has been discussion), the woman at the Coyote Diner (link in this comment), the congregation that was intruded upon (see the link in this comment), and so forth -- all responded to acts of intimidation by behaving generously and compassionately and civilly.
There is no right to SSM. SSMers can't or won't plainly stated what SSM is so that it can be distinguished by its essentials (if any). Thusfar nothing the SSM campaign has offered would differentiate SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationship types and livings arrangements.
How can you claim a right to something you haven't distinguished? If you stomp your feet and insist that SSM is marriage, then, plainly state the essentials that distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, in your view. If you can't do that, then, you can't legitimately claim a right to marry, either.
Marriage defenders do state what marriage actually is, based on its essentials -- its universal features.
SSM argumentation reveals that SSM's chief feature is gayness. But they also destroy their claim based on gayness -- because there is no legal requirement for gay identity, same-sex sexual behavior, or even same-sex sexual attraction for anyone who shows up for a license to SSM.
Marriage has legal requirements that SSM argumentation tries to abolish from the law and from the marriage culture. SSMers attack the core meaning of marriage and thus abandon a bonafide claim for an actual right to something that has societal significance. They can't justify society's involvement in issuing licenses for something that is indistinguishable from nonmarriage.
And, no, demanding that society impose identity politics is not justification. It wasn't in the case of the laws that barred interracial marriage. And no SSMers has managed to refute the repudiation of the supremacy of identity politics that took place in the dismantling of the anti-miscegenation system.
SSMers need to reassess their argumentation and get back to the basics. What makes SSM, SSM? What, if any, societal significance is attached to that such that society MUST issue a license for it?
The links above reveal that the core meaning of the SSM campaign is the assertion of supremacy in the name of gay identity politics. And that directly contradicts the chief complaint by SSMers that the marriage law is an arbitrary abuse of governmental authority.
This, I think more than any excuse that has been offered for the SSM rage, is what fuels the hyperbolic emotivism of the most ardent of SSM supporters.
Keep in mind that support for SSM in public opinion polls is very soft. Some people just want the issue to go away because they have had enough of the namecalling. Others haven't thought the issue through thoroughly -- but when a vote is needed in state marriage measures the attention becomes focused. Then marriage wins and SSM loses.
But SSM doesn't need to lose entirely since if we remove the gay identity politics from the argumentation there is a legitimate appeal for equal protection across the spectrum of families outside of marriage. These families experience certain vulnerabilities and remedial efforts should not be restricted by a gayness factor. Unfortunately SSMers tend to reject equality on those terms and circle back to the assertion of gay identity politics as a trump card. They offer no special reason for special treatment within the nonmarriage category.
The rage is self-replenished. It is not provoked by society. It is not caused by defenders of marriage. The SSM rage is owned by the SSM campaign whose attack on marriage is unsustainable by reason and common sense. Hence the emotivism that overflows.
Its so sad we have to spend all this money cleaning up each state after the homosexuals abuse the judicial process. California, and now Maine.. When are they going to see that American values families and the institution that makes this possible? Why must we fight to protect our religious freedoms and the values that have kept our society strong?
Wonderful news, the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians sent their endorsement to keep SSM in Maine! God bless the baby doctors of Maine that support human rights!
A general authority from the LDS church has just announced new genetic findings that Homosexuality is NOT in ones DNA. Homosexuality is a choice according to Elder Hafen's findings. Why then, why would anyone want to raise children without a mother and father and recruit them into such an unhealthy lifestyle of disease, abuse and molestation?
Paul:
What are you talking about, “unhealthy lifestyle of disease, abuse and molestation”? Are you suggesting that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce???
There is much less risk to Children and our society is stronger when they are raised by a real mother and father.
Paul,
Elder Hafen did not speak from findings, these are just his CHOSEN beliefs. He's entitled to his opinion, but this does not make it true.
His background is family law, and academics. He has no science or medical standing to speak from. Except for some of his followers and those motivated to think what they may about gays, this has pretty much been dismissed.
Chairm you are so full of yourself I think you are believing your retoric. There is no difference between gay marriage and any other marriage?? It is exactly the same period. …go ahead say…we cant reproduce bla bla bla…so woud you be saying a woman that is infertal is not realiy marrried?
fertility has nothing to do with orientation.
Jan, General Authorities have the gift of revelation and the power of the holy ghost. They speak the truth, as these words come from God. I suggest you study up a bit on your facts..
Marie…i was not talking about orientation..must you always go back to that?? obsess much? We are talking about marriage which =
Love
Commitiment
Sometimes child rearing
Caring for each other
Two unrelated adults
till death do themn part..etc etc
all of which relate to all marriages.
There is no difference. paul. chaim, marie (and the rest of the I’m just against gays but don’t want to admit it gang)
Richard, as we can clearly read in the previous posts, it's about more than what you are putting forward. Do you wonder why people don't believe you?
orientation does have something to do with what you were saying Richard. You claimed that there was discrimination against gays because they were all infertile.
I'm just saying gays are not necessarily infertile. They can have children just fine if they do the job nature intended...
I can't believe that you are so funny guys. Really, I can't stop laughing at all of your miserable tries to convince people with your stupid and imprudent concepts to "save marriages".
You want to be "strong Americans". You're only strong in doing wrong things and sorry, you - the "National Organization for (conservative and dumb) marriages"- will fail in the end.
Iam a lesbian and maybe I will marry one day and you can guess, you can do nothing, just watching.
That is the big joke. It is like running against the wall, again and again, isn't it.. I think you can recognise yourself in this action.
Stop it, use your brains. That can be the first step in the right direction.
Well there you go. The opposition has spoken in all it's glory.
Richard: "There is no difference."
For there to be no difference between OSM and SSM, there must be no difference between men and women. Is THAT what you're claiming?
Separate just isn't equal. Either men and women are different, or they are not. Are two men equal to two women equal to a man and wife? Please clarify.
Richard Cortijo, let's go along with your assertion that there is no difference between marriage and SSM.
Okay, now, what is marriage/SSM?
You said nothing that would distinguish it from the rest of the nonmarriage category. There is a wide spectrum of relationship types and living arrangements that are not marriage, but which include the items on your list.
Let's go through your list. We must use the rules that SSMers use when they attack the centrality of sex integration and the provision for responsible procreation.
The most prominent rules are as follows.
A. If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, enforced absolutely, then it is not an essential of marriage.
B. If (fill-in the blank) can occur outside of marriage, then, it is not an essential of marriage.
C. If (fill-in the blank) is based on tradition and custom only, then, it is not an essential of marriage.
SSMers, like yourself, disparage the legal provision for responsible procreation (i.e. the legal presumption that the husband is the father of the children born to himself and his wife during their marriage) but it is a legal requirement that is enforced vigorously. Likewise, SSMers seek to abolish the man-woman criterion (i.e. sex integration) although it is a legal requirement that is enforced vigorously. The opposite-sex basis for marriage is expressed in the provisons regarding consummation, adultery, annulment, and, as already meantioned, the marital presumption of paternity. Marriage is not sex-neutral. It is a public type of relationship due to the public aspect (and the societal significance) of the sexual relationship of husband and wife. Hence, the core meaning of marriage is found in legal requirements that are enforced and which are extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement (sexualized or not, gay or not) which is a small part of the nonmarriage category.
So the pro-SSM rules are met squarely by the core meaning of marriage; but SSMers misrepresent the centrality of procreation and the centrality of sex integration. The anthropological fact -- and the legal fact -- is that marraige law recognizes a foundational social institution of civil society; government does not own and has not created that institution. To recognize something, like marriage, society needs to be able to distinguish it from other stuff.
The one-sexed arrangement is sex-segregative and cannot provide for responsible procreation (the first principle of which is that the procreative duo is responsible for the children they bring into this world, barring dire circumstances or tragedy). The sexual basis of the marital presumption of paternity does not fit the one-sexed arrangement. Even if that arrangement is sexualized, no legal presumption of paternity can be based on whatever behavior might be entailed in sexual behavior within an all-male or an all-female arrangement. Such an arrangement is NOT fertile and thus cannot be infertile. Your remark about infertility is thus a bust, anyway. But I take it you meant that the marriage law does not force married people to procreate. See Rule A above. Right?
Okay, let's go through your list and test it with the pro-SSM rules of argumentation.
1. Love.
No legal requirement. Can occur outside of marriage. What kind of love, anyway? If your rely on the tradition of romance, then, see rule C. SSMers have rejected tradition as the basis for the law.
2. Commitiment.
This invokes the ciruclar thinking of SSM argumentation. Commitment to what? To marriage. What is marriage? Commitment. Commitment to what ... etc.
3. Caring for each other.
Can and does occur outside of marriage. Lots of different tyhpes of relatiionships and lots of different kinds of living arrangements are mutually caring.
4. Two unrelated adults.
See item 3.
However related people can and do marry under the marriage law. Not all related people are eligible. The line drawn is based on the sexual relationship of husband and wife; it is based on societal concerns for sex integration and responsible procreation.
There is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior and attraction for those who'd show up for a license to SSM. Such behavior can and does occur outside of marriage, anyway. If you'd borrow the law against some related people, then, you will need to explain why a nonsexual type of arrangement, by the law, can justly exclude any related combination.
Meanwhile, there are people who experience genetic sexual attraction (GSA) but they are ineligible to marry. Sexual attraction is not a trump card for opposite-sexed arrangements nor is it a legal requirement for marriage. However the core of marriage is what the eligiblity lines are drawn around. Sex integration and responsible procreation, combined as a coherent whole.
What is the coherent whole of SSM that would justify any boundary between SSM and the rest of the nonmarriage category? Cite the legal requirements that exist where SSM is licensed. Cite the legal requirements that you would propose to ensure that related people are ineligible -- absolutely enforced.
5. till death do themn part.
Appears to be contradicted by SSM argumentation's emphasis on divorce and other nonmarital trends. That emphasis is a central theme that says that marriage must mean less and less. That the difference between marriage and nonmarriage is neglibible. That divorce means there is no legal requirement that forces married people to remain together till death.
So on that basis alone you have not managed to differentiate SSM from nonmarriage. Also, people can and do stay together outside of marriage. And your use of the phrase in item 5 harkens to tradition. See rule C.
* * *
6. Sometimes child rearing.
That is an anemic substitution for the marital presumption of paternity.
When a husband and wife engage in sexual relations (coitus) and have children as a result, the man is not "sometimes" the father. He is presumed, at law, to be the father. That is the default position of society, as expressed in our laws, cutsoms, and traditions. This integrates fatherhood and motherhood.
Your item, in context of SSM argumentation, strongly suggests that the default position is something else. "Sometimes"? Please elaborate.
Anywya, when you say, sometimes, you do not offer an essential.
Your list of items does not include legal requirements for a license to SSM -- not in anyplace that SSM has been imposed. See pro-SSM rule A.
The list contains nothing that can't occur outside of SSM. See pro-SSM rule B.
And you've include a few based on tradition. See pro-SSM rule C.
Your reasoning is a bust, according to the rules that SSMers use to attack the core meaning of marriage.
Your list shows that SSM is a part of the nonmarriage category, anyway.
The question remains: What is SSM? How is it different from the rest of the nonmarriage category. And, based on that difference, if any, what is the justification for society issuing a license for that?
I am not saying there is nothing you might not come up with. But it is up to you to do the comming-up-with part, not me. You made the assertion of equivalence which appears to be false. The onus is on you, Richard, to calmly state the essentials of SSM such that without those items the arrangement would be irrecognizable as SSM.
If it boilsdown to a gayness factor, then, please cite the legal requirement that each and every license to SSM must meet to fulfill that gayness factor.
If it is not a legal requirement, as per SSM arugmentation, then, how can you say it is of such great importance to society? Maybe you'd shrug and say it is of no societal significance and that society should merely be indifferent. But that does not justify society issuing a license for something that is indistinguishable from nonmarriage and for which indifference is the proposed default position.
Richard, if my comment stumps you and you can come up with nothing the distinguishes SSM from nonmarriage, that's okay. Most SSMers have failed also.
But you might do better with Marty's comments and questions.
See Posted September 23, 2009 at 8:52 pm.
I should point out that the very notion of same-sex sexual attraction or sexual behavior depends on the significance of sex differentiation.
SSM argumentation and the defense of marriage, both, say that sex differentation is an undisputed fact in this debate about SSM.
If sex differentation is of no significance, in your view, then, you'd disagree with the pro-SSM side's main theme regarding gayness.
Where is the defender of HRC's proffered reasoning regarding SSM? If that reasoning is valid for SSM but not for the issue of adult-child sex, it needs to be explained more forthrightly than the prouncement that HRC doesn't need to stand by its own reasoning.
I don’t understand the talk of the old lady. I disagree with what was done to her. No, she wasn’t “beaten”, but they were too rough and I don’t agree with what they did one but,
My question is… what does this have to do with SSM?
Some people are idiots, I’m disappointed in them and I won’t defend them. But people who hold all kinds of rights are idiots all the time, and those rights don’t then get stripped away from the entire group.
Straight people have killed gay people. It should then be argued that they shouldn’t marry…? no, not because of what some evil/idiotic people do.
As proof that homosexuals can change, Tyra Banks interviewed a recovered Homosexual. The holy spirt can cast out the demon of homosexuality through Exorcism. Don't give up hope, or faith in the spirt of the lord.
I find it hiliarious that Chairm repeatedly says that marriage advocates have not distinguished same sex marriage from non-marriage…when they have.
SSM is a relationship with a marriage license. All other non-marriage relationships do not. There is the difference. And they are the same as OSM marriage and non-marriage relationships…one has a marriage license, one does not. Pretty simple. But Chairm is the type to shove his fingers in his ears and scream “I CANT HEAR YOU” when anyone is trying to make a point.
SSM does not need to justify its “special status” anymore than osm needs to justify its “special status”..It’s a contract between two people involving the government. Nothing more nothing less.
I’m not really interested in getting into a debate, god knows I do enough of that on youtube, and that with 200+ comments there is enough of that here right now, but I just want to point out one thing that I think is causing a huge misunderstanding among people.
I always hear it said that we all have the same rights, any man can marry any woman, and any woman can marry any man. True, but what gay marriage is usually about, and how the laws are usually worded, at the rights of the COUPLE. And on those grounds couples don’t have the same rights. Only opposite-sex couples can get married, not same sex couples.
So as people, sure we do have the same rights, but as couples, no we don’t, and that’s what same-sex marriage is about.
I think this is where the opponents of SSM get confused because they go “you want special rights, we all have the same rights.” No, not as couples we don’t. It’s not about individuals, its about couples, and potentially their kids.
We’re trying to put same-sex and opposite-sex couples on equal footing, and if we do then we all still have the same rights anyway, no one has any more or any less. A man can marry any man or any woman, and a woman can marry any man or any woman!
And sexual orientation really doesn’t matter in either case.
Anyways, I’m not going into why there should be same sex marriage, and why the opponents are wrong, and yadda yadda, I’m just saying that no, all couples do not have the same rights, even though it is so frequently said that we all do.
Tara: " how the laws are usually worded, at the rights of the COUPLE. And on those grounds couples don’t have the same rights. "
True enough. The question is should they? are Opposite-sex couples really equal to same-sex couples?
For the answer to that, I would refer you to the questions I've asked in #228 and #229 above.
Tara said: "put same-sex and opposite-sex couples on equal footing"
You mean treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives?
Your remarks would equate nonmarriage with marriage. What would be the point of that, again?
To paraphrase Matt:
SSM is a licensed relationship. The license makes it different from unlicensed relationship types.
The license involves the government, according to Matt, with no justification needed.
Matt, if you would insist that society issue a license for the purpose of setting SSM apart from the rest of the nonmarriage category, then, the onus is on YOU to justify the license based on what SSM actually is.
If you are saying that the license is merely an arbitrary use of governmental power, then, you directly contradict the pro-SSM complaint that the marriage law is (supposedly) an abuse of governmental power because it is arbitrary.
Your remarks clearly indicate that you would insist that society discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. But you have not said how SSM is different from nonmarriage for the purpose of licensing.
To paraphrase you: SSM is a licensed relationship that is distinguished by the license and nothing more.
By the way, SSM argumentation in courtrooms and legislatures clearly acknowledges that marital status is a special status.
If you can offer no special reason for special status, then, the license that confers such a status is unjustified.
Your remarks admit that the demand for a license to SSM is unjustified.
On the other hand, the special reason for special status of the social institution of marriage is expressed in legal requirements that are vigorously enforced.
And are also backed by longstanding customs and traditions that inform society's preferential treatment of the core meaning of this foundational social institution.
There is no "straightness" criterion for eligibility; and no "gayness" criterion for ineligibility. The man-woman criterion stands for sex integration; the marital presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation; marriage's core meaning provides the coherency that gives the social institution its influence and, hence, its justification for special status via society issuing a license to make clear who is and who is not married.
The one-sexed subset of the nonmarriage category is not definitively "gay". The two-sexed subset of the nonmarriage category is not definitively "straight". But the lines drawn around the core of marriage are drawn around the public aspect of the sexual type of relationship between husband and wife.
SSMers want to draw a line around SSM, within the nonmarriage catgegory, that is drawn around some supposed public aspect of the same-sex sexual type of relationship. But unlike marriage's core meaning, this core of SSM would have no legal requirement that would express its societal significance (if any).
THus is it is incumbent upon SSMers to show how their demand that society license something is justified by the core that distinguishes that something from other stuff.
This is basic lawmaking and common sense. This escapes SSMers whose emphasis on gayness is where they start and end -- with no reasoning in-between.
Look, if the SSM complaint, and the remedy demanded, is based purely on emotional appeal, then, the SSM campaign should admit that their cause is a leap of faith. And that should mean they stop attacking the religious beliefs of those who disagree with the proposed SSM merger.
But for now the proponents of gay identity politics has become deeply invested in asserting supremacy over marriage, over constitutional jurisprudence, over our form of governance, and over common sense as well.
The attack on DOMA is an attack on marriage. It is an attack on the rule of law. It is an attack on good governance.
SSMers may hope that these attacks would prove to be more benign than the supremacy asserted in the name of racialist identity politics (i.e. the anti-miscegenation system), but for that to hold, they must demand of the leadership of the SSM campaign that the license to SSM be justified -- that special status be justified -- on more than the axiomatic assertions of an identity group.
Maybe SSM could stand on its own two feet instead of piggybacking on the social institution that unites the sexex and bonds men and women to each other and to their children. If SSM has some societal significance that merits special status within the nonmarriage catgegory, then, this should be presented front and center, forthrightly, and without the hands over the ears and screaming that Matt claims to deplore.
On my part, I've asked for and listened for some substantive response from the SSM campaign and from SSMers who comment here. I am still waiting for the independant claim for licenses that would set apart some type of same-sex arrangement.
There are millions more vulnerable families outside of marriage than there are same-sex households (Census term for household presumed to be gay and lesbian). Why should "SSM" be treated as more special than the rest?
“But unlike marriage’s core meaning, this core of SSM would have no legal requirement that would express its societal significance (if any).”
The core meaning of marriage is the legal protection of a committed relationship between two adults not otherwise prohibited from marrying. There’s no particular benefit to society that emanates from the gender composition of the married couple. There’s no requirement to be fertile, or even to have children. Marriage really isn’t about children, although children certainly benefit when their parents are married. That makes NOM’s stand against marriage for same-sex couples with children all the more odd.
I do wish NOM would devote more time and effort to getting adultery and divorce outlawed, since both are prohibited by the Bible and actually harm marriage, unlike same-sex marriage.
If SSM is imposed, will it include a ban on divorce? Nope. The SSMer makes a bogus complaint.
Adultery remains grounds for divorce and serves as the closest thing to a "ban" that can be reasonably expected.
The SSMer would not have government monitoring the sexual behavior of everyone. He makes another bogus complaint.
The SSMer has relied on the rise of nonmarital trends when he has claimed that the difference between marriage and nonmarriage is trivial.
His bogus complaints about adultery and divorce also serve to demonstrate that the SSMer concedes that the SSM merger would be a merger of nonmarriage and marriage both in the law and in the marriage culture.
That's not pro-marriage, obviously. But it is, apparently, pro-SSM.
When an SSM supporter says that what differentiates marriage from nonmarriage is the eligibility criteria, he is not speaking of the core but of the lines drawn around the core of marriage.
When an SSMer talks of infertility, he invokes rules A and B, and "sometimes" C.
No same-sex "couple" can attain children without at least two pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment or loss; and 2) government intervention to assign a substitute. These do not have a sexual basis.
That is the virtual inverse of the marital presumption of paternity both in principle and in practice.
Besides, having invoked Rules A-B-C, the SSMer would concede that SSM cannot be a sexual type of relationship, at law, since there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual attraction, or even same-sex sexual romance for those who'd show-up for a license to SSM.
The SSM complaint and demand is based on an emotional appeal that throws up false arguments. The reasoning, such as it is, never strays from its circularity. It fails to pass its own stated standards. It is self-defeating.
On the other hand, families outside of marriage ought to be treated equally within the nonmarriage category. SSMers demand special treatment and not equal treatment. That is odd, given the SSMer's repeated confusion about the best interests of children, for example.
Of course, marriage can’t be about sex, since sex is obviously quite possible without marriage. So what distinguishes the marriage relationship and the non-marriage relationship? I’d say it’s the legal protections that the couples that marries enjoys over the couple that doesn’t marry.
I don’t think same-sex marriage supporters are looking for special treatment, just equal treatment for same-sex couples.
OSMers flounder about, trying to find something unique about opposite-sex couples that gives them some kind of special status and qualification for marriage. Not finding any, they issue breathless proclamations, without evidence or support.
Kevin,
Plenty of evidence and support has been given for the special status accorded marriage, you just choose to ignore it. Why is that? Because you can't refute the "breathless proclamations" that have been made ad nauseum? Instead you depend on the same worn-out points that gender composistion is irrelevant to marriage, that adultery and divorce are the real culprits to marriage, and that, for the sake of children, having "married parents" makes for a better home environment. As if your redundancy of these points supersedes anything stated otherwise when in actuality, they belie what you claim to "know."
What I find even more troubling is your spurious use of the Bible to back up your claims as if throwing out Scripture will some how lend credence to your stance. It does not as your knowledge of the Word of God is only matched by your refusal to accept the Truth.
The special reason for special status can not be the special status itself.
Such circular thinking on the part of the SSMer becomes a trip in concentric circles.
The special status arises from special reason, not the other way around.
* * *
When the SSMer fails to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage, he falls back on axiomatic beliefs -- leaps of faith -- that arise not from marriage but from gay identity politics.
So if his demand for a license to SSM (and to unequal access to protections denied other nonmarriage arrangements) is based on THAT and THAT alone, then, he should be more forthright and announce that the rule of law must now be subverted to the racialist-like assertion of supremacy that has long been repudiated with the dismantling of the anti-miscegenation system.
* * *
Generally, there are four kinds of relationship statuses in the law.
1. Outlawed -- these types of relationships are prohibited.
2. Tolerative -- these fall under the umbrella of live and let live.
3. Protective -- these are accorded remedial protections based on certain vulnerabilities.
4. Preferential -- marriage is a special status in our laws due to the societal significance of its core meaning. Preference is shown for THAT, not for straightness.
When the SSMer talks of protections, he does so because there is no special reason for a special status on par with marital status. Protective status is not justly restricted by identity politics -- by group identity -- because vulnerabilities are experienced without regard to that. Protection equality does not mean giving special treatment for a gayness factor -- whether in favoritism of gayness or in disapprobation of gayness.
Yet the SSMer will try to knock marriage down from its special status to a merely protective status. And in that effort, he would disparage as bigoted the core meaning of marriage such that it would become barely tolerated in the culture, social policy, and law. That is quite a big axe that is swung in the name of identity politics.
Racialist supremicists used pretty much the same axe in the past. When they couldn't distinguish one race from another -- by objective criteria -- their fall became inevitable. Marriage was not at fault, but pressing identity politics into marriage was wrong. It is expotentionally wrong to do so for the express nonmarriage purpose of innoculating that brand of identity politics.
SSM argumentation is a throw-back to the racialist assertion of supremacy over the marriage, the rule of law, constitutional jurisprudence, and good governance.
For this reason, the SSMer will runaway from plainly stating what makes SSM, SSM. Instead he will point at the license. A license for what? SSM! What is SSM? Protections! What protections define SSM and are not arbitrarily to be denied other arrangements that merit protections? SSM is Gay! Is it? No legal requirement for gayness. So what? Oh well.
When the SSMer concedes that SSM is not about sex, he admits that the SSM campaign's emphasis on same-sex sexual attraction and romance is bogus.
Meanwhile, the sexual basis of the marital presumption of paternity speaks to the core meaning of marriage. As does uniting the sexes. But this is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement.
That is so whether or not the one-sexed arrangement is sexualized. So we can at least mark some progress. Of course, there are two-sexed types of relationships that are ineligible for marriage precisely because of the concern about sex integration and responsible procreation; the sexual relationship of people too-closely related or underaged or already married are expressly prohibited in marriage law and in the specific context of man-woman combinations.
Nothing of the sort can rationally apply to SSM which, as the SSMer concedes, is not about sex.
But, due to the trump card of gay identity politics, the SSMer must disparage whatever does not fit the vague notion of this type of relationship or arrangement for which he has given up trying to distinguish from nonmarriage in any other way.
It is so indistinguishable, at least according to the SSM argumentation, that even same-sex attraction and romance don't provide special reason for special treatment. So the SSMer will disparage special status.
It really boilsdown to either a tolerative status or a protective status for some ill-defined subset of the nonmarriage category. Regardless of all the fuss made by the SSM campaign, it would be more just to build on the wide consensus that our society tolerates a wide range of nonmarital arrangements; indeed, increasingly society has afforded protective measures to a growing diversity of such arrangements. It is far more achievable and sustainable to take such remedial steps while ALSO reaffirming the core meaning of marriage AND strenghtening its influence on society -- current and future generations.
I haven’t refuted the special status of marriage, just the belief that only opposite-sex couples may participate. That’s discrimination and legally won’t remain.
“Instead you depend on the same worn-out points that gender composition is irrelevant to marriage, that adultery and divorce are the real culprits to marriage, and that, for the sake of children, having “married parents” makes for a better home environment”
You may find them “worn out” but they remain true. There is no state interest in marrying only opposite-sex couples, in fact, there is much harm when the state does this. Adultery and divorce, both perfectly legal ARE the main enemies of marriage. Divorce literally destroys a marriage; that’s its purpose. And it’s perfectly legal. And I defy anyone to suggest that children don’t do better when their parents are married. Well, why shouldn’t the children of same-sex couples get the same chances in life as the children of opposite-sex parents?
“What I find even more troubling is your spurious use of the Bible to back up your claims as if throwing out Scripture will some how lend credence to your stance.”
Why do opponents of same-sex marriage get to use the Bible spuriously? They cite the Bible in condemning legal same-sex marriage, yet appear to be quite content with legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce, also prohibited by the Bible. Selective implementation of biblical prohibitions is hypocritical, especially when doing so hurts people, especially children.
Robert
Same-sex marriage isn’t “special status.” That’s a false notion. It’s simply a variation of marriage, like “second marriage,” or “inter-racial marriage.” Supporters of same-sex marriage don’t want gay couples to have special rights, but rather, equal rights, for themselves and for their children. Both our Constitution and morality require it.
Kevin: " Supporters of same-sex marriage don’t want gay couples to have special rights, but rather, equal rights, for themselves and for their children."
But this presumes that two men are equal to two women are equal to man and wife.
Are you claiming that men and women are truly so "equal"?
The genders are not the same. They are unique, and blessedly so!
Quoted from above:
"I haven’t refuted the special status of marriage"
That is yet another misrepresentation and a dodge on the part of the SSMer.
What I had actually said:
"And, no, demanding that society impose identity politics is not justification. It wasn’t in the case of the laws that barred interracial marriage. And no SSMer has managed to refute the repudiation of the supremacy of identity politics that took place in the dismantling of the anti-miscegenation system."
Quoted from a previous comment:
"And I defy anyone to suggest that children don’t do better when their parents are married."
See sex integration and responsible procreation. The SSMer defies himself and his own argumentation.
The label "marriage" cannot provide for sex integration and responsible procreation where there is a one-sexed arrangement. Indeed, marriage has a core meaning which makes the label far more than just the empty word that SSM argumentation would make of it.
And more self-defiance on the part of the SSMer who tut-tutted "selective implementation of biblical prohibitions is hypocritical" and said it in defense of his own misuse of scripture. His own words accuse himself.
Marriage is not SSM. SSM is nonmarriage. Within the nonmarriage category, the SSMer demands special treatment on the basis of gayness. Further, he insists that marriage be treated as nonmarriage via a merger of marriage and SSM. All in the name of the racialist-kind of assertion of supremacy -- done this time in favoritism of gay identity politics. Note that the SSMer has yet to refute the repudiation of such an assertion. Indeed, he depends breathing new life into such an assertion of supremacy via identity politics. He has said little else.
Marty, the SSMer will dodge your point and will run away from your question. When he says "equal" he really means a false equivalence.
Your point punctures that false equivalence. So the SSMer flees in fear of being anything but indiscriminate.
Chairm, you yourself under your own criteria can not explain why opposite sex marriage deserves the special status it receives.
What differentiates it from the rest of the nonmarriage categories?
Procreation? Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and exists independent of marriage
Child benefits? Also not a requirement of marriage, and is more of a helpful side effect of the marriage contract and it’s effects on the parents.
Love? Not a requirement of marriage
Commitment? Not a requirement of marriage, either, as marriage contracts can be broken
So why does OSM deserve it’s special status? Please elaborate.
Kevin,
So, then, are you saying that all the ills of society that the US is currently embattleled in are the result of the State recognizing marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife? Yet, the State continues to do so, why is this so if it exacerbates the problem?
Again, you point to adultery and divorce being what really hurts marriage. Indeed they have, but not to the extent that the core of marriage would be litterally gutted with marriage being made into the likeness of SSM. SSM doesn't level the playing field so much as it elevates a particular type of relationship above that of the rest that aren't accorded the same treatment. So if SSM has gained special status as to be recognized as beneficial to society and therefore deserving of a license, then what about other relationships, why are they not deserving?
Lastly, your attempt to speak for me is futile. I have never said and never will that pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce are okay. If you had been paying attention, then you wouldn't need to mention them as you do so incessantly. Such is your wont.
Chairm, you yourself under your own criteria can not explain why opposite sex marriage deserves the special status it receives.
What differentiates it from the rest of the nonmarriage categories?
Procreation? Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, and exists independent of marriage
Child benefits? Also not a requirement of marriage, and is more of a helpful side effect of the marriage contract and it’s effects on the parents.
Love? Not a requirement of marriage
Commitment? Not a requirement of marriage, either, as marriage contracts can be broken
So why does OSM deserve it’s special status? Please elaborate.
Nicholas
Where did you get the idea that I think approval of same-sex marriage is the cause of society’s ills? I didn’t say that and I don’t believe it. Several “ills” will be eliminated if and when same-sex marriage is approved actually.
“Again, you point to adultery and divorce being what really hurts marriage. Indeed they have, but not to the extent that the core of marriage would be literally gutted with marriage being made into the likeness of SSM.”
The core of marriage is commitment and sexual fidelity. The dual gender basis of marriage is incidental to the first two, and merely reflects human sexual attractions. Humans do not need the institution of marriage to create male/female couples; that happens naturally and precedes marriage. There’s no effort involved. There IS effort in making a commitment and remaining faithful. If marriage means anything, that meaning has to be related to something that requires effort and sacrifice, not something that comes naturally or is effortless.
“SSM doesn’t level the playing field so much as it elevates a particular type of relationship above that of the rest that aren’t accorded the same treatment.”
You say it’s special treatment, I say it’s equal treatment. Whatever.
“I have never said and never will that pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce are okay. If you had been paying attention, then you wouldn’t need to mention them as you do so incessantly. Such is your wont.”
I think you have trouble reading and understanding my posts. I never said you think pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce are okay but that you approve of them being LEGAL. Yet for some reason you think same-sex marriage ought to be ILLEGAL. For the life of me, I can’t get an explanation from you and others as to why you make this crucial distinction, to the detriment of the US Constitution, same-sex couples and their children.
Matt, those are not MY criteria but the stated standards of SSM argumentation. You own them, not me.
Still, the defense of marriage can fulfills those rules. SSMers attack marriage despite the fact that marriage fulfills those rules. Your own comment misrepresented the core meaning of marriage. Misrepresentations make for strawmen but don't make for an a substantive acknowledgement of the actual disagreement.
1. The man-woman criterion of marriage is a legal requirement that SSMers attack because it is vigorously enforced. This criterion stands for integration of the sexes both in the private aspect and in the public aspect.
2. The consent to marry entails the default that the husband is the father of the children born to himself and his wife during their marriage. The sexual basis for the legal and vigorously enforced presumption of paternity is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement -- sexualized or not, gay or not.
3. Society, through the law among other ways, recognizes and shows preference for a social institution into which people enter when they consent to marry. That is, items 1 and 2, at the very least, acknowledge the essentials of marriage and these essentials combine as a coherent whole -- i.e. as a social institution of civil society. Its coherence gives the institution its meaning and provides the special reason for special status.
Whatever SSM actually is, SSM supporters don't or can't say, but if it merits a license it must be something to do with gayness, right? That is the emphasis of SSM argumentation. In your own comment you falsely equated same-sex with gayness.
The opposite-sex combination is a broad category of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements. Two-sexed is not a trump card; neither is starightness. Only a subset of the two-sexed category is eligible. The lines are not drawn THROUGH the middle of sexual orientation of this or that variety. The lines are drawn AROUND the core meaning of the social institution that is being licensed for the good of society, the good of the people who enter marriage, and the good of the children born to marriage.
Marriage makes normative far more than SSMers acknowledge. And yet SSMers recognize that if they can piggyback SSM on the back of marriage, then, they might make gayness normative.
But, according to your stated standards -- your intellectual rules of argumentation -- gayness can't be the meaning of SSM since there is no such legal requirement for those who'd show up for a license to SSM.
Besides, two 'straight' persons of the same sex are ineligible. SSM argumentation reads into the marriage law the notion that this ineligibility is anti-straight. But SSMers seem oblivious to this even as they emphasize gayness.
The lines drawn against some related people (not all related people), against some underaged people (not all underaged people), against some previouslyl married people (not all previously married people) are based on the significant societal concern for sex integration and responsible procreation.
But those concerns, according to SSM argumentation, are irrelevant to the regualation of the social institution in our society.
Throw away the core of marriage and the lines become arbitrary and run around a hollowness.
But, since SSM argumentation is very much steeped in gay identity politics, the merger with marriage would replace the core of marriage (which is vigorously enforced through legal requriements and provisions) with the most important thing to SSMers: gay identity politics.
And the supremacy of that, used as an allp-purpose trump card over any and all dissent and opposition, will be vigorously enforced on all of society. That's the point of the SSM campaign.
It is not about justice for the activists; it is about "just us".
Matt, based on your stated standards of argumentatin -- those rules invoked in your own comments -- what is the core of SSM and why would it merit special status?
You asked me about "opposite-sex" which is not one and the same as "heterosexual". But your comments implied that "same-sex" is one and the same as "homosexual" -- or "gay" in terms of identity politics.
Is the special status you seek for SSM based on same-sexness or on gayness or something else?
If you think that SSM and marriage are the same thing, then, you would be amiss to say that gayness merits special status, right?
The SSMer said: "The core of marriage is commitment and sexual fidelity. The dual gender basis of marriage is incidental to the first two, and merely reflects human sexual attractions."
But previously he said that the law permits divorce and there is no ban on adultery.
The integration of fatherhood and motherhood is not effortless. The unity of the sexes requires sacrifices both large and small. Societal preference for the core of marriage is not effortless nor does it come without sacrifices on a societal level. This societal preference is for special reason. And sexual fidelity is normative in marriage because of that special reason.
Sexual fidelity is not the horse pulling the cart.
Besides, SSM argumentation says that the lack of a sexual requirement means that it is not an essential of marriage. It can't at the core of SSM since SSMers claim that marriage can be nor more than whatever SSM may be.
The choice to form a one-sexed arrangement is legal; it is not outlawed; and that choice is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
SSMers want to abolish the core meaning of marriage by deriding it in the public square as bigoted and by requiring Government to be hostile toward it. Instead of special status for marriage, SSMers demand special status for gay identity politics and the issuing of licenses for SSM is the vehicle that they use to get that trump card.
Also note that the core meaning of marriage has an overflow effect outside of marriage. Sexual fidelity and commitment provide two examples of that. Without the core, the source of this overflow would dry up.
In this way it is understandable that SSMers might be keen to see the adult homosexual population imitate the union of husband and wife, at least in the SSM campaign's rhetoric. No doubt that there are same-sex attracted people who stick together -- sexually monogamous or, more likely, "emotionally monogamous" -- but that's not what the SSMer means by the false equivalencies he keeps reciting.
Participation rates in SSM (under even the most inclusive category of same-sex householding) are very, very, very low -- even in highly pro-gay places.
Indeed, if SSM is supposed to be the vehicle that influences the adult homosexual population to practice greater sexual fidelity, (as is normative for marriage), then, SSMers need to show the evidence that this is a sure bet. That it is happening where SSM has been imposed.
And they need to show that they mean for almost all of the adult homosexual population to actually participate because the "gay community" will show preference for sexual fidelity, licenses from the Government, and regulation by society's norms.
The available evidence so far shows that would be a very steep uphill climb. This probably has something to do with the nature of "gay identity" and the peculiar sectarianism of the SSM notion.
In the meanwhile, almost all of the non-homosexual population eventually marry and almost all marriages will have children. (And gay people can and do enter unions of husband and wife; and have children; and remain faithful. Whether or not such a person ought to enter marriage is not decided by the marriage law. Maybe this is to be derided after the SSM-merger, should it occur, as SSM argumentation calls such marriages "shams" and those who partake "self-haters".)
This reflects the participation in marriage, not SSM, and not in some SSM merger. Interestingly, SSMers emphasize the decline of marriage and the rise of nonmarital trends and say this make the SSM merger more plausible.
In other words, SSM is a lowering of standards and the locking in of nonmarital trends.
Matt, the core meaning of marriage merits special status, not 'opposite sex couples' and not 'straight people'. And no, I did not say that merely procreating is what merits special status. Two things, at the very least, combine at the center of the social institution: unity of the sexes and responsible procreation. Marriage, the social institution, has a core meaning that justifies the special status of the social institution.
Unlike SSM argumentation, this is not about giving special status to this or that individual or this or that identity group.
So, assuming that SSM is supposed to merit the same status as marriage, because both share the same core meaning and the same justification for special status, what is the special reason? What is the societal signficance of the SSM-merger -- apart from gay identity politics?
Finally there proof that shows elementary teachers recruiting children as young as 5 into the homosexual lifestyle. Think it can't happen in your state? Watch and see for yourself.
This needs to be shown in Maine and every state where we are protecting families and marriage.
There's something wrong with the idea that we all have to agree or we're bigots. I'm sorry, moral choices are moral choices and we can all have our opinions. It's a free country. It's terrible to indoctrinate these children into believing that dissent is immoral. Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, these are all valid thoughts. Why would the homosexual lobby push this propaganda?
Paul
I watched that video. It is not a “recruiting” video! To say that gay and lesbian people should be treated with respect, or at least not attacked, is hardly recruiting. I thought the children in the video handled the issue rather well actually. Would you prefer that gay and lesbian children in schools continue to get beat up?
Interesting, I thought the gay marriage campaigns in California and Maine both promised that this sort of stuff would not be taught in school. The very premise of the entire film is biased. If you have a problem with bullying, teach them about kindness and the golden rule, not lesbianism. To disagree with the gay lifestyle is not to hate. How is telling kids that if they disagree with the gay lifestyle they are homophobic or bigoted going to teach them tolerance and love for their neighbor? The bias here is palpable.
I agree. Everyone should see what the gay lobby is trying to push in schools.
"Would you prefer that gay and lesbian children in schools continue to get beat up?"
False logic Kevin. Is teaching lesbianism to children the way to promote kindness? Or is teaching kindness the way to promote kindness?
I believe you can teach children respect for others without teaching them they have to agree with other's choices.
The subtle nuance promoting the gay lifestyle as normal, healthy and good is too difficult for our young, impressionable children to identify and reject. That is why propaganda such as this should never be allowed in our schools.
I bet Maggie's head is going to explode when gays and lesbians finally are able to enjoy the health and happiness she writes about in her books.
Beetle,
With that logic it’s safe to assume that you do not condone children learning about war, famine, slavery, etc or any other events that have occurr and still do occur in the world because of the effect itll have on the young and “impressionable”?
Pretending homosexuality doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it disappear. Children are going to learn it exists one way or another at some point. The same way they will learn about disease, death, war, etc. and all other things you find not “healthy”. Wouldn’t you rather it be learned by a trusted teacher than by, I dont know, the media for example?
You can make all the assumptions you want Matt, that doesn't make your logic stack up any better.
Because we teach about war we have to tell kids they're bigots for having morals?
Come again??
"Wouldn’t you rather it be learned by a trusted teacher than by, I dont know, the media for example?"
Personally I think teachers ought to stay out of teaching morality beyond basics like the golden rule, civility and kindness to others. Let morality be taught at home, especially touchy issues like sexuality. This stuff has no place in kindergarten.
"I bet Maggie’s head is going to explode when gays and lesbians finally are able to enjoy the health and happiness she writes about in her books."
Dane, I don't think you have to worry about that happening any time soon. What she talks about in her books is a result of the relationship, not the title IMNTBHO.
"There’s something wrong with the idea that we all have to agree or we’re bigots. I’m sorry, moral choices are moral choices and we can all have our opinions. It’s a free country. It’s terrible to indoctrinate these children into believing that dissent is immoral."
Sally,
I agree. The eager willingness to stifle any opinion on gay issues but that of the gay lobby is frightening. There is a propensity within that community to denigrate any opinion but their own. No diversity of thought is tolerated and they're taking this to schools and promoting it in the name of the very thing it despises---Tolerance.
Matt said: "Wouldn’t you rather it be learned by a trusted teacher ...?"
You clearly favor that to become public policy, right?
When the public school violates the trust of parents on this very issue, as happened in Massachusetts directly in connection with the SSM merger, your quesion becomes moot.
Matt, Regarding YOUR criteria for attacking the core of marriage, do you agree that these same stated standards of argumentation would gut the pro-SSM complaint and its proposed remedy?
Even if you think these criteria gut my defense of marriage, why would you advocate the equivalent of MAD (the old cold war nuclear arms strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction)? As I said, it is self-defeating as an end in itself.
An intellectually honest approach, and a way to potentially win greater support, would be to just make the independant claim for SSM based on what makes SSM, SSM.
If you say that the thing that makes SSM, SSM, is a license to SSM, then, you'd be travelling in circles. And removing the special reason for special status. Is that okay with you -- no special status on part with marital status?
If not, then, just state the core, the essential(s), without which the relationship type you have in mind (aka SSM) would merit society issuing a license.
Surely you wouldn't wrecklessly endorse society issuing a license for NOTHING, right? What is the something you have in mind? Distinguish it from other stuff.
Failing that, well, the notion of SSM includes a campaign that makes a frontal attack on the importance of tradition, of civil society's social institutions (marriage being a foundational example of such), of freedom of conscience, of our form of self-government, and so forth. That's in addition to the derision thrown at the core meaning of marriage itself.
If you propose a substitute meaning, or a substitute institution, then, the onus really is on you, as the would-be reformer, to plainly state the essentials of the something you'd have society license.
Typpo corektshun: "just state the core, the essential(s), without which the relationship type you have in mind (aka SSM) would not merit society issuing a license."
In other words, you want to license SSM so you need to say what makes it different from other stuff, because other stuff woud lack the essentials that make SSM what it actually is.
And those essentials, in the form of SSM, at least in your view, would justify that society license it and accord it special status. The other stuff would not includes these essentials.
Put aside the criteria you have used to attack the core of marriage; state the principles upon which you would test SSM versus other stuff.
If you feel better talking about SSM as if it was marriage, go ahead, but I think in doing that you'd be mistaken, as the essentials of SSM exclude the essentials of marriage. But for the sake of discussion, go ahead, refer to SSM as marriage and we can proceed with what you think are necessary features or elements or purposes of the relationship type you have in mind.
Kevin,
First, you misunderstood my point about what the ills of society are caused by.
You stated previously in post # 249 that "There is no state interest in marrying only opposite-sex couples, in fact, there is much harm when the state does this." By implication you suggest that the State has gotten it wrong all the while, and therefore, the ills of society can be attributed to this malpractice. My counterpoint was to say that, if this notion is true, then why does the State continue to do so if it has no interest in recognizing marriages as the union of male and female, husband and wife. Wouldn't it be undermining the State's authority while at the same time upholding it too?
Secondly. there is no misunderstanding of your posts on my part. It is evident where you stand on the matter of SSM. What I don't get is your insistence that your oft-repeated mantra of "what about adultery and divorce and for the sake of the children" hasn't been answered satisfactorily. It has been at length, but again, you just don't want to listen to the response given. Again, such is your wont to create a diversion to the topic at hand.
Also, if the dual gender nature of humanity is incidental to marriage or anything else for that matter, why are we male and female? Why aren't we all just one sex/gender? Or is there no purpose to you being a male/man in this world? By your own admission, you are dating a woman and are seeing where the relationship goes. Why, if sexuality is incidental/irrelevant, couldn't you just as well be in a same-sex relationship? If not, why?
Sorry for the typos.
--
Yes, Nicholas, press that point.
Do we not hear from SSMers that the opposite-sexed basis of marriage is not an option for those who feel attracted to the same sex?
The sex composition of the arrangement is THE most important factor for SSM, they insist.
But then they also insist that sex composition is irrelevant for marriage.
When it comes to SSM, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction and romance. None. According to SSM argumentation, the lack of such a legal requirement makes this factor irrelevant to SSM. But they don't adhere to their own rules of argumentation.
The contradiction is blatant.
Meanwhile the opposite-sexed sexual basis of the legal marital presumption of paternity is neither sex neutral nor hostile toward sex differentation. Indeed, even the criteria for challenging the presumption, at law, has a sexual basis that is irrelevant to the one-sexed arrangement — call it SSM or something else, call it sexualized nor not, call it gay or not, label it whatever.
It is not anti-gay since the legal presumption of paternity applies regardless of whether the father calls himself gay or the mother calls herself lesbian. Most of the children, by far, who happen to live in same-sex households got there when they migrated from the previously procreative (i.e. opposite-sexed) relationships of their moms and dads — usually marriages. These children are protected by the sexual basis of the presumption of paternity. That's because, on this definitive feature of marriage, sex differentation is highly relevant while gayness is irrelevant.
Once again, SSMers disparage this even as they contradict their own rules and emphasis that sex differentation is of the utmost importance to SSM, at law, while sex differentation is of no importance to marriage, at law.
They don't even attempt to reconcile the profound flaws in their line of reasoning on this point.
Press further, Nicholas, you are on the right track. It is track that the SSMers have been plowing in their own way. Time to reap what they have sown.