Dear Friends of Marriage,
Join us this Sunday, October 25th, as we gather to protect marriage in the nation's capital! With the DC City Council threatening to impose same-sex marriage throughout the District, DC residents are gathering together to demand that their voice be heard and their right to vote not be taken away.
What: Stand4Marriage Rally!
When: Sunday, October 25th
3:00 - 5:00 pm.Where: Freedom Plaza (14th & Pennsylvania NW)
Who: Pastors, community leaders, concerned citizens, and YOU! Please bring a friend!
RSVP: Please email stand4marriagedc@gmail.com to let them know you'll be there!
The Stand4MarriageDC team, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, has filed an initiative petition to preempt the DC City Council's plans to push through a same-sex marriage bill co-sponsored by 10 of the Council's 13 members. If successful, the initiative would put same-sex marriage before DC voters. The Board of Elections, however, is threatening to reject the marriage initiative, claiming it violates the DC Human Rights Act, and is thus ineligible to be voted on as an initiative measure.
Join us in telling the DC Council that they've ignored the people of the District long enough. When it comes to marriage, it's time to let the people have the final say.
It looks like the weather will be perfect . . . so tell your friends, announce it at church, and then come on down to take a Stand For Marriage in our nation's capital! Hope to see you there!
Faithfully,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
61 Comments
Boycott of Calif schools in the making: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=730214
This is good news. Hope there is a good turnout. Most people should have time on a Sunday for this.
“The Board of Elections, however, is threatening to reject the marriage initiative, claiming it violates the DC Human Rights Act, and is thus ineligible to be voted on as an initiative measure.”
A DC judge already rejected the “marriage” initiative: DC can’t discriminate against gay people because of the DC Human Rights Act. Some people just refuse to accept reality I guess.
And while you're at it NOM, why not demonstrate against the 80% of African-American babies born out of wedlock in DC. Go on, Stand up for Marriage - I dare you!
Andrew, do you really think neutering marriage is going to help out of wedlock births? Your comment makes no sense.
The gay rights lobby group made a mistake when they pushed to disenfranchise D.C's people. We live here. This is still a free country, under democratic process. We are the process.
Adam, you can bet we'll be there! Are you coming?
"A DC judge already rejected the “marriage” initiative: DC can’t discriminate against gay people because of the DC Human Rights Act. Some people just refuse to accept reality I guess."
Not redefining marriage to accomodate a certain sexual preference is not discrimination. Why is it not discrimination to refuse to redefine marriage for womanizers and adulterers and incestouous couples and legalize bigamy and polygamy etc? Is homosexuality the only type of behavior that deserves racial status?
Looks like this "behavior" got added to the Hate Crimes Bill.
Like P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born a minute."
Wes,
Straight couples already redefined marriage, and made it appealing to gay couples: no more virgin brides, adultery on an "as needed" basis, easy divorce, no more subordinating one person (the woman) to the other (the man), children optional, etc.
Without these changes, gays wouldn't be interested in marriage. Gays aren't trying to redefine marriage; straight people did, and made it suitable for gay couples, too.
Kevin,
Marriage has not been redefined because of the lack of discernment/discretion. It is still the union of male and female, husband and wife. If anything, the lack of discernment/discretion has enabled SS couples to come to the fore and demand their relationship receive recognition on par with that of marriage. Therein lies the conundrum we are now faced with currently. Is a SS coupling equivalent to that of a marriage such that it needs and deserves recognition by the government in the form of a license? If so, why aren't other type relationships accorded the same treatment? If not, then why the push from the SS/homosexual camp? Perhaps there is more to SSM than what you are willing to admit.?
When in history was it ever forbidden for women to marry unless they were virgins? If that were the case, women would never be able to remarry if their husbands died.
These condidtions you list are simply ideal settings for a married couple, not requirements. And they are still ideal conditions to this day. They are just belittled more now than ever before.
If there is a requirement for marriage, it is that the union consist of a male and female since the purpose of marriage is to provide an ideal setting for the procreation and rearing of children, not the sexual fulfillment of any two people.
Wes
What you conveniently call lack of discretion has become the norm. And that’s why marriage is no longer “traditional.” And because it has changed so much, it is now applicable to same-sex couples. Gay couples act and live too much like straight couples to be artificially distinguished from them, and denied the legal right to marry.
Historically, women were the property of their husbands, expected to be virgins on their wedding nights (ever read “The Scarlet Letter”?), marriage was a lifetime commitment, and sex outside of marriage was criminalized. Marriage has changed considerably from what it once was. It seems odd to cling to the notion that it must be between one man and one woman, especially in the context of our legal system, which requires that all citizens be treated equally.
It seems odd to me, that you cling to the notion that anyone is being treated unequally, considering the fact that anyone is allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, regardless of race or sexual orientation.
Marty
But gay people don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, they want to marry someone they are sexually attracted to, and fall in love with. Just like straight people get to do. And they want their families, including their children, to be legally recognized and protected. Just like straight people do.
Why is it such a big deal to stop same-sex couples, and their children, from have the legal right to marry?
Whether they WANT to marry equally, just like everyone else, is beside the point -- they CAN, if they want to.
If they want to marry UNEQUALLY, and exclude one gender because of their bias, well, that is a bit of a problem. Separate just isn't equal.
"Why is it such a big deal to stop same-sex couples, and their children, from have the legal right to marry?"
It's not really. It's just that there is a process for doing such things, and false claims of "equality" and unconstitutional invention of "civil rights" aint it. You don't get to force your neighbors to accept a new definition of marriage just because you don't like girls. You have to convince them.
Marty
Why weren’t people who wanted to marry someone of another race under the same constraint to “convince” their friends and neighbors of the rightness of their desire? The US Supreme Court certainly didn’t take a popular opinion poll in 1967 and ask “we the people” what we wanted. Instead, they applied the requirements of the US Constitution. Who told you that “majority rules” trumps “equal protection under the law”? Legal case history shows it doesn’t.
“If they want to marry UNEQUALLY, and exclude one gender because of their bias”
This rather strained “argument” suggests that straight people marry an opposite sex partner merely to be obedient to the law, rather than follower their hearts and biology. If sexual plumbing were all that mattered, I invite to inform your wife that you don’t love her, are not committed to her and that you would be indifferent if she died and had to be replaced, so long as another female was available to take her place.
If sexual plumbing was all that mattered in marriage, there would be no adultery and no divorce, since, according to you, all that marriage is, is the legal union of one man and one woman. Yet both occurred quite frequently, despite the fact that there is one male and one female.
Don't be silly. The Loving court rightly recognized that race had absolutely no relevance to the institution of marriage. Likewise, sexual orientation is just as irrelevant. They don't even ask.
And what relevance does gender have to marriage? What rights and obligations of marriage pertain only to opposite-sex couples?
Recently a judge in Louisiana wouldn’t marry an inter-racial couple because he worried about how society treated mixed race children. Was he right or wrong to make the decision he made?
I'd just comment that Kevin and Marty should be commended for their posts. neither tries to put words in the others mouth, no name calling, short posts to the point.
"Gay couples act and live too much like straight couples to be artificially distinguished from them, and denied the legal right to marry."
Wrong again! The above is based on faith, not fact. A family structure consisting of a mom and a dad is the best available structure. Research shows that homosexual couples provide a far less safe and stable environment for children. Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages, with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexuals are also more likely to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans.
If you can find cases of homosexuals living long, healthy, monogamous lives and providing well for children, keep in mind that such people are the exception rather than the rule and marital laws must be based on common cases, not exceptions.
Wes:
The research you cite isn’t possible: there aren’t enough same-sex couples with children, in existence long enough, to draw the conclusions you want to draw.
But your point is well taken: let’s make same-sex marriage legal for, say, 25 years, and then study the affects, good and bad, on same-sex couples and their children. Good advice!
"The research you cite isn’t possible: there aren’t enough same-sex couples with children, in existence long enough, to draw the conclusions you want to draw."
You don't listen, do you? Homosexual relationships have been around for thousands of years. It's even mentioned in the Bible, the practice is so ancient, more than enough time to observe the unstable and destructive nature common in homosexual relationships shown here:
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=187&BISKIT=6792&PRINTTHIS=1
Do you really want to place children in those kind of environments for the sake of some social experiment? That is inappropriate, hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible! And that's putting it lightly!
Wes:
No, same-sex marriage has NOT been around long enough to accurately study as a social phenomenon. They can't just be a couple; they have to be a MARRIED couple, in order to compare to married straight couples.
Get it now?
Kevin argues funny. 30 years ago, gay progressives and lesbian feminists were telling us that marriage was a patriarchical institution that needed to be destroyed. Today they are telling us that we need to legalize gay marriage, so that we can "study the effects" 30 years from now.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were trying to destroy the institution of marriage itself (like they said they wanted to), and this is just their latest strategy.
"The ACP is a fringe group against homosexuals. No reputably medical organization is against same-sex parenting."
By whose judgement, yours? That's just a matter of opinion. You disregard any info or organization that doesn't help promote the homosexual agenda not because it is false or flawed, but simply because you don't like it. In your view, research is only credible if it appeals to your emotional bias, which is not a rational analysis at all.
And the research shows that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity. And adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicide attempts.
So I say enough social reengineering and experimentation, for the sake of our children!
Boil it all down Wes, and what you find are a bunch of radical leftists who think the world is overpopulated -- that children are a problem -- that heterosexuals are destroying the planet -- and that homosexuality is the cure. In short, they hate children and want everyone to stop having them. I can't say this for sure about Kevin, but if you look across the spectrum of homosexualists, what do you find? Radical environmentalists and pro-abortion extremists -- typical liberal activists. Not exactly a "pro child" group of folks.
Kevin,
So because a particular behavior (whatever it may be) is a part of the "norm," as you suggest, does that make it normative? If so, then is anything not normative? Can anything we engage in as a person be just a part of who we are and not need explanation? If so, why are there laws against some behaviors and not all?
"Thirty years ago, and long before, marriage was a patriarchic institution. For God’s sake, it was designed so a man could own a woman and thus ensure indisputable transference of his property to his children."
I'm sorry, but that's a lie. Marriage was designed to produce an ideal environment for the procreation and raising of children, so they can know their mother and father, not so women can be "owned." Women were considered property whether they were married or not. Before they were married,, women "belonged" to their fathers. Were daughters married to their fathers? This is just a lame attempt to smear traditional marriage as a civil and human rights violation.
"Please give me an example of someone begging to be a part of something, in order to destroy it."
What about Judith Stacey, the former Barbra Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender Studies at the University of Southern California? Stacey, who now teaches at New York University, declares, “I object to the profoundly discriminatory and antidemocratic character of the policies [marriage] promotes.”
http://www.americanvalues.org/html/page124951.html
Stacey’s disdain for marriage is so great that she actually applauds rising divorce rates!
Despite this, Stacey is actually one of the nation’s staunchest supporters of same-sex marriage because she and her allies understand that the endorsement of same-sex marriage would spell the destruction of natural marriage. Stacey quotes law professor, Nan D. Hunter, who argues that government-backed same-sex marriage would have “enormous potential to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage for everyone.”
http://shakinandshinin.org/HomosexualParenting-PartII.html
I have posted many web links that supported many research results in this blog, all of which have been dismissed out of hand by you and others as lies simply because the sources are not on board this radical gay agenda. I know I cannot sway you, Kevin, but hopefully other more open minded people can.
"For the sake of children, let same-sex couples with children get married, so their kids aren’t born out of wedlock, which you conservatives say you hate."
Boy do you need a course in biology! Those children are already born out of wedlock, whether homosexuals marry or not because homosexuals can't have children with each other at all.
Nicholas,
What’s not normal about homosexuality? Sexual attraction is an involuntary, organic feeling, like a like or dislike of certain foods. Certainly, one may judge whether expression of such feelings is useful or helpful or harmful, but ultimately, there’s no morality associated with having feelings. Feelings are involuntary.
“If so, why are there laws against some behaviors and not all?”
Because we judge behaviors by whether there is a victim or not. If no one is harmed or claims harm, there’s no victim. That’s why any consensual sex between adults is pretty much legal. And smoking is regulated when the smoker creates victims who breathe his second-hand smoke.
Wes
“Marriage was designed to produce an ideal environment for the procreation and raising of children, so they can know their mother and father, not so women can be “owned.”
Nope. You better read up on the history of marriage. Marriage was a form of ownership of the wife to ensure predictable control over a man’s possessions and land with regard to his children.
You didn’t give me an example of someone wanting to be a part of an institution, in order to destroy it. Try again.
“Boy do you need a course in biology! Those children are already born out of wedlock, whether homosexuals marry or not because homosexuals can’t have children with each other at all.”
Well, how does the lesbian couple down the street from me have two teenage boys they’re raising? Those kids came from somewhere, didn’t they? And so do the nearly half million other children being raised by same-sex couples.
"Nope. You better read up on the history of marriage. Marriage was a form of ownership of the wife to ensure predictable control over a man’s possessions and land with regard to his children."
And yet the woman was considered married to her husband. Did that mean that she "owned" her husband? Of course not! The concept of owning people was seperate and independant from marriage and existed far beyond the institution as well. This is just an attempt to smear traditional marriage as a civil and human rights violation.
From the examples, there is no doubt college professors and other liberal radicals can't stand natural marriage and agree with the Gay Liberation Front which proclaimed in 1969: "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system." To them, marriage is a hindrance to achieving full public acceptance of radical sexual liberty. So they devote themselves to the complete destruction of the institution of marriage and urging gay couples to "marry" is a means to that end.
"Well, how does the lesbian couple down the street from me have two teenage boys they’re raising? Those kids came from somewhere, didn’t they? And so do the nearly half million other children being raised by same-sex couples."
OK, here's a brief course in biology 101. (You can't possibly be this clueless, BTW. You have to be playing dumb.) One of them may be the natural parent of that child, but never the other. All those children were produced by the union of a man and a woman whether they were adopted or concieved through artificial insemination.
out of wedlock : with the natural parents not legally married to each other
So those kids are born out of wedlock whether the gay couple raising them are considered married or not since both of them are not his natural parents.
Get it?
"We judge behaviors by whether there is a victim or not. If no one is harmed or claims harm, there’s no victim. That’s why any consensual sex between adults is pretty much legal. And smoking is regulated when the smoker creates victims who breathe his second-hand smoke."
What about when a homosexual creates victims when he spreads AIDS/HIV and other STDs to his sexual partners? Why should they be exempt from regulation because of that - at least to the point of the government not promoting and encouraging this unhealthy vice by legalizing same sex marriage.
Wes
Children raised outside of wedlock fare much less well in life than children raised by married parents, according to Maggie Gallagher of NOM. To wit:
“When Americans debate the value of marriage, most attention focuses on the potential harm to children of divorce or illegitimacy, and for good reason. Mountains of research tell us that children reared outside of intact marriages are much more likely than other kids to slip into poverty, become victims of child abuse, fail at school and drop out, use illegal drugs, launch into premature sexual activity, become unwed teen mothers, divorce, commit suicide and experience other signs of mental illness, become physically ill, and commit crimes and go to jail. On average, children reared outside of marriage are less successful in their careers, even after controlling not only for income but also for parental conflict.”
Although legal marriage has nothing to do with having children, children raised by married couples do much better in life. That’s why same-sex marriage is so important for the children of same-sex couples: it gives their children a better chance in life, as Gallagher notes.
"Although legal marriage has nothing to do with having children, children raised by married couples do much better in life."
Marriage has everything to do with having children. That is why it has always been between a man and a woman not only because that is the only way children can be concieved, but so that children can have a male and female role model growing up. But you belittle that whenever you compare natural marriage to enslavement, thus confirming the utter contempt gay activists hold against the institution.
"That’s why same-sex marriage is so important for the children of same-sex couples: it gives their children a better chance in life, as Gallagher notes."
No, children have a better chance in life because they had been raised by a mom and a dad. This is the setting on which all the results you have listed have been based on. Marriage simply keeps the mother and the father together for the benefit of their children.
"Supporting same-sex marriage supports marital fidelity, so it reduces the spread of STDs."
Only in theory. In reality, however, the spread of STDs has increased in places where SSM has been legalized like in Massachusetts where the rate of HIV positive gays has increased dramatically:
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/equality/hivaids/
Indeed, if the threat of getting AIDS, HIV, and other STDs doesn't decrease the promiscuity of homosexuals, it is unlikely that legalizing SSM will. In fact, from all indications, it only increases it.
Wes
“Marriage has everything to do with having children.”
Well then what do we make of a country where it’s legal to have children out of wedlock, and where many married couples have no children? Why is there no reference to children in marriage statutes? Why is divorce legal for couples with minor-age children? If marriage is about children, we have a lot of work to do!
“No, children have a better chance in life because they had been raised by a mom and a dad.”
That’s false, according to Maggie Gallagher. It is NOT the present of dual-gender parents but rather the fact that the parents are married. I suggest you read her article and get informed about marriage. She’s the expert and she says the children of same-sex couples would be better off with married parents.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_why_marriage_is.html
How does the article you cite support your conclusion that HIV is increasing in states where SSM has been legalized? Did you think I wouldn’t go to the link or something LOL?
Speaking of rates:
"Five years after becoming the first state in the union to legalize gay marriage, Massachusetts remains the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country, thanks to the dedication and perseverance of its embattled straight population.
Actually, according to provisional data, Massachusetts’ divorce rate dropped from 2.3 per 1,000 in 2007 to 2.0 per 1,000 in 2008 — a rate not seen at the national level since before the onset of World War II."
from rescuemarriage.org
Per NOM’s Maggie Gallagher:
“Children lead healthier, longer lives if parents get and stay married. Adults who fret about second-hand smoke and drunk driving would do well to focus at least some of their attention on this point. In one long-term study that followed a sample of highly advantaged children (middle-class whites with IQs of at least 135) up through their seventies, a parent's divorce knocked four years off the adult child's life expectancy. Forty-year-olds from divorced homes were three times more likely to die from all causes than 40-year-olds whose parents stayed married.”
This is why it is so important to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples with children, and outlaw divorce. I wish NOM would reinvent itself and focus on outlawing divorce, not variations in marriage, if it wants to help kids.
I'm getting so tired of having to explain basic statistical research to people who are old enough to know better.
Kevin, if you're looking for a state that takes marriage seriously, please, keep looking. Of course Massachusetts has a low divorce rate -- because it also has one of the lowest marriage rates of any state in the land. You can't divorce if you don't even bother to marry in the first place!
http://www.cdc.gov
Marty
It's a RATE. That means it's calculated on the number of people who marry, then divorce. Geez.
Wrong. Jeez louise, you'd think a guy on a marriage blog would know how marriage/divorce stats are calculated. I even gave you the link!
"Rates are per 1,000 total population residing in area."
I'm done with you son.
"The new Pew survey also finds that, by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children.""
See, marriage isn't about children.
Kevin, arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. I've taken my limit.
For the rest of you:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Marriage%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Divorce%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf
One quick comment on the Pew Survey:
“The new Pew survey also finds that, by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the “mutual happiness and fulfillment” of adults rather than the “bearing and raising of children.”"
Which explains on one hand the astronomical rise in unmarried cohabitation, the demise of the [honorable think known as] shotgun weddings, and the astounding number if illegitimate children caught in the middle.
Yes, it's pretty obvious that society no longer respects the institution of marriage anymore -- something advocates of SSM are eager to take advantage of.
Sorry, something got lost in translation. Trying again:
One quick comment on the Pew Survey:
“The new Pew survey also finds that, by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the “mutual happiness and fulfillment” of adults rather than the “bearing and raising of children.””
Which explains on one hand the astronomical rise in unmarried cohabitation, the demise of the [honorable think known as] shotgun weddings on the other, and the astounding number of illegitimate children caught in the middle.
Yes, it’s pretty obvious that society no longer respects the institution of marriage anymore — something advocates of SSM are eager to take advantage of.
I would have considered it beneath you, Kevin, to misrepresent and pervert Maggie Gallagher's article to make it seem that she is advocating SSM when it is clear to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension that she is advocating a family setting that consists of a man and a woman sustained by marriage.
You know just as well as I do that she opposes SSM and yet you have the gall to pass off her writings as an advocation of same sex matrimony?
That is decietful, dishonest, and destroys the last of your credibility.
P.S. The significantly increased HIV/AIDS rate in Massachusetts since the state supreme court imposed SSM punches a huge hole in your notion that SSM promotes homosexual monogamy.
My credibility remains very much in tact. Gallagher advocates the value of marriage for couples yet inexplicably thinks this value should not be conferred on same-sex couples, and their children.
Evidence, please, on Massachusetts' rising HIV rates, and if this is due to homosexual or heterosexual promiscuity. Your credibility is on the line!
"My credibility remains very much in tact."
Only in your mind. Especially when you indulge in the hypocricy of insisting that children have nothing to do with marriage yet use them to demonstrate the value of marriage (as if you can have it both ways) and comparing natural marriage to enslavement.
"Gallagher advocates the value of marriage for couples yet inexplicably thinks this value should not be conferred on same-sex couples, and their children."
That is because all those research results in the article are based on male-female couples, not same sex couples. And you know it!
"Evidence, please, on Massachusetts’ rising HIV rates, and if this is due to homosexual or heterosexual promiscuity."
According th the Center for Disease Control, the vast , vast majority of all known AIDS cases were the result of homosexual contact.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table17.htm
That is because homosexuality is the most efficient ways of transmitting the disease and is thus the reason why the number of HIV/AIDS cases have risen so dramatically in Massachusetts since its supreme court decided to encourage and promote this unhealthy vice.
But of course you want so badly for homosexual behavior to be the equal of heterosexuality that you will probably deny the evidence and attack the character of the researchers.
Typical.
Regardless of what you say, Kevin, all the research shows that children are much better off being raised by a mom and a dad. I have posted the links demonstrating this. Ignore and disregard them all you want.
And even MassEquality, a pro gay activist group, acknowleges that the rate of HIV/AIDS cases have increased sice gay marriage has been legalized. I have even given the link. Are you going to call them liars too?
Given your stubborness in the face of facts and research, I can see that there is no breaking through your pro gay bias. It's like arguing with a brick wall. So this will be my last post on this thread. I take comfort that others who read my posts here won't be as closed minded as you are.
Adios.
Kevin,
What is normative about homosexuality? If it is just another expression of sexuality, as you suggest, then why aren't all expressions of sexuality seen as normative? Because, no one was harmed? At that, are there not victimless crimes where it is society at large that pays the price for rampant and wanton lasciviousness?
As I have posted before, are we not more than the sum of our parts? If what I like/am attracted to is involuntary, then what does that say about what I don't like? Is that involuntary as well? If so, then we wouldn't be having this conversation then as, apparently, I cannot think for myself. And if I can't think for myself, how can you get away with it?
Anyone have links or reports about the Rally yesterday? I am interested in how it turned out.
I'd love to hear as well.
Looks like the rally was moved to Oct 6th:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8444&posts=3
The flyer for the event is here:
http://pfox.org/Stand4Marriage.pdf
Go D.C.!
http://www.stand4marriagedc.com
november 6th?
I have a couple questions, or rather general comments to make.
First, I would like to talk about the simple phases we use to differenciate homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Heterosexuals have relationships, homosexuals have sex.
Heterosexuals have lives, homosexuals have lifestyles.
Heterosexuals have a moral vision, homosexuals have an agenda.
See the difference, and what has become the focal point of homosexuality. Gay people have relationships just as straight people. They also have lives, and morals.
Second, I would like to say that I am gay, and I would love to have children (either by a surrogate or adoption), and get married. What I have to say about people who don't believe in SSM: If you don't believe in it, then don't marry somebody of the same sex! It will have no effect on your marriage whatsoever.
With regard to HIV/AIDs- If you are using this as an argument against homosexuality, the consider lesbians, who would be the safest people on earth, as far as AIDs is concerned.
"Homosexuals are also more likely to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans."
I just going to address suicidal tendencies. Usually teens right? If Im wrong please correct me. This occurs most likely because they are taught that homosexually is unnatural and wrong! This is completely false. It IS natural, and occurs in a large portion of the animal kingdom, including humans. We just want to get married, and have the same rights as everyone else. Thats what America is all about right? And just to mention, civil partnerships and for those of you who think that this is a good solution, let me remind you of the phrase "separate but equal" How did that pan out?
I do not want to offend anyone on here, but I just wanted to voice my opinion and I believe that marriage is sacred, and i desparately would like to participate one day.
Being gay is not a choice.
Lesbians have their own share of health problems, Gary. THe Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that they have the highest risk factor for breast cancer than any other subset of women. They have higher resks for cervical cancer, are more likely to be obese. They have higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C too.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/tp/HealthConcerns.htm
Also, it is safe to say that modern American society is more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle than ever before. So why is it that the rate of suicide amongst homosexuals is just as high now than in earlier decades? Society often serves as a convenient scapegoat for the behavior and actions of others.
Gary,
Has the "gay gene" been discovered? If not, then how is "being" gay no more a choice then what clothes you will wear? Furthermore, if you are currently in a SS "relationship," do you not have a choice to remain so? Or are you saying that it is beyond your control to remain chaste? If not, then what does that indicate about SS "relationships?"
Correction: If not, then "being" gay is as much a choice as what clothes you will wear?