FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
APRIL 30, 2009
National Organization for Marriage and Carrie Prejean Launch New Ad
Showing Intolerance of Gay Marriage Activists, Illustrating Threats to Religious Liberty
(Washington, DC) - A new television ad featuring footage of Carrie Prejean explaining her support for marriage between a man and a woman, and then being verbally attacked by gay marriage activists was launched today by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). The ad - a continuation of NOM's campaign in defense of marriage - also features footage of a gay marriage activist from the Human Rights Campaign referring to supporters of marriage as "outright bigots."
"Carrie only said what the majority of Americans believe: marriage means a man and a woman," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. "Her example resonates, especially to many young Americans, because she chose to stand for truth rather than surrender her core values."
Gallagher added, "The behavior of Carrie's critics raises a question in a lot of folks' minds: if this is how they treat good people who disagree with them now, what will they do once they have the power of the law on their side?"
The new ad, called "No Offense," follows an earlier NOM ad ("Gathering Storm") that warned Americans that the push to legalize same-sex marriage has significant implications for religious liberty. In response to the earlier ad, a representative of the Human Rights Campaign appeared on Hardball to denounce NOM and supporters of marriage as "outright bigots" who are hanging onto the tradition of marriage through "lying and misrepresenting." The HRC spokesman challenged the notion that same-sex marriage has any implications for religious liberty.
NOM's new "No Offense" advances the religious liberty argument by informing Americans that a number of prominent legal scholars have warned that legalizing same-sex marriage in fact "will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict" for individuals, small businesses and religious groups. At least one of these scholars supports same-sex marriage.
"Many backers of same-sex marriage simply do not want to debate the consequences on society of this profound proposed change to redefine marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. "They want to browbeat and silence opposition. But no matter how loudly they yell, their attacks on supporters of marriage will fail because people of integrity will speak the truth -- whether they are in pulpits, law schools or even beauty pageants."
To view the ad and read the letters from legal scholars, go to www.nationformarriage.org.
###
554 Comments
Well, if this is a case of 'being verbally attacked by gay marriage activists' then welcome to the club. The religious have been legally and verbally abused homosexuals for an awfully long time. It doesn't feel good, does it? Makes you feel misunderstood and rejected? Even hated?
Now, all gays and lesbians want is for the legal abuse to end.
Rest assured, you'll be able to continue to hate gays and lesbians.
People at NOM don't want to debate the impact on their lives of gay marriage, because they know there is NO threat to their marriages. When asked repeatedly for info on the way in which gay marriage impacts their heterosexual marriages, they have NO answers... Gay marriage impacts the lives of gay people, plain and simple. Straight people will not be prevented from marrying each other. Stop trying to impose your religious views on everyone.
Here's a great article which predicts the demise of NOM: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
Your days are numbered, and you might as well try to desperately muster up support before you are completely dead...
Same sex marriage is sweeping the globe like swine flu. The only countries where you will be immune from it are countries dominated by Islamic law. If same sex marriage is so frightening to you, and hurts your marriage perhaps you could find a condo in Saudi Arabia, or Iran? You will be protected from homosexuals there....
Miss Preajen, if you read this I congragulate you on your character and integrity
But wait I thought Jesus loved everyone?... Isn't your organization somewhat hypocritical?
The obvious realities of nature pre-date the institution of marriage, are the basis of marriage, and, therefore, are the basis of recognizing the futility of the concept of homosexual marriage, regardless of pretences and insistences to the contrary.
Hmmm...same-sex "marriage" is legal in four states out of 50. On the other hand, some 40 states have either passed state-level DOMAs or state constitutional amendments to protect natural marriage. If we're talking about the United States, the statement that SSM is "sweeping the globe like swine flu" is a bit hyperbolic, to say the least.
The bigotry thing is so tired. Give me a break. It is not bigotry to suggest that maybe two men living together as partners is not a marriage. It is also not bigotry to state the obvious fact that two men living together as partners is unhealthy, and not something that the state should encourage.
In terms of the impact of SSM on the lives of people who aren't involved in same-sex relationships, I would offer (a) the Knights of Columbus, who were fined in Canada for being insensitive because they declined to rent their hall out to a lesbian couple for a "wedding" reception; (b) the judges and justices of the peace in Massachusetts who were told they had a choice to either perform same-sex "weddings" or lose their jobs; (c) the Methodist organization in New Jersey that lost its tax exemption for declining to allow a civil union ceremony to take place on its property, and which is currently being sued over the same issue; and (d) Catholic Charities in Boston, which shut down its adoption operation because the State of Massachusetts would not allow it to provide adoption services unless it violated its own religious beliefs by placing children with same-sex "married" couples as adoptive parents. (These are just a few examples; I could go on.) The biggest impact, though, is more indirect; in legalizing SSM, a state sends a message that forming a household with two same-sex parents is completely equivalent in every way to forming a household with a married mother and father. This is a false message with which the majority of Americans profoundly disagree.
SSM advocates should be honest and admit that they are looking to have the state validate and endorse their alternate lifestyle choices, and to silence and marginalize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint.
While some may wish that the natural marriage movement's days were numbered, the reality is that we are just getting started.
I have a problem with DAN! Anyway Thank God for people like Carrie Prejean, finally someone who is ready to stand up for our rights as a man & a woman In a marriage. This has gotten out of control! If you can have your opinion & want to be with a man then it is your decision live with it. As for me I also have an opinion & YES do know that My GOD has created male & female and joined them together to go forth and multiply! Maybe if all of this world would go back to these Christian values maybe right now we wouldn't be worring about the swine flu outbreak & other catastrophis going on today in our world. People wake up there is a reason for what is happening we need to beg GOD for his forgiveness. And no I will not apologize to DAN for my religious belief !!! Also NOM need not answer your question on same sex marriage because we all know that it is WRONG!
Dan, do you have nothing better to do than spam the comments space? Seriously, get a life! It seems like that you still haven't gotten the point and are completely lost in your little world. There is a direct threat to heterosexual families if we allow homosexual marriage. It is all about the gay agenda. If it was only about the "rights" that gay partners don't have; yet there is so much more than just that, and you know it. Majority of us Americans believe in traditional marriage. Don't try to impose YOUR views on the rest of us!
Why doesn't NOM openly state the fact that they are pre-censoring comments to this blog? Seems odd for a group that is attacking their opponents for not being willing to debate the issues.
I applaud Carrie Prejean for standing up for what she believed in. The contrast between her response and those who have vilified her is stark and telling.
Giving homosexuals preferential status either through marriage laws or hate speech laws, it opens a legal can of worms that needs to be addressed.
I found Rep. Randy Forbes argument striking: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage, had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913 she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913.
This "religious liberty" argument is no different than when the southern politicains called you anti-south for opposing segregation. The Christian bigots will be exposed for the hypocrites they are.
@Dan
Equating being gay to skin color doesn't work for a few reasons.
First, I've never heard of a former Black person. By contrast, ex-gays like singer Donnie McClurkin and actress Anne Heche (Ellen DeGeneres' ex) are common.
Second, Black people, even Democrats, STRONGLY oppose gay "marriage." Naturally, Black people vote for traditional marriage amendments like Prop. 8:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a-marriage-mandate/
Even Pres. Obama says he's against gay "marriage."
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/gossip-bloggerpageant-judge-calls-contestant-dumb-btch-over-gay-marriage-question/
(Interestingly, Perez Hilton hasn't called the "homophobic" president the N-word.)
Finally, unlike civil rights activists like Martin Luther King, gay activists go on racist rampages when things do go well for them. Check out these stories of PRO-gay Black guys who suffer Klan-style attacks from "tolerant" gay activists:
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html
If you want to indulge in the gay lifestyle, that's between you and God. But this nonsense of gay rights being like civil rights. Most Black people including myself clearly aren't buying this flawed analogy.
I applaude NOM for their work. I would love to have a NOM give a presentation at my college. You can contact me at the e-mail that I've left for more details.
Dear Stupid People of NOM,
Understand this:
Perez Hilton is not a spokesperson for the gay community,
Perez Hilton does not speak for the gay community,
Perez Hilton does not represent the gay community,
Perez Hilton is not a symbol of the gay community.
Is there any part of that which you do not understand?
You really can’t stoop much lower than this can you? .
New Hampshire's senate has just approved a bill to allow same sex marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/gay-marriage-new-hampshir_n_193141.html
Maine is considering legislation as early as next week. Slowly but surely gays and lesbians will have marriage equality. It might take 20 years, but I have no doubt it will happen in entire country. Stop your campaign of hate. You are simply out of step with reality and current trends on this issue. You are wasting your time...
Rather telling that my two reasoned comments discussing the issues, are awaiting censor approval, but Dan's screaming "hate" flies right through. Seems NOM is using their "moderation" to present a false picture of their opposition. How dishonest.
Why gay people couldn't focus on their gay thing?
I seriously suggest they should.
I want not want to share the "marriage" umbrella with them, while they can easily make their own unbrella.
It has nothing to do with right, it's all about identity.
This statement was released from the Miss California USA Pageant regarding the unfortunate decision by Carrie Prejean to be a spokeswoman for NOM:
In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue. We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs, and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda.
Hey Dan,
You totally ignored the fact that Miss California USA Pageant was dragged into water by gay activist pretending as a judge.
He asked for it, he got it
What is it about you homosexuals? Are you ALL like the idiot Miss USA judge who should NEVER have been a judge in the first place? He had ONE goal that was to humiliate whoever answered his question "wrong". You really think that people who believe that there is a reason that marriage has been around for 5,000 years and has done wonderfully well, will just give up and say, ok we have been wrong for the past thousands of years and will just let big mouth violent homosexuals like the idiot judge to just run over us? Think again.
Bigots? Decide for youself:
Oxford American Dictionary: Bigot: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions; expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance
dan, if you don't agree with the wisdom and truth that is generated from this website, then go to the human rights campaign website, where you can continue your efforts to destroy traditional marriage forever. We are tired of being victimized by people like you for our beliefs only, and we WILL fight it, just like we did in this new ad campaign.
Carrie is a billiant young lady. Glad she has enough courage to stand up and not cower to the terrible media coverage provided by holleywood. I do support Nation for Marriage, but frankly it seems they are losing online. This site for example not very many comments, Do a google search for Nation for marriage or Carrie prejean and there isn't much out there that is positive. Same for Yahoo news. Those are the 2 biggest online sources. Those supporting same sex marriage somehow seem to get to the top of the news sites. Anyway I do applaud Carrie and her courage, I know my children will know Carrie's story.
thanks to NOM for all the work they do!
I will ask every God fearing person who reads this to join with me in a prayer for Dan, the multi-poster tonight on NOM.
Dan, everyone seems to rebel against anything for little or no reason. We need our own energy but someone doesn't want us to drill. So we consider wind-power and another group doesn't want the trees cut down. But one much mightier than any of us set the standards for marriage and also condemned relationships between same sex persons; His name is GOD.
You do not have to believe in God to be subjected to his judgment because none of us can escape that.
Without debating the religious aspects then I'd simply ask why those of perverted sexual persuasions could not have been satisfied just living together; not that I agree at all. It is beyond belief that it is not enough that you defy God's and civil society's dim view of same-sex relationships ... BUT, I would love to know why you (I say you, collectively - not just to you, but to a group) ... why must you take joy in tearing down the fiber that built the very Country you are lucky enough to call home. You make a mockery of everyone who fought, worked and died to provide you the very freedom you enjoy.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, I have supported your stand from the first moment. I was disappointed tonight to see you dodge almost every question that was posed to you by Fox News. You can't lose but one tiara.
Also, in addition to very visibly dodging question after question the biggest disappointment was that you have stop mentioning - God, faith, belief.
I trust you took your stance based on faith and beliefs; don't be swayed away from those fundamental cornerstones.
Dan said: "before you are completely dead…"
Why did you make a death threat against the people at NOM?
* * *
What minority are you talking about? Neither men nor women are minorities.
* * *
Identity politics is certainly divisive since that is its purpose, afterall. The gay version is no exception.
Dan, it is odd that you demand submission to your peculiar sectarianism and then make a joke about the Saudi version of religious identity politics.
Are you sure you aren't a double-agent, because you are lending a good hand in illustrating the very thing that threatens religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
Maybe you are an opportunist who'll end up standing with Carrie in favor marriage and against the bigotry of the SSM campaign.
It was that Pereze guy who asked the question in the first place. He brought the topic up about same sex marriage. Carrie Prejean has probably had a guts full of the criticism from minority groups due to her support for marriage and so probably thinks now is a good time to get involved.
How does allowing same sex couples to marry affect society? It removes the both sexed nature of marriage from its core meaning.
For thousands of years, since the beginning of civilization, marriage has applied only to the union of man and woman. Have we really been wrong all this time? Why should we redefine marriage or anything else for that matter, to suit a minority view? I personally have no problem with Civil Unions, but to equate same-sex unions with marriage is not true. No matter how often one hears a lie, it doesn't make a lie truth ... this would also apply to abortion and other lies that have been made law, i.e., none of us existed prior to conception, what's left to ponder as to when life begins - as just one example of truth/logic. If same sex unions were to become legal as "marriages" in every state, that doesn't make it so, i.e., the truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and also not between persons cosmetically altered to appear as either as well. So, lets all come out of the closet on this matter, and repeat the truth, at least as often as the lies or mistruths are repeated. I can only imagine the nightmare this will create with regard to family court and custody battles as well, to only mention one very adverse pervasive effect would have on our laws. As a Christian who's religion is Catholic, it is with compassion that I offer this comment, because without either mercy or compassion, the objective is no longer Christian. As we all move forward to correct this mistruth and misleading understanding of what marriage really is, let us continue to do so in truth, regardless of our religious beliefs, i.e., applying the two threads that run through all world religions: Mercy and Compassion. No one or group has the market on sin ladies and gents, you break one commandment, you've broken them all. We all fall short, and none of us can say we haven't experienced deceit in one form or another in this life. Again, even though a lie is told often, it doesn't make it the truth - and although our laws are not perfect, the primary objective of law remains "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Why is NOM posting what they characterize as death threats, but censoring posting debating the issues? Seems that contra their advertising, it is NOM and not the "homosexual activists" who are afraid of open discussion.
Thank you for what you are doing to stand up for marriage. There are so many more of the silent majority than there are of the vocal minority. I am certain that because of your example and the example of Carrie Prejean and others, more people will take up the torch to defend marriage and family against redefinition and devaluation. Vitriol against supporters of traditional marriage is reaching an all-time high as same-sex "marriage" advocates watch civilized America stand up for Carrie Prejean and her right to share her opinion and still be treated respectfully.
In short, I think America is getting tired of the temper tantrums.
Chairm,
You really are stupid, aren't you?
Gay people are minorities, duh... There are two main categories of sexual orientation, the majority orientation: heterosexual, the minority orientation: homosexual...
Still waiting for your definition of "identity politics" because no known living human being I know personally has ever heard this term before....
Also, still waiting to hear how my gay marriage hurts your straight marriage. Is that so hard for you to explain?
I do stand for marriage, and that's why I'm fighting for my right to be married. You really are dense aren't you? It is you that is standing AGAINST my marriage. I'm FOR it...
And, I'm for religious freedoms too, and that means the right to worship as I please. MY god of choice, or no god of choice, and if my god says gay marriage, then YOU are infringing on MY religious freedom to deny me my marriage, aren't you? NOM is trying to get ALL Americans to live by their religious view, and this is not freedom, this is a theocracy based on your personal beliefs. You are against marriage, and against religious freedom. Same sex marriage affects MY life, not your life....
You owe me tuition for educating you....
Speaking of religious freedoms, the New Hampshire senate was about to fhrow out the gay marriage bill until a provision was included that prevented any retribution towards religious clergy that refused to marry same sex couples. That means that all of the states that currently allow gay marriage, also have in their laws this same allowance: "no religious group will be forced to marry same sex couples." is that clear to you? Their reliigous freedoms are respected. What is it about this that you don't understand? You will always be free to be in a heterosexual marriage, and I want the same freedom you enjoy to be married to my spouse. It's really easy, but you don't seem to get it. You want to prevent me from getting married. That's what NOM stands for. You are against my marriage. You are not for anything, but promoting YOUR personal religious views and projecting them onto us all. This is Un-American....
Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan and Dan. Oh and Dan, you too...
Did I forget any Dan's?
NOM is a good hearted charity working to preserve the humanitarian cause that marriage has meant for equality, help of the innocent and helpless,
There's two different views of equality here, are there not?
One equality described as, "Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences."
The other is described as, "I cannot fully love someone of the other gender so the government needs to change its institution to accept my discrimination against them."
Which side do you belong to? Which side do you think sounds like 50's segregationist mentality?
But it is even more than that. Take it from the children's point of view. They place a real value and importance on knowing their parentage. They learn real value from seeing the parents they identify with showing each other the true value of their identities in currency of commitment, love and support. I'm not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I'm just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres? And when you answer that question, you find that this isn't a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender's participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
Homosexuality doesn't have to tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage. But it does if they find marriage's equality in equal gender participation an affront to their own understanding of themselves.
The whole queer marriage thing is as hypocritical as a thing can be.
The underlying purpose of queer marriage is to achieve equality in the ability of persons to receive various state bestowed marriage benefits. When queer marriage becomes the law of the land, it will instead make marriage an unequal, limited, and non-inclusive contract form.
Instead of marriage maintining it's unique clearly understood meaning, it becomes a special status that the state will only bestow only 2 types of relationships.
To restrict the receipt of civil marriage licenses and the associated benefits and responsibilities to only couples that engage in some form of mutual sexual activity does not achieve the objective of equality. That instead makes the civil power guilty of discrimination based on sexual activity. So sexual activity cannot legitimately be a requisite.
By allowing queer couples to contract civil marriages the civil servants actually create the inequality they claim to be eliminating. Adding one additional social micro-structure (queer couples) to the list of those qualified to contract civil marriage does not achieve their stated desired outcome of equality.
To achieve equality, civil marriage must be opened up COMPLETELY to permit any group of citizens to obtain marriage licenses if they choose. There is no valid excuse why any couple, or other group of citizens should not be permitted to contractually certify their communal living arrangements, and share civil benefits with their co-habitors.
The solution is to leave it alone so that marriage continues to mean what it always has. By allowing queers to contract civil marriages, the state increases inequality.
You and your friends can educate themselves at the wonderfully free resources on the internet. Identity Politics at Wikipedia.
"Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group whose members perceive themselves to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation). The term has been used principally in United States politics since the 1970s. Identity politics is a phenomenon that arose first at the radical margins of liberal democratic societies in which human rights are recognized, and the term is not usually used to refer to dissident movements within single-party or authoritarian states."
Well, I suppose my comment will be in perpetual moderation, so let me try again in a much simpler way, and one that can not possibly be viewed as anything other than a differing view, not some kind of attack.
NOM, debates are going on in your very own blog, so to say that your opponents do not want to debate is very, very misguided, especially when you don't allow comments that welcome debate.
I can honestly say that I have never hated a homosexual, nor any minority for that matter. I will admit that it has been difficult sometimes to understand them. I have thought long and hard about about why I would find it hard to accept gay marriage in society around me, and I've come up with this conclusion: I'm terrified. Terrified of losing that which is more important to me, and that is my family. I have always been taught that having a family is where real happiness if found. My wife and I want to have children of our own someday. Both of us believe that the family is an eternal unit set up by God. Since this whole gay marriage deal began, I have spent many hours talking to her about what we would do if one of our children decided to become gay. It was a hard conclusion to make. If I believe that my family is going to be with me in eternity if I'm faithful to God, and if I was taught that homosexuality was wrong according to the teachings of my Heavenly Father, then I'm terrified I wont see them again.
Also, when the Mormon front organization was on its campaign to prevent gay marriage from happening in Hawaii, there was a Buddhist group that protested against them saying that their religious freedoms were being violated, based on the fact that they have no problem with gay marriage. Once again, it is a case of YOU imposing your beliefs on everyone else. In the fight to invalidate Prop 8 there were many church groups who support gay marriage, and they claim that their religious freedoms were being violated by Prop 8. Why don't you have an answer for these people? Nobody is violating your right to a heterosexual marriage when gay marriage is allowed. Quite the reverse is true, you are imposing on ME by preventing me from marrying my same sex partner. It's quite obvious that you are the tryannical group imposing on the beliefs of others who do not agree with you....
You don't have a marriage Dan if you have a same sex partner. Same sex marriage is impossible. Marriage has some fundamental principles which come from our human nature. Human nature can not be changed therefore the definition of marriage can not be changed.
Both sexes are required to form a marriage. If both sexes are not present then it is not a marriage. We could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married. People could be required to refer to homosexual unions as "marriages," to refer to people in such unions as "spouses," etc.
While the law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is.
Isn't time that this troll be banned? 9 of the first 10 posts are by this bigot. True, I didn't waste any time reading them, as I'm quite familiar with the garbage put out by those trying to destroy marriage. It's just that I would like to be able to find some sensible comments in these threads without having to pick through the refuse of this troll.
Both religions and governments are free to define marriage however they choose. Marriage recognized by the state is not a Christian institution. If it were, then why do we give marriage licenses to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc? Also, there are numerous religions (some Christian sects, Unitarians, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc) in the US that allow gays to marry. It is unconstitutional for the government to recognize one religions' marriages, but not other religions' marriages (where consenting adults are involved).
Chairm,
Sorry I called you stupid. Unenlighted and uneducated might be a more appropriate label for you. Oh, I forgot, bigot fits nicely, too...
By the way, it seems the "gay agenda" is very likely to win over New England in the next few months. We thought it would take until 2011, but it's happening at lightening speed. At this rate, you guys should give up in those states, and you might as well move straight (no pun intended) to Texas, because it seems like the Northern states are a done deal for us... It's only a matter of time before SSM will make inroads into the South. Might as well get started with your campaign of hate there.
Dan, the marriage law's man-woman basis does not include a sexual orientation test.
Does "gay union" law have such a test?
Nope.
Men and women are not minorities.
Still waiting your justification for your emphasis on gay identity.
You offer none but keep talking about sexual orientation -- also without providing a coherent formulation for the law.
Your emphasis is irrelevant to the social institution of marriage but it is central to your political meddling with marriage.
You are not fighting for the right to marry, since the man-woman basis of marriage integrates the sexes and your argument is about special status for segregation of the sexes.
You seek nonmarriage.
There is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" nor is there "gay marriage", but rather just marriage.
And that is the union of husband and wife.
Your homo- vs hetero dichotomy does not apply to marriage.
You want a special status for some idealized version of The Homosexual Relationship. Okay, so what is the public significance of such a type of relationship?
Is it the sexual behavior, or the romance, that you mean to reward with special treatment? It seems not for there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior nor for romance when an all-male or an all-female arrangement applies for a license to SSM in Massachusetts or to domestic partnership in California.
Your emphasis seems to be stuck on stupid, since your argument is self-defeating by the stated standards of the pro-SSM arguments.
Once again, Dan, your namecalling does not add substance to the discussion. It reflects back onto you as a false accuser.
Disagreement is not bigotry. You want to impose a merger of marriage with a nonmarital arrangement.
Marriage entails the marital presumption of paternity which is based on the sexual relations of husband and wife. It is not based on anything sexual that an all-male or an all-female arrangement might engage in.
So while there is public/sexual aspect of marriage that is central to the most pro-child social institution, there is nothing of comparable societal significance in your assertions about "gay marriage".
That is a huge gaping hole in your entire range of propaganda. And when you keep pushing a false equivalence, obstinately disparaging the truth, your display fits the classic definition of bigotry.
Explain your emphasis on gay identity -- without resorting to identity politics -- if you can. You are putting identity above justice and above the core meaning of marriage.
When racists did that, our society repudiated identity politics. There is a close analogy with racist identity politics and gay identity politics -- when both are exagerated to assert supremacy.
That's what you are doing, Dan, with an emphasis that defeats your own demand for political changes to the Government's regard of the foundational social institution of civil society.
Wow. I never thought someone could be so deluded that they actually believe that someone who is fighting for equality and freedom is a bigot, but I guess I stand corrected.
Chairm-there IS such thing as heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. In some states, marriage is now between a man/man and a woman/woman as well as between a man and a woman. Just because you do not recognize it as marriage does not mean that is isn't marriage.
And everything you accuse Dan of doing is what you are doing. You are the person creating false premises, spreading lies and propaganda, trying to sway the weak minded into thinking they are against families and such if they do not oppose same sex marriage. Look at this site, it is a perfect example of that.
And lastly, yes, disagreement isn't bigotry. However, denying people civil rights, freedom, and denying them benefits, not to mention the write to express their love for one another, simply because you do not like it, IS bigotry. Its intolerance.
It's sad that many same sex marriage activists have insisted on launching personal attacks on Miss California, even if you disagree with her views, engage the issue and not the individual. Folks like Perez Hilton are just giving these people more ammo to spin for their side, they already make up more than enough bull to argue against ssm, do we really need to give them more?
And by the way, not to engage in personal attacks, but Chairm, for the love of God, you do not have to hit enter after every sentence, a period will suffice, please try to talk in paragraphs. That's been bugging me in all the threads you're in.
Thanks, bwprsoup! I couldn't agree more.
Phil, I agree that Miss California didn't deserve personal attacks for expressing her opinon. However, the original comment she made at the competition shows that she was very confused in her stance on the issue of same sex marriage until the NOM people jumped on it, and convinced her to speak for their point of view. Her comment said that she "personally" thought that marriage is between a man and a woman, but also felt it should be a personal choice whether same sex couples should marry. In other words, it's nobody else's business but the same sex couple that wants to get married (that's how I interpret it, and please tell me I'm wrong if you view it on youtube). This is similar to Obama's point of view. He is fully supportive of equality for gays and lesbians, but falls short of the word marriage. However, the most important issue is that he has promised to do his best to eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act. If this were to happen, then NOM will have lost the war, because it would finally open the Federal government up to the rights of same sex couples. And, you can bet the US Supreme Court would weigh in on the issue, and I'm afraid NOM is on the wrong side of the fence if it got to that point. Why do you think GWBush was so desperate to get his constitutional amendment on the books to ban gay marriage? It's because he knows that to ban gay marriage is unconstitutional at the Federal level... People who call the California, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts Supreme Courts "activist" are forgetting that they are merely intrepreting the consitutions of their states/commonwealths, and that when these decisions were made there was NO constitutional grounds for forbidding gay marriage. It's called "doing your job." The CA Supreme Court was mostly Republican appointed, so I'd hardly call them "liberal" or "activist."
Hi. Most people are trying to give civil rights to gays. Legal rights. However, the line is drawn with the word/concept of "marriage". This is not bigotry.
It is a bit more than "let people do what they want in the privacy of their homes." By equalizing same sex marriage with man/woman marriage, (again, not civil unions...) it will become (and is already becoming at an amazing rate) normalized in our culture. Children will grow up with confusing role-models for marriage. On tv we will see men kissing men, women in bed with women. We already see it now on mainstream tv with men/women, even teenagers.
Freedom is worshipped in this country, and be careful, as freedom can go too far. Where do you say "no'?
Every one of these religious people is an ordinary human being who thinks he is smarter than he really is or who has the delusion he possess special powers of insight whe none exists.
In their warped minds, tolerance and forgiveness are considered evil unless approved by the religious. This is very evident in the way they treat homosexuality, if really a sin, compared to criminal behavior. They treat murderers better than they do gays. Who among them was empowered to play God and decide which sin is bigger and requires more punishment than another?
Propaganda is evident as the religious charlatans try to invent things to help support their false sense of preferred treatment in the eyes of God. Some, who believe "marriage" is a status symbol they alone deserve, claim that it is defined as being between a man and a woman and that definition, which exists only in their hate-filled minds, needs to be defended. So another disguised discrimination practice against gays was started to oppose their union being called “marriage.”
Their opposition is really needed to help perpetuate a false sense of superiority. The strange thing is that the act of forming a homosexual union in itself is not the problem, because they are willing to give “gays” basically all the same rights, but they just don't want that kind of partnership to be called “marriage.” The bottom line is that this dispute is all about a word; it is OK as long it is called something else!
You will hear the claim that using that word diminishes the marriage between heterosexuals, but you will notice also that strangely enough in their eyes things like divorce and infidelity have less of an impact upon marriage than allowing two gay people to get “married.” So, the baseless “It demeans our marriage” argument, which we all know is not true unless it is meant in a class of citizen context, causes one to correctly ask, “Except as a status symbol, how does someone-else's marriage affects yours?” and “Why is it that you are not up in arms in a corresponding way against divorce, which affects approximately fifty percent of the married population?” Why does one not even hear as much as a whimper out of these protesters defending the so-called sanctity of marriage?
Instead you hear such silly arguments as that from one “anti-gay marriage” Catholic priest, “If we let this happen, then what is there to stop people from marrying their pets? They love each other, don't they?” If marriage is so sacred, why was a loophole known as “an annulment” created for the members of Catholic Church to be able to get out of it? Amazingly, these same opponents have no objection to letting even the most evil criminal marry a woman. So why shouldn't the innocent crime-free-loving gay have a similar opportunity?
Even though they conveniently chose to ignore it, the opponents are also aware there is a religious as opposed to a civil aspect to marriage and each serve different purposes. In a civil context it is just like any other contract, still they want to combine the two uses and pretend they are one. Another reason why they are so vehement in their opposition to the concept of “gay marriage” is because using that term confers a lot of legal rights that the opponents want to reserve for themselves, thereby discriminating against gays as a subtle form of punishment and show of disapproval.
All this is a reflection of the inherent evil of any religion that permits a doctrine in which one’s beliefs can be used to form different classes of humans and make some more equal than others. The propaganda and deception behind the claim that their actions are in the defense of marriage is very evident when they do nothing to protect marriages against other things that represent a true and bigger scourge.
So now sore loser, Miss California, blames her whacky Christian answer for her loss instead of her ignorance and is now a spokesperson for stupidity. Before she or any other charlatan opens his/her mouth again he/she should read more from “Then Man Created God: The Truth about Believing a Lie”.
Everyone, please take the time to read some of these hateful and distorted comments on here against traditional marriage. Then, allow that fire that rises up inside of you to do something about it! Do your part to fight for traditional marriage. We don' have to be the silent majority anymore. We don't have to accept the redefinition of marriage. The only way things will change is if we do nothing. We are in the majority, and we have the power to stop it. So everyone, do your part. The disparaging remarks against traditional marriage will continue on here, so feel free to keep reading them and let it inspire you even more. We can win.
This Miss California nonsense is a red herring. Neither she nor Perez Hilton need be characterized as poster children for their respective movements--I think it's telling that NOM is using this bit of foolishness as a centerpiece for their campaign of bigotry and misinformation. NOM is likely going to characterize her rather tepid response as the "reason" she didn't win Miss America or Miss USA or Miss Stereotypical Male Fantasy from 1965 or whatever.
And to Rob from waay up thread: children don't "become" gay any more than anyone "becomes" straight. Also, you really need to seek a way to overcome your fear. Fear eventually leads to anger and then hatred. If one of your children was to tell you that he or she was gay, they're still your children. Also, what you've been taught about homosexuality and God=flat-out wrong. Think about the agenda associated with vilifying homosexuality (also, do some research on how we even get to the term "homosexual"--contrary to popular belief, the term didn't exist in the first century). Overcome fear; embrace openness.
To all readers:
Please carefully read the comments above by Jack, On Lawn, and Secular Herectic.
* * *
bwprsoup said: "Just because you do not recognize it as marriage does not mean that is isn’t marriage."
Hang on.
I've referred to the legal requirements but SSMers have been dodging the fact that "gay marriage" lacks legal requirements that define the meaning of "gay marriage". So this is not just my personal opinion. SSMers, by their silence on this point, concede (probably because they agree but fear the implications) that there is no core meaning for "gay marriage".
I have asked SSMers to plainly state the core meaning of "gay marriage" and to specify what distinguishes it from the types of realtionships and the kinds of living arrangements which are not marriage. There has been no forthcoming answer.
So if SSMers cannot identify "gay marriage" by its essentials, then, it is a gaping hole in their complaint. The complaint has become nonsensical, To wit: society does not recognize the distinguishing features of "gay marriage", because there are none.
If you mean "recogonize" as in granting a government license, okay, but if the thing being licensed is indistinguishable from the rest that remain unlicensed, then, the governmental authority is acting arbitrarily. SSMers complain about abritrary use of government authority. Indeed, SSMers have routinely and insistently claimed that the lack of a law that forces married people to procreate must mean only one thing -- that the centrality of procreation is a myth. Use that rule to test the assertion of SSMers, such as those of Dan and Roger and yourself, and the claim for "gay marriage" self-destructs. The faulty premises are those of SSM arugmentation and I have merely traced the logic of the SSMers. These are not my premises, but those of the SSM campaign as expressed in courtrooms, legislative assemblies, tv ads, anti-marriage amendment campaigns, and in other venues such as the blogosphere -- like in the comment section of this blogsite.
You are not fighting for equality but for a false equivalence. And doing so in the name of gay identity politics, not justice, not liberty, not civil rights.
Is there anyone that you would prohibit from "gay marriage"? Related people, for example? Previously married people, for another example? No, not all related people, just some; and no, not all previously married people, just some. Do such lines exist for "gay marriage" -- or no? Think about what you just said in your comment: "denying them benefits, not to mention the right to express their love for one another, simply because you do not like it, IS bigotry. Its intolerance."
I don't deny anyone the liberty to love. So you missed the mark anyway. Maybe you meant something else. Afterall, there is no love requirement in the law. Indeed, you haven't specified what kind of love you have in mind. Maybe you are not talking about marriage but something more vague. Please plainly state the core meaning of the type of relationship or the kind of living arrangement that you have in mind. Thanks.
Phil, a paragraph can be one sentence or more sentences.
Or a single word.
Thanks.
Dan that is not what Miss CA actually said nor what she says she meant to say. You are confused, again.
You now say that she "didn’t deserve personal attacks for expressing her opinon". On that we can agree.
But.
You have repeatedly made personal attacks in your comments here in the comment secions of this blogsite.
Apparently, your viewpoint begins with an axiomatic assertion that to disgree with you on SSM is an act of intolerance and bigotry.
SSMers rely upon that leap of faith in almost every assertion and every complaint that they make on behalf of their favored legal and cultural reform.
You have been no exception.
Chairm doesn't seem to understand the "core meaning of gay marriage." I'll explain it to him. Marriage means the same thing to heterosexuals as it means to homosexuals. It means two people who decide to commit themselves to each other for life (ever heard of "till death do us part?"), and would like to have this union protected by law in case one spouse were to die. Additionally, gay married couples would like to recieve the tax benefits (i'd call them more like tax "breaks") from the state and federal governments that heterosexual couples have always enjoyed. To deny these rights to gay couples is nothing short of discrimination, and it is the current law, at least at the Federal level. Can anyone tell me why my spouse and i could file joint tax returns, and get a huge refund for being married in 2008 (which is actually not fair to single people, in my view. Why do we deserve SO much more money back simply because we're married?), and yet the Federal government will not even allow us to file jointly? We are thus not entitled to an additional several thousand dollars in refund, due to DOMA. This is patent and blantant discrimination. Why is our union considered "less" than yours? If Charim, or anyone else, cannot see that this is wrong, then I have no faith in your ability to think rationally or equitably.
So, to sum it up, Chairm, stop obsessing on nomenclature. Gay marriage (SSM) and straight marriage (OSM) have the very same core meaning. If you cannot understand the core meaning of gay marriage, it means that you also cannot comprehend the core meaning of straight marriage. Are we clear yet?
And, I have to thank someone else for defining your pet word "identity politics," which you couldn't seem to define for me....
One more time, Chairm: the core meaning of gay marriage equals the core meaning of straight marriage, and in the very near future the laws of our country will reflect this basic equality. May it come as soon as possible... I want our tax refund...
Chairm,
You said this:
Apparently, your viewpoint begins with an axiomatic assertion that to disgree with you on SSM is an act of intolerance and bigotry.
This is one of the first statements that you've made that I totally agree with you on. Read my last post. To discriminate against SS couples who are married, or would like to marry is intolerant and bigoted. You are absolutely correct. This is the core of my argument. Did you think it was fair to deny blacks housing, simply because of their skin color? The people of California voted to do just that in 1964. Ronald Reagan came out with this priceless statement: "If a person wants to discriminate against a Negro (HIS word), it is his right to do so." Can you imagine a current politician making such a statement? And, yet we have politicians today that are advocating for such discrimination towards MY people (gay people) simply because they don't want to allow us marriage. I don't know what else to call it but bigotry and discrimination. It is singling out one group of people and treating them differently simply because you cannot comprehend that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. It goes to the core of our being, just as race and gender do. It is mindboggling that the religious folks still grasp onto this complete fallacy that a person's sexual orientation is chosen and a "sin." Wake up, people!
Charim, when interracial marriage was banned, one of the judges that heard a case pertaining to it actually made a comment that should remind of us of our current fight for marriage equality. He said, "God put the different races on different continents for a purpose. These races should not mingle, it goes against God.'
So, do YOU Mr. Chairm, believe that this statement is correct? After all, it was your god that put people on different continents. Why should we disobey this law of nature and mix the races? It means that white guys and Asian girls should not be married.
So, one of your core arguments has been that society has had no experience or model for SSM and therefore it isn't right. I'll point out to you that interracial marriage started from the same point, and it eventually became accepted. Did you also know that when the Supreme Court (US) finally overturned the discriminatory ban on interracial marriage that 70 percent of Americans were still against it. It has only just now reached a point where the majority of Americans approve of it. It took several decades before society could come to terms with it. So it will be with SSM. But, it should be tremendously encouraging to gay people that nearly 50 percent of the state of California (a very large state) voted for our marriage equality. This is tremendous progress, even from just a few years ago when less than 40 percent of our voters favored SSM. You are losing ground, FAST....
And, yet we have politicians today that are advocating for such discrimination towards MY people (gay people) simply because they don’t want to allow us marriage.
Dan, lets go through a thought experiment on bigotry.
A gay man finds a nice woman and says, "hey I believe I can get married to her".
Now, tell me. Who will say he shouldn't or couldn't get married to her?
The government? Or some other entity?
Who really is telling that person their marriage is verbotten. You tell me.
God put the different races on different continents for a purpose. These races should not mingle, it goes against God.
Funny, it seems if God really wanted something to not happen he would have made a barrier that wasn't breached with just a good pair of walking shoes and a knapsack.
But thanks for reminding us how errant judges can be when engrossed in temporary popular cultural thought.
I’ll point out to you that interracial marriage started from the same point, and it eventually became accepted.
Interracial marriages have happened throughout history with great variances (even from state to state within the USA) of regulation. Even the Loving court recognized that only two of possibly many racial combinations were outlawed.
Your starting point is more of an overly simplified historic narrative for grade-schoolers.
Oh and just a further note, it seems that the comments have been released from moderation and there has been many conversations going on this whole time. One may wish to review them
I want to thank Ms. Prejean for courageously speaking her belief about marriage. Because she stood up for God, God will stand up for her. What appalled me was the backlash of criticism against her right to speak her beliefs. Why is that homosexual people can be so loud and vocal about their beliefs and the rest of us can't. What happen to 'free speech' or did the U.S. Constitution change and say only 'gay' people have the right to voice their beliefs. When Mr. Hilton called Ms. Prejean a 'bitch' that was clearly verbal abuse to say the least. How would he like to be called a 'fag'? And when he said that had Ms. Prejean won the crown, he would have run up on the stage and 'snatched that tiara off her head', that would have been tantamount to assault. Who's bashing who now? I stand with Ms. Prejean and her courageousness. We are living in a mad, mad world where things that are abominable before God are considered right and things that are right before God are considered wrong by the world. You cannot talk about same-sex marriage without talking about homosexuality. And you can't talk about homosexuality without talking about sexuality. And you can't talk about sexuality without talking about God, the Creator of Life. In the Beginning God... That's what the best selling book of all time, the Bible, throughout the whole world, says. God created the man and the woman -- the man for the woman and the woman for the man. God created Adam and Eve as a union of love and family, NOT Adam and Steve or Eva and Amy. God says so in Genesis 2:21-24. Even God's Son, Jesus, talked about sexuality and marriage-Matthew 19:4,5-and He began saying "Have ye not read that He(God) which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said(God said) for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife(NOT husband): and THEY(man and woman) TWAIN shall be ONE flesh? God spoke in Leviticus 18:22,23; Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality is clearly an abomination before Him. The Apostle Paul spoke about homosexuality in Romans 1:28-32 clearly saying that these people will go down in the judgment of death if they don't repent including those that agree with this sin. And finally in the end when God's judgment is upon us, Revelations 21:8 the 'abominable' (those that commit abominations)go to Hell. For a person to not believe God's Word does not get him or her off the hook here in life. However, homosexuality IS a FORGIVEABLE sin and it is God's Will that WE all(not just homosexual people) come to complete repentance of any and all sin. And we don't have to go to Man to confess and repent from our sins. We have Jesus who made it all possible through the Power of the Cross to come to and confess our sins to Him and repent so that He can graft us back into God's Family. Jesus is The Door to Heaven. There is no other way nor is there another name on earth to be saved. If there is no repentance of sin by a person then there is no forgiveness of sin by God. And if no forgiveness of sin then God will judge. And judgment for sin is death.
If truth be told, judges and lawmakers are legalizing same-sex marriage because they want to be re-elected. It is politically correct to be pro-same-sex at this time. So these judges and lawmakers are doing the proverbial 'following the crowd' because they fear...they fear criticisms, reprisals, backlash and losing elections.
The United States of America was founded on the Bible. And that is why we are the strongest nation on earth. Not because of our might, but because our God is The Living God, The Creator of the Universe. No one can refute that even if they tried. If we as a nation cut out this Root, for whatever reason, we will no longer be the strongest nation on earth. That is why Satan is attacking this nation and attcking it on many fronts: through terrorism by forcing us to denounce our God, our government and switch to false gods or ungodliness; through wars; through the breakdown of our economy; and the attack against marriage and the family by using abortion and homosexuality among others. But God has His Army, too, fighting against these forces of darkness. But the weapons of God's Army are 'not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds'. In the end God and His people win.
For homosexuals to use love as their reason for a marital relationship is not leverage for marriage. They are wrong. If a man who is inlove with his wife but falls inlove with another woman, that man is still wrong and committing sin regardless of how much he loves the other woman. He is committing adultry. And what about the rest of us who love our family members or friends of the same sex. That love doesn't signal us that we must have sex with them or marry them. Absolutely not!!! Love doesn't make things legal. A deranged man tells a judge he killed his wife because he loved her. That man is going to jail for murder. Where do we as a society draw the line between what is perverse and what is right. Where do we draw the line between the letter of the Law and the spirit of intent of the Law. That is why we are living in a world of madness at the present moment. The line between what is right and wrong have been substantially blurred. We as a society have abandoned conviction of Godly morals because of fear and intimidation from the 'other side'. Soon the pedophiles are going to begin lobbying Congress and our courts to lower the age of consent so they can have sex with little children. Are we going to say yes to them? I would like to say, 'No'. But I also never thought I would live to see a fight to defend marriage either. Already through television and the films, there are hints of pedophilia in scenes of adults addressing children sexually or with adults in conversation referencing sex to or with children. There have even been scenes suggesting bestiality. And it is all done either as a comedic scene, or television comedy shows, or cartoons, or films about a child being considered an 'old soul' in a physical relationship with an adult. This perverseness is shown without any rebuke. How long are we going to let this madness go on and not speak out. We are living in a very lost and dying world. It's scary. Someone must speak out and I thank the National Organization for Marriage and other groups like Focus on the Family, Rod Parsley and also the Church itself for doing so and waking up the grassroots of this cause to do something and speak out against this seemingly social plague. Marriage belongs right where God put it: The union between one man and one woman. For those of us that believe in this Holy Matrimony, we will not be afraid nor intimidated by the fight this will take. Neither the critics nor the homosexual activists, who are so feverishly trying to back us down with their intimidation using buzz words like 'bigot' and 'homophobic', can succeed.
My outcry to all homosexual people is: God does love you but you are wrong in your belief in this twisted, misguided sense of love. He sees the bond that you have with the one you want to call a spouse. But that bond of friendship is NOT the love you think that it is- physical love or marital love. Jesus says to "Come unto me...Matthew 11:28-30. He says again, "If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free", John 8:31,32. God loves you, but He doesn't love your sin. That goes for all of us, not just for you. God hates sin because it IS the work of Satan. Satan hates God. So his way of getting back at God is to come against God's greatest and most significant creation: Man. If Satan can deceive Man through sin, then he, Satan, will have plenty of souls in his kingdom of Hell. To God, all sin is on the same level: lying, robbing, murdering, homosexuality, adultry, etc. But you(homsexual people) are trying to turn your sin into law and culture throughout the world, thereby thinking the law will justify you. The Bible says Only the Righteousness of God and the Blood of Jesus can justify you. Come to the Cross and meet Jesus. Confess and repent from your sin and walk in His Ways, for His Ways are not grievous. For Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. God so intently wants you back with Him, NOT with Satan. It is not God's Will that any man perish, but all come to complete repentance of sins.
Keep up the good work National Organization for Marriage.
From a Concerned Citizen
Chairm-there IS such thing as heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage
Sure, and currency manufactured in the Middle East that looks a lot like US currency actually passes as legal tender to most also.
Let me be more specific. There are two models of marriage, one which is centered on the responsibilities and rights around human procreation, and the other around the model of romance which is centered around the right people have of association.
You can have programs that deal with both, but not the same program. Calling both the same name simply confuses people.
Now by noting counterfeit money, I don't mean to say that the latter is a counterfeit of the former. But they are similar, and if passed off as the same one is recognized and expended at the expense of the other.
In this case, people who need the protection and support of in-tact family relationships will get a deaf ear from the government who out of being compelled to find that marriage in every way the same as an all-male or all-female "marriage" cannot hear see or speak of anything one is responsible for that the other is not.
OK.....This question is for Dan.
I have a business I am a baker, I make cakes for weddings. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, if a decline to make a cake for a gay couple Am I going to be protected against a "discrimination" law suit?? Is my business going to be in jeopardy because of my personal believes??
Dan said that for him the following is the core meaning of "gay marriage":
"two people who decide to commit themselves to each other for life [...] and would like to have this union protected by law in case one spouse were to die"
Nothing in that would sustain lines drawn against some related people, some previously married people, or even some underaged people.
But I see you made no mention of a sexual aspect that makes "gay marriage" a public type of relationship that merits special treatment.
Indeed, in previous comments you've derided the public sexual aspect of marriage. So along with abolishing the legal requirements that do not fit "gay marriage" you would press the mute button on the sexual aspect.
Yet you continue to emphasize sexual orientation.
The marital presumption of paternity makes of the conjugal type of relationship a sexual relationship and a public relationship. The integration of the sexes does the same thing in a different way. Combined, these form the core meaning of marriage.
Sure, it does not fit "gay marriage", but you have offered no good reason to gut marriage of its core meaning for the sake of identity politics of the gaycentric kind.
That means you are the one who is talking like the racists of the anti-miscegenation system. You are the promoter of identity politics that would selelctively segregate the sexes and undermine respnsible procreation -- through the nonmarriage use of marriage in our society.
Dand said: "singling out one group of people and treating them differently"
The man-woman basis of marriage does not do that. There is no sexual orientation test in the marriage law.
You are talking about a nonmarital alternative that is one-sexed, and which you assume is "gay".
But the same-sex category is not one and the same as the "gay" category.
As you must know, there are nonmarital arrangements and relationship types that are ineligible for marriage because these are two-sexed. The marriage category is not one and the same as the "straight" category.
In fact, the two-sexed category is not one and the same as the "heterosexual" category.
You have emphasized sexual orientation but you have derided the public sexual aspect of marriage. So you are playing a rhetorical game that explicitly discriminates based on sexual orientation.
That's your own assertions defeating your own argument.
Integrating the sexes is not bigotry. It is justly inclusive, not unjustly exclusive. It is a necessity for civilization.
When the anti-miscegenation system selectively segregated the sexes through a racist identity filter, that was bigotry. That was pressed into marriage. That was the flaw. The man-woman basis of marriage is not the flaw of marriage.
Your attempt at stating a core meaning immediately went to government bennies. Yet that was not in your stated core meaning.
Marriage bennies are the by-product, not the core meaning, of societies preference for sex integration and responsible procreation.
Now if some of these (like inheritence or taxes) are unjustly based on marital status, okay, that can be resolved without touching marriage law.
Apologies for misspelling your name in that earlier comment, Dan.
Dan said: " simply because you cannot comprehend that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle"
You misrepresented my viewpoint. Maybe you did that out of confusion, misreading, or some other lack of understanding of what was actually written. What you just said is mistaken.
Stick to what has been actually said rather than what you imagine.
Chairm, I haven't taken the time to read your comments, because you seem to continuously skirt the issue in an attempt to disguise the fact that you or your religious viewpoint cannot accept that a same sex couple is capable, willing and will soon be granted the same marriage rights that heterosexuals enjoy. Gay people are very much pro-marriage, and we'd like to experience the joy that comes from such unions. I've already made this commitment, and have my legal CA license to prove it. Whether you can accept this or not, is your problem. All I care about is that it iS a legally binding document, and, to the best of my knowledge, will remain so. So, what can you do about it now? As I've said over and over ad nauseum, this is NOT about religious freedoms, nor about fertility, nor who makes better parents, nor about what kids learn in school. Every one of those issues might have merit, but they shouldn't have a part in the topic at hand, which is two consenting adults who would like to have legal recognition and rights from the government. That's all..... I could care less what your core definitions are. It seems to me that YOU are the one with the identity politics crisis. Have I ever expressed my political positions? NO! How can you presume I'm democrat? I might be a libertarian for all you know. You get hung up on the core definiton of this and core definition of that. Can you define the core definition of heterosexual? I mean come on, if you can't understand what marriage means, why are you representing NOM? I have defined what marriage is, and have pointed out that it is the same for same sex couples as it is for straight couples. I think NOM needs a more lucid and intelligent spokesperson. You wrote this: But the same-sex category is not one and the same as the “gay” category.
Is that not unmitigated nonsense? Garbage... Can anyone out there make sense of what Chairm spews?
Your campaign is one that tries to divert away from the real issue at hand. You quote a fertility doctor as evidence that gay marriage will affect her in her work. Please explain to me what fertility treatments have to do with SSM... Those are two separate issues. By your own admission, you have said (you can look it up, if you don't believe me) that the New Jersey case had to do with a lesbian couple who wanted to use a recreational facility for something non-recreational in nature, and this was the reason they were not allowed to use the facility. It had NOTHING to do with sexual orientaion or SSM. NOTHING. Why do you try to "sell" this as if it were? I have no idea why the lesbians sued, because it seems like they had no grounds for their lawsuit, but it most certainly is NOT an example of religious freedoms being taken away. Religious freedoms were never at stake here. And, I've repeatedly pointed out that each and every state that has allowed gay marriage has clearly stated: "No religious groups will be forced to marry same sex couples." What is it about that statement that is unclear? it seems pretty catagorical to me.
Finally, the school children. If Mormons (and by the way, those Massachusetts parents you put on the CA Prop 8 ad WERE Mormons. It's been proven) don't want their kids to learn that some of their fellow classmates have same sex couples for parents, then they shouldn't let their kids go to public schools. Gay parents, whether married or not, do have kids, and those kids often go to public schools, and whether the religious folks like it or not, it is a disgrace for a teacher to ignore that these children exist. It's like saying, well Johnny matters because his parents are opposite sex, but Mary doesn't count because she has two moms. Is that fair to the children? This reminds me of the times when black people were not in TV commercials or shown in any positive light in the public media. Black children grew up thinking that they were without worth or purpose, because they did not see any positive images of themselves. The same can be said of gay children. Like or not, they exist, and for society to ignore them is reprehensible. And, let's face facts Chairm, is there ANY child anywhere in the US that has not heard about gay marriage by now? If so, they must be living under a rock in Utah, and probably live near you, because you seem to inhabit the same mental place.
Now, Chairm, one last thing. Can you define the coore meaning of male and female?
Lawn wrote this:
A gay man finds a nice woman and says, “hey I believe I can get married to her”.
Now, tell me. Who will say he shouldn’t or couldn’t get married to her?
Dan's answer:
Lawn, i guess you weren't aware that throughout history gay men have married straight women and lesbians have married straight men. This was often a way to "hide" who they were on the inside from society, from their friends, and from their families. Every gay person alive knows someone who was once married to an opposite sex partner (it is far more common than you think), and eventually had the courage to come out of the closet as a gay person later in life. Many of them go on to divorce their spouses, but some of them don't even bother to do that, and continue to live a "lie" and their spouses are totally unaware of this double life (Larry Craig, and Ted Haggard come to mind). So, what do you think of these people, Lawn? Should they continue to pretend to be straight, and sneak behind the backs of the spouses to have sex with same sex partners, or would you prefer that they live the truth and divorce their opposite sex spouses?
I'll tell you my preference. If these people had the opportunity to live their lives as homosexuals out and proud, and had the "freedom" to marry their same sex partners, then these tragic 'faux" marriages would have never taken place in the first place. I hope for a day when ALL gays and lesbians will have the freedom to marry a same sex partner, and once and for all end this deception. I've been fortunate enough to live in large metro areas on both coasts (NY and SF), where I can be who I was born to be, and I'm incredibly proud and gratified that I AM married to my same sex partner, we live proud lives, have lots of friends, both straight and gay, and hope that people who know us will realize that we are just like them, and they have nothing to fear.
OK, sorry for the long answer, but you asked...
They took away 'bride' and 'groom' terminology last year. That was codified into the law in CA. That's how it impacts marriage. It may still not be restored.
Stop the attacks on 'bride' and 'groom' please. Why take that away from generations? We are not that good.
Let's all pray for tolerance for all. We need religious freedom. We need 'bride' and 'groom'. We need to find a way to come together against the larger enemies out there that we all have in common.
it is far more common than you think
I'm thinking a message to you, mind-reader Dan, about how really strange i tis to read minds of people who are writing in conversation with you over the Internet. see if you can guess what it is
I think you'll find that my point entirely dwells on the fact that these marriages have happened.
and continue to live a “lie”
You mean these aren't really "marriage"?
If these people had the opportunity to live their lives as homosexuals out and proud, and had the “freedom” to marry their same sex partners, then these tragic ‘faux” marriages would have never taken place in the first place.
Wow, you do call then faux marriages. And if you had your way they would never happen.
Now trust me this isn't a setup where I twist your meaning. I realize from what I understand in your writing that you are not asking for government enforcement to make sure that gays never marry women, or lesbians never marry men. You have in mind a thought that if you could equalize both relationships enough that no one who didn't want to integrate with the other gender in marriage would not have to.
Have I understood your point? Is that an accurate restatement?
Gay marriage is todays issue like integration of blacks was in the 1960s, womens right to vote of the early 20th century, and slavery of the 1800s. Looking back, there was always a clear, evident answer to the ignorance, however it will take time, as history shows us, for the issue of gay marriage to be truly accepted as a nation. We must also remember, that even if it is nationally accepted, groups like this will still exist. While unfortunate, their mindsets of anti-gay, because of one sentence in the bible not even spoken by Jesus, will forever put homosexuals in a negative light. Real Christians, are for equality. As are, real Americans.
NOM if you want to "stand up for marriage" try doing more to avoid the 50% divorce rates, the Vegas quick weds, etc. If anything is destroying your sanctity, those are. Love is blind.
You cannot use religion as a reason to inspire litigation within the government. The Bible is not a piece of evidence and you can not call Jesus to the stand, so please if you have any concrete reasons as to why equalizing the governments system of marriage truly affects you, please let us know. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, this is nothing new, nor nothing you can shove in a closet, hoping it goes away. Open your minds, and your hearts. Good day.
Dan, I have not discussed a religious viewpoint on the topic of marriage nor on your emphasis on sexual orientation.
Taking digs at religion does not bolster your various claims but it does strongly suggest an bigotry that is intrinsic to you oft-repeated misunderstanding of the actual disagreement on marriage.
On that score among SSMers, you are not alone. Indeed, your quasi-religious adherence to identity politics screams sectarianism each time you take those digs at religions and religious people who don't submit to your false equivalencies.
* * *
You have a license to have SSM'd and that is all you have. You have shown you have no substantive understanding of marriage qua marriage.
Since you have not entered a union with a woman who'd become your wife and make you her husband, you have not consent to marriage. Whatever you consented to you still have not clearly delineated it. You say you made a commitment to a man. Congradulations and I wish you the best. But that's not marriage, it is some chosen nonmarital alternative type of arrangement.
If you relied on the arbitrary power of Government, as exemplified in the CA Supreme Court's reasoning, then, your complaint about the arbitrariness of issusing licenses based on the man-woman criterion of marriage law -- now constitutionalized in the state constitution's text, well, that would make you an admitted hypocrit.
You have given nothing but some assertion of an arbitrary power to issue licenses. Your entire complaint is centered on identity politics.
The state marriage amendment is proscriptive. Only the union of husband and wife is to be recognized as marriage in California.
The obvious remedy for your situation is domestic partnership status. That is a localized merger with marital status and so you would be denied nothing that California law had already made available to you before the abuse of judicial review occured in your homestate.
This is not something I would do about that, Dan, but something that the People have done -- and did long before the rush to SSM before the vote on the amendment. They affirmed the man-woman criterion of marriage that has always existed in California; they did it first in a popular vote approving a statutory provison that made it explicit; they did it again when the constitutionalized the statutory profvision. Both democratically and justly where reaffirmations of marriage.
Those who rushed to SSM in the interim after the CA court's meddling, did so unadvisedly. They were making a political move based on identity politics.
* * *
I have not suggested that you are a member of a political party.
If you meant small "d" democrat, well, I am guessing that to the contrary you would have no hestitation to use undemocratic means to impose your favored reform. That's why many others rushed to SSM before the marriage amendment vote.
* * *
As I asked previously, Dan, please explain what sexual orientation has to do with infertility and medical treatment of that disability.
If it is about meeting the consumer needs of people who choose to segregate fatherhood and motherhood, then, that becomes a legitimate question of freedom of conscience and religious liberty -- for the doctor.
The treatment would not fix lesbianism, right? It is not a treatment for an illness or a disability, is it?
* * *
The same-sex category is not one and the same as the homosexual category. Your whining does not make it so.
Two brothers? Both heterosexual. Cannot marry despite so-called "same-sex marriage". What's the basis for that exclusion? You have derided the sexual aspect so don't try to bring that back from the dead now.
Two married women? Both bisexual. Cannot marry despite so-called romantic and sexual attraction to each other and to their husbands.
You have denounced societal concerns for sex integration and resonsible procreation, so don't return to those concerns when drawing lines against plural marriage or polygamy.
A man and a woman who are son and mother? Both homosexual. Cannot marry despite so-called "same-sex marriage" emphasis on homosexuality.
Don't worry they promise not have sex and they won't procreate either. But they have children in their care. And they love each other deeply, just not in the way you might want to stereotype.
If you think those examples are too far-fetched, then substitute first cousins and explain how some related people would be eligible but not all related people. Does it have something to do with legal requirements to define the core meaning of "gay marriage"?
Love, commitment, sure. But love is not such a limited thing and you haven't said what kind of love. Besides, there is no legal requirement for it anyway.
* * *
Thanks for admitting that you find SSM argumentation absurd and ridiculous.
If you find thinking about that too hard, or too absurd, then, you have some idea of how absurd and empty of meaning is your complaint about marriage supposedly excluding people based on your emphasis on sexual orientation.
The thinking you have thusfar displayed is superficial. My questions about "gay marriage" are simply mirroring back to you the superficial assertions of SSM argumentation.
If you find these questions and related assertions are absurd, then, you admit that SSM argumentation is absurd.
I know what marriage is, Dan, and have exlained its core to you. You reject that core and reject marriage. You want something else in its place.
Whatever its merits and demerits, you still need to plainly state what "gay marriage" actually is. Thusfar you have offered only vagueness that fits a very wide range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relaitonsips.
Why can you not narrow it down?
* * *
Your remarks about public schools is your confirmation that the Yes-on-8 side was right about that subject.
Dan said: "throughout history gay men have married straight women and lesbians have married straight men. "
So the man-woman criterion did not bar those men from marriage.
You agree with On Lawn on that point.
Dan said: "Every gay person alive knows someone who was once married to an opposite sex partner"
And, if that is so, then, such gay persons who complain about the marriage law knowingly push a falsehood.
To whit, according to the SSM argumentation, the man-woman basis of marriage law discriminates against gay people who'd enter the social institution. You just admitted this is false.
* * *
If someone chooses to form a one-sexed arrangement, based on sexual attraction and sexual behavior, they are free to do so. It is not marriage. But their choice is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
Now, if you say there is some special societal significance to The Homosexual Relationship, or "gay union", then explain that.
You could choose to make that explaination without attacking the meaning of marriage. But you attack without explaining the meaning of the relationship type you have in mind.
That's either due to incompetence or willful negligence on your part.
You are armong many SSMers who display incompetence or negligence of that sort.
* * *
I'll leave you to discuss further with On Lawn and others here. I don't think you've shown yourself prepared to grapple with the actual disagreement on marriage, Dan, and that speaks volumes -- and more loudly -- than the drum you keep banging for your gaycentric identity politics.
Defending traditional marriage is a moral and ethical act. Homosexuality is a perversion that till 30 years was considered a mental health disease and there was on going treatment for the disease.
Like a cancer, Homosexuality has grown and now is trying to attack the core of our society. The proponents of this perversion are trying to frame this as a civil right argument of it being a Inborn status? IF this is an inborn, then it is a birth defect and needs to have a cure. Other wise it a mental disorder, like other mental health diseases, and there needs to be a cure.
I will issue this challenge, IF there has been a child born by the act of homosexuality, then step forward and I will support the marriage of TWO same sex people. (artificial insemination/fertilization is disqualified.)
Chairm, I don't know how clearly I can say it, so that your brain will accept my explanation. I've said it over and over and over and over. SSM is (or soon will be) equal to straight marriage in every respect. That's all we want. We want male-male marriage and female-female marriage to be equal to male-female marriage. That is the core meaning of marriage. A union between two consenting adults, that has legal and societal recognition. There are limitations place on this, of course. People who are related cannot enter into marriage (unless they are first cousins, which is allowed in certain states), and minor are not allowed to marry (however, this has changed throughout history, because in our grandparent's day people could marry as early as 14, maybe even earlier. In today's law that is considered statutory rape. Why did this change? You'd have to research that, because I don't have an answer for you...). So, I have answered it many times over, and it gets tiresome. There is NO distinction between my same sex marriage in October to my parent's marriage of 50 years, other than the fact that they get Federal benefits and I don't (but, hopefully Obama will fix this). Am I clear yet? SSM equal OSM... The core meaning of heterosexual marriage is the same as the core meaning of homosexual marriage.... Stop harping on nomenclature, and get to the "core" issues.... Can you now answer the question I've asked you twice on another thread, PLEASE?
Would you have favored the Brigg's Intitiative when it was up for a vote in CA? It basically banned gay people from teaching in public schools.... Please answer, as this is germane to our argument. I've answer your question more times than I care to count...
To On Lawn (post 46 on my thread, but these seem to change): You just went over my head with the mind reading thing. Sorry... I'm not gettin it...
No, I think you misunderstood me about gay people getting into heterosexual marriages. Just put yourself in a gay person's shoes for a minute, if you can. Imagine growing up, as most of us do, in a world that venerates the heterosexual lifestyle, and indeed adores and worships the union of male and female. We see images of men and women interracting sexually and in a flirtatious manner in about 8 of 10 commericals on TV (don't believe me? Sit and watch some night and count. I've done it many times). Now, how many positive images of same sex couples will you see in this same evening? Let me guess: NONE. That's right, we grow up thinking we are flawed, or worse, we don't exist. That's just a small part of the heterocentricity that we live with. Couple this with the abuse that gay people face on a daily basis, starting from our youngest years in school, and going all the way through till death. OK, are you following me yet? So, imagine growing up with this image of yourself. You are flawed. You are not good enough. You need to change, because you are a sinner, etc.. As you reach adulthood, you are confronted with pressures from your family (often your mother, especially if you are Jewish! which I'm not), pressures from your peers (most of whom are likely straight), pressures from your co-workers, and pressures from society in general to conform and marry an opposite sex person. Given all of this, do you think you'd choose to be gay? I would imagine not. So, throughout history from the beginning of time, homosexuls have masked their true identities. Most often gays were able to hide by getting married to an opposite sex partner. This is called "masking" their true identity. You seem to advocate for that approach. Do you think this is a healthy environment for a child or for the spouse of this gay person, once their true identity is learned? It has been my personal experience that these individuals sneak behind the backs of their spouses (wives, since I'm talking about the many men I've known through the years), and secretly have homosexual relationships, whether they be one time, or on-going relationships. Would you advocate for this? These men live tortured lives because they are not who they pretend to be. In the 1950s the trend was for men like this to remain in their marriages and not create problems for anyone. As divorce became more acceptable, these men often left their wives, and lived openly as gay men. I was not saying that the government should regulate this (how could they?). But, what I am saying is that once SSM becomes a possible legal option, and people stop feeling stigmatized for something they have no control over (one doesn't choose one's sexual orientation. I don't care what your bible told you, it doesn't happen as a choice), then these people will hopefully have the courage (and it takes tremendous courage, self-respect and lots of support of friends/family), to be who they are on the inside and hopefully meet a partner of their dreams and settle down with them. I have to pat myself on the back, because, although I grew up in an extremely hostile environment (when it comes to being gay), I knew I wasn't flawed, and that I would never pretend to be something I wasn't by living a lie. Maybe a time or two I hid the fact that I was gay, or that I had a partner, but I never lived as a heterosexual in order to hide myself. I had girlfriends in high school, but this was inescapable growing up in the midwest with all the pressures we had to fit in...
So, Chairm, do you advocate that gay men marry straight women and have children with them? It seems to me that this is what you are promoting. If so, you are advocating for an inevibility that the children in this family will be harmed. There are no two ways around it. Let's say the gay man decides to remain married, and yet has sex with men behind the back of his wife. Is this a healthy environment for the wife or the children? I would hope your answer would be no... So, just because you can't seem to comprehend that two men or two women can form a marriage, it doesn't that we don't. I can't comprehend myself being married to a woman. it is repugnant to my very being... I would imagine the thought of you having a marriage with a man is equally repugnant, correct? Is that so difficult to understand?
I think that the Catholic Church, for all its failings, has a far more enlightened approach than the Mormon or mainstream Evangelical Churches on the issue of homosexuality. They recognize, quite rightly, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. At the same time, they quote the bible, and say that homosexuality is a sin. The Catholic Church officially recommends that gay people remain celebate, and have no relationships of any kind. They recognize that homosexuals who attempt heterosexual marriages are ruining the lives of many people, and not just their own lives. I know that Mormons would like to force gays into heterosexual marriages, but the damage done by this is irreparable and permanent. I applaud the Catholic Church for at least having the wisdom to realize that sexual orienation cannot and should not be changed. I disagree about living a celibate life, as I think it is pyschologically damaging to live such a life without human sexual contact...
To all of those who disagree with the NOM ideals and views, marriage is between a man and a woman, this is how you came into this world, by God's blessing in a man and a women and making them able to have children, something that can not happen between same sex couples, MARRIAGE was created by God and it is not for same sex.
Dan,
Thanks for explaining the motivation behind neutering marriage and gay pain.
I feel sorry for you, in that you have been promised a world where by neutering marriage every pain you've felt in relation to being gay will go away.
You need to stop and consider two things...
1) People do know and understand your pain though they are not gay. And they are ready to support your freedom of association.
2) You may not yet understand the pain caused by heterosexuals who think their marriages are no more or less responsible than a gay relationship.
This is not a world where heterosexuality is venerated. You have, (in your pain I think) mistaken marriage as "heterosexuality" just as you've mistaken "same-sex" for homosexuality.
And what is worse, you've mistaken marriage (since you simply see it as heterosexuality) as the same thing as homosexuality.
This paradigm is common, Many social studies (well in the doxens) have been produced which equate heterosexual parenting to homosexual parenting. Yet at the same time many studies (into the thousands) have been produced which show that children do best in a low-conflict in-tact family situation. I think this describes the two paradigms pretty well.
They are both comparing against the same (general) group of people. The single-moms with live-in boyfriends, the divorced Dads who carouse every weekend, the co-habiting man and woman who are not married, and the step-families of divorce. Only, one compares favorable to this group, and one compares equally with them.
But this group of heterosexuals are not venerated, though many step-families and single parents are doing the best they can and had no part in the circumstances they are in now, the venerated lifestyle is marriage -- a commitment for life.
Marriage is something much more than you are contemplating. It requires much more commitment, and has much more responsibility. It is an institution where you need to do two things....
1) Love honor and cherish the person you combine with to create children
2) support each other and the children in recognizing their rights that only you can observe.
And that is for the sake of the children, it is easily their best environment and chance at life if you do that.
If you want to equalize things by taking that away, you are robbing children to pay yourself. You are assuaging your gay pain with what will cause more pain in children and the parents who hold to those ideals while the partner believes their relationship is no more accountable than a gay or lesbian relationship.
Dan, marriage unites the sexes.
A relationship type that excludes one sex does not do that.
Marriage provides for responsible procreation -- see the marital presumption of paternity based on the opposite-sex sexual relationship type.
A living arrangement that lacks one of the sexes cannot do that.
So you point at nonmarriage. You say there are no differences when in fact there are core differnces.
You mean you wish that society, through government, will be blind to the core meaning of marriage. That way you can equate, falsely, marriage with your nonmarital idea of issuing marriage licenses.
You emphasize sexual orientation even thought there is no sexual orientation requirement in the marriage law. The man-woman basis is at the core of marriage. You to abolish that.
Do you also want to abolish the marital presumptin of paternity? It seems like you do since you have derided the public/sexual aspect of marriage.
Minus the core of marriage, what do you propose is the justification for any of the lines drawn around marriage?
If there is no core around which the lines are drawn, then, those lines are unsustainable.
Related people, previously married people, and even underaged people are ineligible based on the public/sexual relationship type that you have denigrated for the sake of identity politics.
How those lines are drawn is variable, but not the core. You have offered no core meaning for "marriage" except some vague talk of commitment and love.
That vague stuff does NOT distinguish marriage from arrangements that are ineligible.
That is YOUR problem, Dan, as an advocate of a change in the marriage law. You seek to gut the core but you have nothing nto sustain the lines around the core. So without the core, the lines become arbitrary.
You just went on and on about equality. Yet you also acknowledged that some people are not eligible to marry. But you can offer no good reason for drawing those lines.
Except arbitrary power. That is hypocritical of you, as an SSMer.
By the way, Dan, your complaint about so-called inequality has now been revealed, in your own words, as a complain based on a false equivalence.
This is not merely nomenclature but it goes to the profound problem of your complaint. You are not so much interested in justice but you are obsessessed in the gaycentric view that harps on your obsession "in just use".
You fail on all points to justify the fiction that your false equivalencies amount to an expansion of marriage. You are arguing for the abolition of the the societal significance of marriage as a scial institution.
That's what your many comments boildown to. It is anti-marriage and anti-social.
But stripped of the gaycentric identity politics, the complaint that is left amounts to a call for protection equality for all families outside of marriage.
There are four statuses in the law for arrangements or relationshps. Those which are outlawed due to categorical harms. Those which are tolerated, but not encouraged. Those which are protected, based on certain vulnerablities, but not encuraged. And those which are preferrred, and encouraged, based on core meaning's societal signficance.
I've give you the benefit of the doubt. What is the special societal significance of the core meaning of the relationshp type that you hav ein mind when you say "gay marriage"?
Identify the essentials of that type of relationship, or arrangement, so that it is visible to the Law. Name the legal reqirements that define its core meaning.
I've done it for marriage. You do it for The Homosexual Relationshp type.
As it stands, what you have offered still places that type of relationship in the nonmarital category.
Is there something of great societal significance in arrangements that exclude one or the other sex? Will there be a gay requirement or not? If not, then, that eliminates your own concern about gayness.
Is there something of over-riding importance to society that means eliminating the societal preference for responsible procreation (which unites fatherhood and motherhood)? It must be extraordinary for such a hostile move against marriage.
Will there be a legal requirement that those who SSM will engage in third party procreation? If not, then, your talk about children implodes on itself.
The problems are legion with the circular thinking of SSM argumentation.
You keep making it obvious that you wish to legislate your morality and impose your gaycentric identity politics on all of society. But SSMa rgumentation has derided public morality as insufficient to defend the man-woman basis of marital status in the law.
You can't now depend on the relatively modern tradition of romance since SSM argumentation has derided tradition as insufficient, as well.
You can't invoke social taboo when it comes the drawing lines of eligibility, since SSM argumentation has emphasized destroying one particular social taboo.
You can't breathe new life into a public-sexual aspect that you have derided as irrelevant to marriage.
All you have is the raw arbitrariness of identity politics. You'd have the Government arbitarily issue licenses for a relationshp type that is now defined by the limitations of ... well ... you have not said. You have not given the basic answer to the most basic question of all.
What is marriage? What is gay marriage? Identify the essentials.
Sure, you can deconstruct marriage, in theory, but you haven't put anything in its place. Like I said, that is anti-social and anti-marriage.
You are not fighting for marriag.e You are fighting for something else.
Dan, you have conceded that sexual orientation is not a bar against forming a union of husband and wife. You have conceded that this is an undisputed fact.
But now, in your question to me, you have proposed, dogmatically, that society introduce your emphasis on sexual orientation.
Maybe you would impose a new restriction in the law that tests for sexual orientation where there has been no such intrusion before. Maybe you would not go that far. You tell me.
Your own description of "gay marriage" has removed the gay part and your own assertions about marriage would abolish the public-sexual part.
So why would you still emphasize what you have discarded already?
Seriously, why?
* * *
You want to impose a social taboo that prohibits "mixed orientation marriage" (let's call it that for the sake of discussion). So you are not as inclusive as you pretend to be. You'd promote yet more segregation, this time based on sexual orientation.
In addition, you talk as if you know more about the relationships of these people than they know themselves. Depending on stereotypes is supposed to be oh-so-passe, according to your own SSM argumentation.
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that "gay marriage" is government regualtion of "love" (that's about all you have specified), then, maybe you can explain how that would work in the scenario you asked me about. You can't now resurrect the public-sexual aspect that you discarded earlier.
Maybe this reveals that when you referred to "love" you really used code for same-sex sexual behavior and same-sex sexual attraction. But there are no legal requirements for that. So you have run back to square one with your circular thinking on this subject.
* * *
Protections for nonmarital families would be based on certain vulnerabilities and have zilch to do with rewarding sexual behavior or sexual attraction or ... given your emphasis .. gayness.
Are you prepared to prohibit such families based on the gayness factor -- a factor that is not in the law?
Even if you'd rely solely on a social taboo, why would you be against protection equality?
Why would you hope to exclude two "straight" people from these protections that you are claiming for "gay" people?
And furthermore, why would you presume that I would be repulsed by forming an arrangement like that with another man -- one of my sons, for example, or a brother? Or a good friend? This is not defined by some sexual aspect, as per your own argumentation which discraded such a public meaning.
Dan, I know you are earnest in your claims for "gay marriage", or you would not go on and on like this.
But your thinking is profoundly flawed. Your conjuring up these implicit rules that you refuse to make explicit in the law or anyplace else.
Gaycentric identity politics might serve some public purpose in alleviating particular vulnrabilities experienced by people who self-identify as gay, but attacking marriage for that nonmarriage purpose is unjust and an awful approach to take in influencing society.
You need to reset and recalibrate your thinking, quite frankly. Else, you will be destined to crash and burn when your license to SSM is eventually recognized as just a piece of paper with little, if any, significant meaning. You have offered no core meaning. So that makes it even more tragic, I think, in the sense of a classical Greek tragedy.
* * *
I would promote the reaffirmation of the core meaning of marriage in our culture and in our laws.
Social institutions do influence behavior -- and in the case of marriage it does so in a relatively non-coercive way.
Marriage influences behavior both within it and outside of it. It is given preference for highly significant social concerns about uniting the sexes, providing for responsible procreation, and encouraging the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.
This happens through the culture primarily. The role of the law and government is to support the essentials of marriage when drawing lines around its core meaning.
This means it is of great importance that people understand what marriage entails. They need to provide informed consent when they say "I do" to the unity of husband and wife, to the marital presumption of paternity, and to the non-coercive influence of a foundational social institution.
SSM argumenation derides all of that. It deconstructs the public understanding of marriage that helps people sort out for themselves whether or not they are cut-out for forming an enduring conjugal relationship of man and woman.
If you're trying so hard to keep marriage a holy, eternal thing between a woman and a man, why don't you go on and start making divorce illegal?
I feel that would enhance the quality of my marriage improve significantly.
Forbidding other people to marry so your own marriage will be better - that's a really logical approach.
And hey, while you're at it, you could forbid (insert minority of your choice) to eat chocolate, so your own chocolate eating will not fall off in quality .
Chairm, you talk in circles, and try to skirt the fundamental questions I've asked you.
Can you please, once get off your pulpit, and answer my very simple question? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE?
Do you favor banning gays (aka homosexuals) and lesbians (aka homosexual females) from teaching in public schools? Yes, or No. No speeches and no analyses of what makes a gay, or what makes a lesbian. A simple yes or no will do. Once you answer that question, then we can talk. Until then, I'm through with your nonsense.
I hope you will answer it, but if not, goodbye and good luck with your crusade of hate against people of the homosexual orientation who wish to marry. You are going to lose this fight, and eventually you will live amongst same sex couples who are married and enjoy every right that you take for granted. Whether you can accept it or not is your problem. But, in fact the government will accept it, and that's all that counts, isn't it? You will be helpless to do anything about it. How does that make you feel? Will it end marriage forever? No, it actually will strengthen it, because there will be more people entering into this fine institution, and I, for one, believe in it, and will foster and nurture my own marriage. Your desparation to prevent others from marriage is nothing short than mindboggling. It exhibits an underlying homophobia that you should really get taken care of. Who knows, Chairm could snap some day and go into a gay (that means homosexual) bar and shoot up the place. I wouldn't put it past him. His hatred is that profound...
tch-tch, Dan, it seems your mind reading can now detect brainwashing. I seem to remember a plot like this in "The Second Foundation" by Isaac Asimov. Are you a golden-age science fiction fan also?
But back to the discussion at hand, days ago he denied that the term "identity politics" meant anything at all, and today all it means is someone must be brainwashed.
Okay, maybe instead of lamenting this exit from intelligent adult conversation, I hope I can provide an re-entrance path. Perhaps, Dan, you can tell us which concern is nothing more than a brainwashing, nothing more than an imaginary case of being duped by the Mormons.
1) The concern for equality in marriage being in the quality of representation of each gender in each marriage?
2) The concern for children to be considered as primary stake holders in recognitions of the rights and responsibilities associated with creating them?
3) The undermining of equality that exists when people tragically relate their own stories of intolerance of others (specifically the person they combined to create children with) as if they themselves are the victims (e.g. Identity Politics)?
Lets add this gem to Dan's greatest hits along with the "brainwashing" accusation above...
Can you please, once get off your pulpit, and answer my very simple question? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE?
Do you favor banning gays (aka homosexuals) and lesbians (aka homosexual females) from teaching in public schools?
This discussion does involve marriage, education, and homosexuals. I had no idea that their ability to teach in schools was threatened at all by marriage expecting equal gender representation.
Could you elaborate on that point for us Dan?
Although, I feel i have defined marriage and SSM many times over, Chairn does not accept my definition. I would like to offer you this excerpt from a book entitled: "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell. Unfortunately, my computer does not have a Greek alphabet, so I'll leave Greek words out.
It is nearly impossible to formulate in a precise and generally acceptable way what is meant by "marriage," either by modern speakers or in ancient texts. There can be no single answer to the question, what does marriage mean; each cultrue must seek its own answer. Greek terminology regarding marriage was so fluid that it is nearly impossible to infer the precise nature of a relationship from words alone. (Greek word here) was the most common legal term for a wedding, and by extension for marriage, but as Redfield observes, ":Gamos is the name, in its primary significance, not of a ceremony but of the sexual act itself.... Civil marriage, which is (Greek word), is placed in contrast with the (Greek word) contracted with prostitutes and with the (Greek word)....
It is my understanding (Boswell's) that most modern speakers of English understand the term "marriage" to refer to what the partners expect to be a permanent and exclusive union between two people, which would produce legitimate children if they chose to have children, and which creates mutual rights and responsibilities, legal, economic, and moral, although these vary by couple and juristiction. Certainly a union that entailed no change in rights or responsibilities for either party would not be considered a marriage by most people.
Such a relationship is both more and less than any variety of heterosexual coupling in the ancient world, most of which were property arrangements-except those of concubine and lover; few were based on emotional or affective considerations or hopes.
In this study, "marriage," "matrimony," "nupital," "conjugal," and comparable terms have been applied to premodern couplings according to the definition that would have applied at the time, rather than in their familiar modern meanings. A few exceptions to this, involving a deliberate comparison of ancient and medieval patterns with modern categories, are clealy identified. Because my aim has been in large measure to dtermine whether forms of premodern same-sex couplings consituted "marriages," and since there is no historical reason to suppose they could not-much as personal distates or prejudice (such as On Lawn and Chairm exhibit) might predispose some individuals to believe the contrary- I have on the one hand employed the most general phraseology I could ("union," "coupling," etc.) and on the other not shrunk from applying "marriage" or related terms when it has seemed the most accurate description.
This lengthy book, which took twelve years to write, is illuminating for anyone interested in the history of same sex unions. It will surprise you to find out that same sex unions have been around for a very long time. This phenomenon is by no means a recent development.
I believe Carrie Prejean, is living proof that as a child grows and matures, their idea's of right and wrong, good and bad,. change drastically. When we think of all the sexualization that children are indoctrinated into, it is not hard to understand why they could see nothing wrong with abortion, breast implants, homosexuality and other dangerous behaviors and changes to their bodies, that do affect their decision making and outcomes of their lives. That is why when we grow and become adults, we have something to compare with, what is right and what is wrong. Putting children at risk of sexual assaults and danger, because people claim a right to parade their sexual practices in the public square is quite disgraceful and despicable. The brave new world is nothing more than porn for everyone. No more morals, principals and values weigh the minds of innocent children, because they are victims of political correctness and a society in the toilet.
Boswell wasted twelve years and anyone who spends a few hours to read his ahistorical and unprincipled account will have wasted time better spent. But to each his own, I guess.
Dan I have answered the question you asked about teachers. See one of the other comment sections in which you repeated the question.
Dan you contradict yourself:
1. "against people of the homosexual orientation who wish to marry"
2. “throughout history gay men have married straight women and lesbians have married straight men. ”
3. “Every gay person alive knows someone who was once married to an opposite sex partner”
Then you repeat your dependance on arbitrariness and contradict your own complaint about supposed arbitrariness:
4. "the government will accept it, and that’s all that counts, isn’t it?"
* * *
You said: "more people entering into this fine institution"
What institution is that, Dan, since you seek to replace marriage recognition with recognitin of something else? Please point to the distinctive features of that institution. You know, the essentials that make it different from the range of nonmarital relationship types and the like.
Also, point of fact, the merger of SSM with marriage has not increased the number of huband and wife marriages. In places like Canada and Holland, the participation rates have continued to decline.
Indeed, participation rates in SSM, under whatever name, remain low and declining. If participation rates is important to you argument, Dan, you just just shot yourself in the foot with your latest assertion.
* * *
Careful Dan with your violent rhetoric. You are going way over the line especialy in light of your previous remarks about wishing death on on those with whom you disagree here at the NOM blogsite. Cut back the foolish hyperbole and be more responsible, please.
Yeah, Boswell really crossed the streams there in that book when he started with the premise that any recognized permanent relationship is marriage, and then found many recognized relationship types as marriage. Again garbage in, garbage out.
For instance he concluded that the ceremony between Saints Serge and Saint Baccus had a same-sex marriage. Well, no it was a blood-brothers type ceremony which had social recognition and responsibilities but was definitely not considered marriage at all. It was more a case where people had known about this all along, but it was simply Boswell's newfound eyes of what he felt marriage meant that he could compound the conflation in the first place.
Consider this exchange...
Gamos is the name, in its primary significance, not of a ceremony but of the sexual act itself…
Actually it is more than a recreational sexual act. It is specifically the mating act, which is why even today we still call the male and female organelles "gametes". It is a specifically reproductive or mating element.
Similarly, the fact that Gamos describes marriage to the Greeks imports the core of the meaning to what marriage is. Conjugal is the same, it means a specific act but that it is used to describe marriage gives real context as to what marriage is meant to do. That is somehow lost (or avoided) in Boswell's analysis. Perhaps he only tiptoes up to the fact in "prejudice" of his prejudice or pre-formed conclusion
Also he does have a point in that the purely monogamous committed marriage, or rather the regulatory expectation of it, is not the only kind of marriage we've seen. However, its European roots are in the Germanic tribes (which by pre-Roman constituted a region from Alsace to Slovenia) which pre-dated Roman and Greek influence.
Oddly enough, it was woman's rights or marriage equality which brought about the expectation of commitment in marriage. Women were tired of primarily being abandoned by their husbands to raise the children in a way that compromised their ability to make an adequate wage.
Hence what marriage equality really means in recognizing and supporting each gender in their rights and responsibilities in mating for each marriage.
Is that so wrong that you have to be so anti-marriage equality and redefine it to mean something entirely contrary -- the same-sex union that entirely bans the other gender from the relationship with prejudice?
On Lawn,
One question for you:
Do you have a life?
I mean why this obesession with same sex marriage? Really, why?
As I've stated over and over, it affects MY life, not yours. You will not be impacted in ANY way by my legal recognition of my union. The only possible way I seeing it affecting you is the fact that the government will get fewer tax dollars now that I am married.
You analyze to death on points that are just not interesting nor compelling in the least.
In case you haven't noticed, gay couples have children. Those children need and deserve the protection of the government. Whether those children are produced through artificial insemination or through adoption is a moot point. The point is you advocate harming those children because you don't want their parents to have legal protection. Why is this such a big deal to you? Really, please explain YOUR personal obession with gays and lesbiand gaining marriage equality. Will civilization end once and for all? Will you be prevented from a heterosexual marriage simply because gays can marry? Ask any Canadian if they've seen any difference in their lives as heterosexuals from homosexuals being allowed to marry. I can guarantee you the ordinary Canadian hardly notices any difference. It is you and people such as NOM that have kept this an issue. You are actually doing the gay rights movement a tremendous service by continuing to debate and go on TV and fight it. Young people are learning about gay relationships, and we are on the radar screen as never before. THANK YOU! I can relate a story to illustrate this point. When the Prop 8 folks were on their campaign here in CA they put an ad on TV showing a lesbian couple getting married and the supposedly frightened faces of school children witnessing this wonderful event. I have a friend whose young granddaughter was watching it, and she asked her mother what gay marriage was. The girl told her that these were two women who were in love and were getting married, and that there were "bad" people (her words) who were trying to prevent this from happening. The girl repeated her mother "bad people." This girl would have never had any exposure to gay marriage without the Prop 8 commercial. It gave the mother an opportunity to educate her eight year old daughter about SSM.
All I have left to say is, get a life, get over it, because gay marriage WILL be the law one day. It might take twenty years, but hopefully it won't take as long as it took women to get the right to vote. Just get used to it, because it's here to stay... If you cannot tolerate living amongst us married same sex couples, then there are Islamic countries that might welcome you into their fold.
All in the name of Jesus....
NOM is all about destroying religious liberties. Many Christian churches already marry same-sex loving couples before God, it's only the state that doesn't acknowledge the union. God already has. And many churches do too. NOM wants to tell churches "play it our way or you can't play at all!"
@Rob in post 14
Same-sex couples want the exact same thing you want Rob. A solid family unit that is respected by society as a whole whether they agree with it or not. Also Rob, people don't choose to be gay. People are born within a sexual spectrum that ranges from totally straight, through bisexuality, to totally homosexual. The only choice that is made is does the person accept it and live their life the way they are made to be or do they deny that and try to live a life based on the perceived norm.
@Seculiar Heritic in post 16
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times throughout human history. Even other species have examples of same-sex mated pairs.
Chairm:
"Cut back the foolish hyperbole and be more responsible, please."
Please, please, please, please take your own advice. Otherwise pot kettle black does apply here.
You choose to ignore basic arguments, argue based off of incorrect assumptions, lie if it fits, and argue minute points, believe that you yourself know why marriage was "created" and that is the only true way. And that all of civilization will be destroyed, including marriage, if SSM passes.
Please, please, please take your own advice.
And if you'd like to call me on the "your" hyperbole comment:
You claimed a death threat against an organization.
When an organization dies, it ends. It is more of a metaphor. NOM wants same sex marriage to end, or, "die" in this same context. Perhaps NOM should stop the death threats first? Or perhaps you should cut out the hyperbole and stop being so foolish.
Chairm:
Please explain your concept of integrating the sexes, and why intersexed people(basically, people who are born integrated) should not have the rights of marriage above and beyond those of married people, and why intersexed people should not be the sole people to get married?
Marriage is about a stable, loving, family unit of two, possibly with children. If children were the primary factor, then children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.
Marriage is about the public recognition of such unions(see: Newspaper announcements, Weddings(!), wedding parties, etc). If this were not the case, and the world as cold as you make it, there would be no such thing, it would merely be a contract that is signed, perhaps with a small party to come later, and rarely would a vacation be called for. There is clearly something else being celebrated here... Ah, love.
Joey,
NOM wants to tell churches “play it our way or you can’t play at all!” [...] NOM wants same sex marriage to end, or, “die” in this same context.
Actually there is no supposed control over what churches preach as doctrine contemplated in marriage policy.
No one is assigning police to break up these ceremonies, no one is being arrested for having such a ceremony or teaching that is what marriage is.
But good use of rhetorical excess, none-the-less. Its one thing to ban something, and another to simply not recognize it. I for one am glad that the state does not give carte blanche to religions to state that anything they call a marriage is a marriage. Just as I don't think the state should call anything a religion considers a law to be a law.
Consider the implications then of forcing religions to perform same-sex ceremonies as marriage even though it violates their doctrine. Quite a different item to contemplate altogether.
should not have the rights of marriage above and beyond those of married people, and why intersexed people should not be the sole people to get married?
I'll be happy to field it. I happen to agree. Gays should be able to marry if they want to, and so should lesbians. So tell me, if a gay decides he wants to marry a woman, who will stand in his way? If a lesbian wants to marry a man, who will stand in his way?
Because the government certainly doesn't.
What really is limiting gays from marrying, please explain in full so we can see where this oppression is coming from.
Marriage is about a stable, loving, family unit of two, possibly with children.
Marriage is about encouraging all parties involved in the human act of mating to recognize each other's rights and entitlements to support.
That involves ensuring stability, and mating involves "two" so I won't disagree with you. I just think your statement of what marriage is lacks very critical humanitarian concerns to our society.
If children were the primary factor, then children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.
Children are the primary factor. It is about securing the responsibility for the child before the acts are engaged in that will bring about that child.
Another system where we seek to ensure responsibility for acts which might happen is car insurance. Imagine if they found out that because every primary purpose must be required to be met, that people needed to be required to have car accidents to fulfill the primary purpose of having car insurance.
@6 John -- Death threats? Are you so desperate for any argument that you have to misconstrue what was a reference to an article harbinging the demise of your cause as a death threat? That's pretty pathetic, and argues more in favor of the opposition.
@10 On Lawn -- Your argument reminds me of the pope trying to object to the "blending of gender roles" in contemporary society while trying to avoid appearing sexist and out of touch. Men and women may have biological differences, but we've long since established (if not fully achieved) that they should not have legal or social differences.
Regarding children, it is demonstrated time and again that sometimes a child's biological parents are, in fact, not the ideal candidates to be responsible for their upbringing. Children are frequently born to the destitute, the drug-addicted or the severely insane, and any opportunity that removes these children from dysfunctional households, foster care or institutional care and into loving families is a good thing. There is no actual evidence that children are better served, all other factors being equal, by being in a family of their own blood, or in a family that is comprised of one male and one female.
You also seem to believe that gay marriage would be a counterfeit form of "real marriage". It wouldn't be. There's no rational reason (as much as NOM struggles to search for one) to differentiate between relationships based on the genders of its parts.
In the meantime, your use of the term "humanitarian" seems to be misplaced. NOM has no interest in providing relief from suffering, in fact seeks to discriminate against families that do not conform to its Procrustean standards.
@11 Jack -- Your use of "queer marriage" aside makes you sound as if you'll be climbing the nearest clocktower with a high-powered rifle as soon as gay marriage is legitimized in your area. If you care about your arguments actually being regarded, you might want to stick to "gay marriage" or the more clinical "same-sex marriage." By your argument, though, marriage is already discriminatory, and adding to the number of couples (or groups) that can be wed will only reduce the degree to which it discriminates.
@14 Rob -- I seriously doubt the acceptance of gay marriage in our nation is going to increase the chances that your kids will "decide to become gay" (more accurately, they'll discover they are gay, exactly the way I discovered I was left-handed). The normalization of homosexuality in our nation will increase the chances that you can continue to have an open, communicative relationship with them, should they realize the non-mainstream nature of their sexual orientation.
@16 Secular Heretic -- (I assume you regard yourself heretical to secularism?). The American Anthropological Association disagrees with you, that the contemporary sectarian definitions of marriage: that it must be only between a man and a woman, or women; that polygyny is accepted by some but polyandry is not; are not representative of all functional marriages throughout archeologically unearthed history.
@17 Gerry -- Silence by force? Is argumentum ad baculum that to which you have to resort when confronted with reason? That's pretty fracking desperate. The difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll is that the former follows logic backed by data, and the latter depends on inflammatory comments. It sounds like you suffer from pretty extreme attitude polarization.
@20, 21, 22, etc. Chairm -- Technically, while women are not a physical minority (there are actually more women in the US than men) they remain an oppressed social minority, considering they are still paid lower mean wage compared to their male colleagues. The fact that the pope and the Southern Baptist Convention still insist that wives should "graciously submit" to their husbands doesn't help to narrow this inequality. These examples are the true face of gender segregation, not the normalization of gays (which would not, as you seem to believe, de-normalize straights).
You ask for an explanation of "emphasis on gay identity" yet I haven't seen anyone else use the term on this page except yourself (and me, just now).
I think it would be awesome if there were, as you put it, "just marriage" but DOMA changed that, and now there are differences. If we removed DOMA, we'd be back to just marriage again.
But to answer your question, the public significance of a marriage between a gay couple is exactly the same as that between a heterosexual couple. Marriage is a definition of a trusted partnership. The establishment of a sexual relationship, or the intent to raise children, are seperate entities altogether. So the premise of the lion's share of your argument is based on an erroneous presumption.
This, by the way, answers your request for the "core meaning of a gay marriage" Incidentally, its the precedent set by Turner v. Safley that defines marriage as extraneous to procreation, not just stray opinion. And still gays can reproduce with limited medical assistance. Soon, gays will be able to reproduce with their partners, even, with a touch more medical assistance.
Disagreement is not bigotry, but intolerance is, and activism towards denying rights to a specific sect of the populace is a stronger act of intolerance than the mere expression of an opinion. It's not axiomatic, dude, it's logically derived.
Some of us who pursue equal human rights might be inclined to disparage biblical scripture because it is the sole obstacle to the normalization of gays (or of fringe religions, or of the non-religious, for that matter). The dependence and loyalty to arbitrary mores dictated by (presumed) divine command, rather than derived from reason, has proved to be an impediment to equality at every step.
Joey, I can rely on the anthropological record and historical record for the core meaning of marriage. It is not just my opinion.
Also, it is good that you sense the rules of SSM argumentation are not very constructive. That's the larger point I am making when I use those rules that SSMers use when they attack the centrality of procreation in marriage. If those rules destroy the meaning of "gay marriage", then, SSMers are stuck on stupid for depending on rules that are self-defeating.
Do you agree that there is no core meaning for "gay marriage"? The vague meaning that some have given would fit the vast range of nonmarital types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements. Marriage does have a core meaning.
It is not arbitrary. That stands in sharp contrast with "gay marriage".
It is unreasonable to say that NOM seeks the "death" of SSM. NOM's stated goal is to conserve and strenghten marriage qua marriage.
SSMers seek to abolish from our culture the core meaning of marriage. But I wouldn't call that a death threat.
* * *
Dan said: "Your days are numbered, and you might as well try to desperately muster up support before you are completely dead…"
That is not benign rhetoric. Nor was the later overtly violent remark.
On Lawn: You would support replacing marriage with insurance? As we've seen, marriage is no insurance. Divorce, poverty, etc... all can destroy a marriage.
"Consider the implications then of forcing religions to perform same-sex ceremonies as marriage even though it violates their doctrine. Quite a different item to contemplate altogether."
I disagree, but your use of rhetoric here is well played as well. It's not that "this simply doesn't exist" it's that a church doctrine of marriage is being banned. And yes, police have in fact been used.
"What really is limiting gays from marrying, please explain in full so we can see where this oppression is coming from."
This has been said many times. The oppression here(your word) is based in love and a desire to provide a stable family unit. A gay man cannot marry who he loves, even if he can marry a woman. And vice-versa. That is where the oppression(your word) is coming from.
I am all for not forcing churches to do something they do not wish to do, several have refused to marry anybody until marriage under God can be seen equally by the government, instead of giving preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples who love each other, children or not, sterile or not.
That is where it is coming from.
"So tell me, if a gay decides he wants to marry a woman, who will stand in his way? If a lesbian wants to marry a man, who will stand in his way?"
Are you really bringing this "argument" back up? Again and again, time after time. There is an aspect of love. Forgive me for disagreeing with you but children should not be raised in a hateful home, physical violent abuse typically occurs. As does sexual abuse, and divorce becomes inevitable.
Vast,
Same-sex couples want the exact same thing you want Rob.
I believe they want some of the same entitlements, but they don't want the same thing that people who commit to marriage want.
I committed to my wife because I realized that she was more deserving of my love than anyone else in the world, as the mother of my children.
I committed to marriage because my children deserved it.
I committed to my wife because she deserved to not be stranded by the wayside with the responsibilities of the children unequally.
I committed to marriage because my children deserve to know their heritage, the heritage we both share. It is a great heritage full of unique capacity and its own skeletons that I am in a unique position to school them in.
I am committed to marriage because I know my children share their identity with me and my wife. And they relate to both, and my best gift to them is to show how much I value that identity with commitment and selfless giving to my wife.
I believe same-sex couples have many noble qualities they share with me in providing mutual support, and they should be recognized. But the true model that they are basing it on is only complete and fully recognizable in the triad of concern for spouse and children you have with that spouse. It is moored into our common humanity and the practice of mating. A moore that same-sex couples need to, but would eradicate in flattening the differences in concerns between the two couples.
Chairm: I think you'll find marriage was a way to control women, not for children at that point, and much of the rest of your argument does fall apart.
A "core meaning" of gay marriage is the same as the "core meaning" of heterosexual marriage is. And that is when two people in love wish to form a bond, with witnesses, and protections. This could be the future for a family, or it may not be. This is the same for heterosexual marriage as it is for gay marriage.
The core meaning for heterosexual marriage could also fit a wide variety of living arrangements and nonmarital agreements. The difference is the love and the desire to have witnesses see a deep commitment. Again, if this were not the case a wedding would be laughed out of marriage in a heartbeat.
I disagree, NOM seeks the death of SSM and the SSM movement. If Dan's original argument was a death threat, NOM is more than guilty of that. "Your days are numbered" is easily a reference to the polls and the growing acceptance of marriage.
Joey,
You would support replacing marriage with insurance?
I think you misunderstand. Marriage and insurance seek to assign responsibility to citizens for the actions they cause. That doesn't mean they are interchangeable, except perhaps in displaying why the presumption that one has to have a child or an accident to justify the purpose of the institution
It’s not that “this simply doesn’t exist” it’s that a church doctrine of marriage is being banned. And yes, police have in fact been used.
I'm calling your bluff. Same sex ceremonies have existed well into the 70's with no contemplation of police action to ban the 'doctrine'.
A gay man cannot marry who he loves, even if he can marry a woman.
[...]
Forgive me for disagreeing with you but children should not be raised in a hateful home, physical violent abuse typically occurs. As does sexual abuse, and divorce becomes inevitable.
So you are saying that a gay man cannot love, honor, and cherish a woman in any meaningfully marital way? It causes violence?
Please explain further.
NOM should either allow comments from all readers (provided they're not indecent) or close comments on blog posts completely. If NOM is so confident in it's position than it should have no issue with posing comments that present arguments against it.
A “core meaning” of gay marriage is the same as the “core meaning” of heterosexual marriage is.
Please review my recent comment to Vast. I wish it were the case, and I see many noble causes behind their relationships. But alas if they wanted the same thing, they would do the same thing. In choosing someone of the same gender, they aren't even trying to mate.
Joey said: "why intersexed people(basically, people who are born integrated) should not have the rights of marriage above and beyond those of married people, and why intersexed people should not be the sole people to get married?"
Hang on.
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that an individual is integrated, as you just said, due to being "intersexed".
Then that person does not need a social institution to do what is done at birth.
Marriage unites the two distinct sexes of humankind. This social integration is a social construct, and not something that is done to the individual at birth.
Fatherhood and Motherhood are united in marriage. That is the main example of this integration. It takes place before a child is born; it continues during gestation and long after birth. That's the aspiration of marriage, a social institution, even if individuals fall short sometimes.
SSMers usually reveal an absolutist approach to marriage law when they deride the centrality of responsible procreation and sex integration.
But when that same absolutist approach is turned on "gay marriage" they cry foul.
Excluding one sex does not provide equality of the sexes within the arrangement.
Dividing fatherhood and motherhood in an arrangement does not provide for responsible procreation. That is so no matter the sexual orientation of the adults.
A sad and tragic example of this is found in the nonmarital trends that have been increasing these past decades.
The contributing factors that are measurable? Divorce. Out-of-wedlock childbearing. More people postponing or eschewing marriage. These are related to social pathologies in every society that experiences rapid increases -- or a steady high plateau -- in nonmarital trends. With this we see more sex segregation and less responsible procreation. Social cohesion declines and Government intrusions become deeper and more widespread.
An example that is glaring: some places have enacted statutory provisons for unwed presumption of paternity. Very intrusive. And the reliability of such a presumption is far lower outside of marriage than within marriage.
On Lawn, in responding to Vast, you again leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt. Your point falls apart.
In fact, traditional marriage, is about the support you list in your first paragraph on why.
"I committed to my wife because I realized that she was more deserving of my love than anyone else in the world, as the mother of my children."
If you remove "the mother of my children"
For example, take some traditional wedding vows:
"I promise you my deepest love, my fullest devotion, my tenderest care."
Do you ____ take ____ to be your wife Do you promise to love her, comfort her in sickness and in health. Forsaking all others for as long as you both shall live?
Many wedding vows and ceremonies do not mention children at all, and those that do are typically quite recent.
If you married someone because they are the mother of your children, did you have children before hand? Would you then not support children requirement to marry?
If you merely planned, did you have her tested for sterility? Were you? Would you have divorced her if she was unable to carry children?
--
Forgive me, it's hard to take a personal standpoint that you have made and not make any rebuttal seem personal. In truth I wish the best for you and yours and for all your children. I am both happy that you have been able to have children(even if we disagree here) and happy that you have stayed together (both for your children and for each other). It is hard for a rebuttal to not be personal, and I do not wish any ill tidings to you and your family, but merely pointing out some differences in traditional christian weddings, vows, and what you claim marriage to completely encompass. I disagree children are a requirement of marriage, and many gay couples do adopt, married(in states where it is legal or under the eyes of God and before witnesses or not).
Chairm: I believe we are at a disagreement. I do not agree that marriage is for a primary purpose of procreation, nor do I believe a mother and father are required to raise children.
If you believe it is, and an individual falls short sometimes(such as sterility) should the other one marry someone else? Even this is not in traditional Christian marriage(where divorce is not allowed).
I also disagree that marriage is also for the primary "integration of the sexes" for social reasons. Many living arrangements and nonmarital agreements could handle this. Weddings would be laughed out. It would merely be a "he must live with she" and there would be little to no connection.
I would also point out that if one man and one woman are to be representatives for the entirety of their gender in marriage, then even minor differences in personalities on either side cause this to fail miserably. I believe a town or city provides a better social cohesion for what you are looking for(integration of the sexes) while also providing some other things(integration of age/race/personalities/quirks/sports preferences/shopping preferences) all of which are represented in marriage but in too small of a unit to be any use to society.
Joey said: " marriage was a way to control women, not for children at that point"
At what point?
Joey said: "The difference is the love and the desire to have witnesses see a deep commitment."
What kind of love? Is there a legal requirement?
I think you are using "love" euphemistically.
Sure, love is important in human affairs, including the relationship of husband and wife, but your being so vague as to render the law meaningless.
A man may have a deep commitment based on love with his siblings, his adult children, his close friends, and yet his relationship with his wife is distinctive -- culturally, socially, and in the law as well.
Joey said: "If children were the primary factor, then children would be a requirement instead of something to come later."
Well, in some cultures a marriage is publicly binding when children are born of the man and wife.
But what you are proposing is that the Government require premarital sexual relations and premarital childbearing. That pattern has shown itself to undermine marriages and the marriage culture. You have things upside down, Joey.
In fact, your rhetoric is rapidly moving toward radical extremism.
Joey said: "leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt"
You have now invoked the special rules of SSM argumentation. Your assertions about "gay marriage" are now clearly subject to your own stated standards.
Do you agree?
On Lawn, in responding to Vast, you again leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt. Your point falls apart.
Adopting a child isn't a marriage. It is the outcome of people who couldn't (for whatever reason) fulfill the promises of their own marriage.
Also for sterile couples, that is a disability. Is homosexuality a disability too? I mean if we allow sterile couples to marry because we like to support people obtaining everything they can in spite of a disability, are you going to put homosexuals in that same line for the same consideration?
Come to think of it, when you say that ...
.. it certainly sounds like you are claiming a disability for them. Is that so?
And Joey, rest assured if I really thought that marriage would exist unaltered as a same-sex and other-sex enterprise I wouldn't be in this. I have nothing against committed homosexual relationships that want to be recognized for their mutual trust and commitment. I have nothing against a mother-daughter pair who want the same either.
But marriage is something more. And for all of the ways you slice and dice marriage ignoring its angle of responsible procreation, you are simply ignoring it rather than proving it doesn't exist.
Chairm:
Medieval times, and before, marriage was to control a woman. Biblical times as well.
No, there is no legal requirement for love anymore. That is what was provided by the church and ceremony. The deep commitment, under the eyes of God, before family and friends(witnesses).
At a time there was a legal requirement for love(married in a church only). Currently there is none, for heterosexual or same sex couples.
The law is nearly rendered meaningless in the way it is now.
"A man may have a deep commitment based on love with his siblings, his adult children, his close friends, and yet his relationship with his wife is distinctive — culturally, socially, and in the law as well."
Yes, but the love of his wife is a choosing he partakes, and a love deeper than the others. Culturally, socially this would apply to same sex marriage. I do say if a man loves his wife as he loves his brother or close friend, then perhaps that is not the right woman.
I'm afraid sterility tests are still a simple move, what you are proposing is the government would divorce anyone who is incapable of producing children, as children are a primary motivator for marriage, no? I believe it is not I who has it upside down(in fact, I was merely pointing that out, rather than demanding it) but you who have it mistaken. I think that is one place we are far different.
I'm sorry if my rhetoric is upsetting you, but I do believe it is only radical extremism from your point of view, rather than anything else. When I was growing up we were taught that when two people love each other very very much they get married. Children were not involved in that(in fact, we were merely children at the time).
Joey said: "I do not agree that marriage is for a primary purpose of procreation, nor do I believe a mother and father are required to raise children."
I said responsible procreation. The provisoin for responsible procreation. And I said it is combined with sex integration. You can disagree all you like but these are among the universal features of the social institution of marriage.
Now, do you agree that marriage is a foundational social institution of civilization? If yes, what would make it so, in your view?
* * *
Joey said: "Many living arrangements and nonmarital agreements could handle this [sex integration]."
Again, you have invoked a special rule of SSM argumentation. Your view of "gay marriage" is subject to this stated standard.
Do you agree?
Chairm:
"Joey said: “leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt”
You have now invoked the special rules of SSM argumentation. Your assertions about “gay marriage” are now clearly subject to your own stated standards.
Do you agree?"
No, in fact, I disagree. I am pointing out the logical conclusion of what you are proposing with your definition of marriage. I believe marriage is a loving commitment between two people where you disagree, by adding to that "who will have children."
You are reinterpreting what I have written.
On Lawn: I still disagree that it is for the primary purpose of "responsible procreation." I believe it provides a valid vessel for that, as well as for raising a family via adoption or other means. I believe you are taking the purpose to a more extremist point than what it is intended for.
Joey said: "The law is nearly rendered meaningless in the way it is now."
Is meaningless in the marriage law a good or a bad thing, do you think?
Joey said: "the love of his wife is a choosing he partakes, and a love deeper than the others"
Well that is your sentimental view, of course, but the law is not sentimental. A man can choose to love his siblings, his adult children, his close friends. Deeply or not. As deeply as he does his wife but in a different way perhaps.
You said love distinguished marriage and now you say something even more vague about love. It is a problem for SSM argumentation to depend on such subjectivity that is boundless.
* * *
Joey said: " the government would divorce anyone who is incapable of producing children"
This is another invocation of a speciala pro-SSM rule of argumentation. This stated standard is applicable to your view of "gay marriage". Do you agree?
Chairm:
"Again, you have invoked a special rule of SSM argumentation. Your view of “gay marriage” is subject to this stated standard.
Do you agree?"
Again, you have reinterpreted, misled, and taken out of context. It merely points out something that you have missed and taken it to mean something I vehemently stand for, which is incorrect.
Do you agree?
But yes, the integration of the sexes exists just fine in civilization without marriage. In fact, I dispute that marriage is capable of handling this, and I dispute that it has.
Joey said: " if my rhetoric is upsetting you"
Heh. Not upsetting, Joey. It takes a great deal more than that to upset me, really.
I observed your rhetoric becoming increasing radical. And your subsequent remarks have borne that out.
I'm off for some supper and entertainment. I'll check back later to see about those stated standards of yours.
Joey, if your stated standards are shifty and do not apply to "gay marriage" then the jig is up before we even got started.
I'll specify the special rules you have invoked when I come back later.
Chairm: "Well that is your sentimental view, of course, but the law is not sentimental. "
I disagree, the law is sentimental by providing marriage without children, and for providing marriage with children.
Yes, deeply in a different way, a commitment of stability for a family unit.
The problem with arguing simply "with the existing law" is that you can use your rhetoric back at people, claiming things are vague and what not.
I have specified that the people need to make a loving commitment, with deep love, in front of friends and family to each other. Siblings, brothers, do not do this. Because you decide that "all love must be vague" you are using a "special rule" here.
"Joey said: ” the government would divorce anyone who is incapable of producing children”
This is another invocation of a speciala pro-SSM rule of argumentation. This stated standard is applicable to your view of “gay marriage”. Do you agree?"
I do not believe I have gotten more vague about love. Do you not believe that between a husband and wife there is a different kind of love than siblings, friends, parents? Do you not believe that it is something to be cherished? That is the love I am speaking about. If you are incapable of feeling it I truly feel sorry for you. That is the love that is enshrined in marriage.
Again, I am asking if you agree. You are using the special rules here I'm afraid. I'm stating this is the logical conclusion of your argument. I do not agree, as I do not agree with many of your arguments.
Chairm:
"Joey, if your stated standards are shifty and do not apply to “gay marriage” then the jig is up before we even got started."
These are your standards, from the logical conclusion of your argument. I'm sorry you see me pointing out the logical conclusions of your argument as mine being "shifty" but perhaps you need to do some learning and some thinking.
These are your unstated standards, even if you refuse to admit them. You are using special rules here.
If marriage is all about children as you state it is, I think we both agree that divorce should be automatic if children are impossible, and sterile poeple should not be able to get married. I am pointing out what you agree with, even if you refuse to comment.
I believe marriage is a sacred commitment between two people.
The jig is not up, you are just ignoring things I say so that you can say the jig is up. Perhaps, the jig is up, but for you. Marriage isn't about children but it is? People who can't have children should be able to be married but also shouldn't?
In fact, I do believe the jig is up, and as they say, "gotcha."
On Lawn:
"So you are saying that a gay man cannot love, honor, and cherish a woman in any meaningfully marital way? It causes violence?
Please explain further."
Nope, you have used one of Chairm's "special rules" and completely misread. I am saying that removing love and respect from marriage altogether can cause violence. I am not saying a gay person cannot love a woman in a certain way, but not a marital way. And if that is your definition of marital love, I do believe you need to find a deeper connection with your wife. However, I do not believe that is the case, I believe you are trying to mislead.
On Lawn: I guess you differ from Chairm here, where it is no longer a "preferential treatment" but an "equal treatment" with your disability argument?
If you do believe it is about equality, and allowing those who can not obtain it for one reason or another (disability or not), then are you for gay marriage then?
Or do you believe it is about equal treatment, but not for gay couples, and that is the truth coming out?
On Lawn:
Oh, and thank you for the reaching out despite our differences with this:
"And Joey, rest assured if I really thought that marriage would exist unaltered as a same-sex and other-sex enterprise I wouldn’t be in this. I have nothing against committed homosexual relationships that want to be recognized for their mutual trust and commitment. I have nothing against a mother-daughter pair who want the same either."
I do not believe it would affect opposite-sex marriage, and that is where we disagree. But the respect you show is quite honorable.
Despite our differences and disagreements I do wish the best for you and yours, and hope that any accidental personal attack is not seen as such, these debates can be so taxing.
Just wanted to say thanks, not to confuse you or stop you from replying to anything else I've said, just as an aside acknowledging and thanking.
Chairm: I wonder, for all times you said, "Do you agree?" I ask, do you? It is the logical conclusion of your statement, special rules or not, used by me or you, I do want to know. If that is what marriage is about and ends up being if all of this is ever "said and done" then yes, I agree. It is not what I believe marriage is, so I do not agree. But if marriage is what you say it is, I do agree. The problems are our fundamental disagreement in what marriage truly is.
@On Lawn in post 74
I want to be able to get married for many of those same reasons. My partner and I have been together for 11 years. We are a loving and committed couple. While we may not be able to have kids together biologically we could certainly adopt. Having a strong committed relationship bound in marriage would be the best way to raise that child. Same sex couples are just as capable of raising children and do so just as well as heterosexual couples. The only difference is in the biology. It's not all about biology. If it was then there would laws against single parents.
Chairm: Sorry for the followup, however, please read my last post.
I do believe your "special rules" will be a "if you say it then it must apply to gay marriages as well" hypothetical. If this is the case, my last post should help you understand what is going on pretty easily as well as provide you with my answer.
Hypotheticals are what is required, and turning the quesiton back around and claiming some "rule" neither dismisses the point, nor eliminates it. Nor is it a double standard. If marriage becomes solely about childbearing then yes, those things need to be put into effect. If that is not true, they would not be put into effect, and you may disagree with them.
The reason those are brought up are to determine what exactly you believe marriage to be and how radical you are about it, not some artificial constraint I want put on it for only heterosexual marriages.
Because I believe marriage is very different from what you believe it is, there is no reason for those. And thusly, for my definition of marriage, I do not want it to be, for yours, I do think it would be required, and I do believe you support it even if you claim you do not, as it is the logical end of your point.. As you say, "the law is not sentimental" or is it?
I'm afraid the "here is the rule easy dismissal" doesn't quite work in practice. :/
@Vast 98: 100% with you there. These people's reasons against seem to be constantly moving targets. It's not about children, not about families, not about commitments, it's about fear, that's all they are trying to spread it seems, while hiding under the guise of being for "traditional" values.
It's all about preferential treatment, calling it a choice, claiming it's wrong, all of which has been disappearing with more people in the open showing that there is nothing to fear and nothing is wrong with it. Desperately trying to cling on to reasons to keep it separate.
Even one of the board members(?) or other position in NOM wants homosexuality re-criminalized.
What seems to be missing here is that homosexual, heterosexual what is that, we are all children of the God most High, He Has Created Life, and marriage is also His Creation. Did He not make a Man, Did He not make a woman, Did He not say What God has brought together let no Man put asunder? All humans have gifts and talents created by God. Humans are the highest form of life, God gave us domination over the earth. God is The Creator of All things, and all things work for Good in God's Order. God's Law is His and His alone. Be mindful and seek his mercy and His Grace, because He Loves us and we are His Children.
Chairm, You say that some invoke a "special rule of SSM argumentation". Do tell, what special rule is that? The presumption that gays should be social equals to straights, or that gay couples should be legally equal to straight couples? Without that presumption are straight couples not given special treatment?
To what "anthropological record and historical record" do you refer to affirm your "core meaning" of marriage. As I mentioned before, the American Anthropological Association seems to have a more diverse idea regarding the meaning of marriage, and the role of marriage in society. That said, exactly how do SSMers seek to abolish from our culture the core meaning of marriage
And by "SSMers", I assume you mean those of us who are proponents of gay marriage, including those of us who regard gay rights as a subset of equal human rights. You seem to like to categorize us into a set as if we could be corralled into a single-minded pen. If you must, then, I'd prefer if you go ahead and refer to us in the largest of those sets as "human rights advocates," thank you, as we have already extended you the courtesy of not pigeonholing opponents to gay marriage as "exclusionists." or "wingnuts."
Not that I would expect you to give two rats' whiskers, but sex is not exactly as clear cut, emotionally or biologically, as XX and XY, hence the idea that marriage is meant to "unites the two distinct sexes of humankind" is absurd, unless your intent is to exclude everyone who doesn't fit into your idyllic mold of what people, families and communities should be. Gay marriage is only the first step towards inclusion and normalization of many kinds of individuals, to date restricted by your ilk to the fringes, into the mid-ranges of society. These are not people who choose to be nonconformist because it is fashionable, but who are intrinsically different.
It was only during the twentieth century that marriage for love became an ideal, once the industrial age removed enough of the populace from their agrarian roots. Before that, almost all marriages were arranged (exceptions mostly being in the basest salt of the earth serfs, when few cared). Children were welcomed regardless of their paternity due to a continuous labor shortage and their brutal mortality rate. Furthermore, the nuclear family, also a product of industrial urbanization, became only an accepted family model in the late 20th century, based on the media at the time. (Contemporary anthropology suggests children are meant to have a tribe of adults as models, not just mom and dad.) So the issue of paternity for anyone other than nobility is a rather new development.
On Lawn, your diatribe on your commitment to your wife, while, perhaps, intended to be endearing, does imply you believe you can be more committed to your wife and children than a gay man can be to his spouse and children. To me that seems outright narcissistic, and derisive of families headed by gay couples. All things being equal, a family with the same number of children, a couple who are emotionally devoted to each other, and so on, what is to say your family is better, or deserves preferred treatment just because the other family is headed by two women (who are also committed, devoted and in love with each other) rather than you and your wife?
In the end, the Equal Protection clause of constitutions will make same-sex marriage legal in all the states. You can delay it, you can keep making the process painful for everyone involved... but you can't stop it.
All you're doing is prolonging the pain and suffering of people who just want to enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. You, NOM, are the ones playing "identity politics" by trying to keep them separate from you, keeping yourself identified as Something Apart from these people you consider unclean, immoral outcasts.
They just want to come home. To be PART of society, and not pushed out to the fringes like unwanted lepers.
Let them in. Even if it means the downfall of civilization, even if it means "redefining marriage..." set your righteous indignation aside, open your heart and let them come home.
Amen brothers Joey and Vast! Keep up the good fight.
We've been waiting for an explanation of how a doctor's fertility treatment has anything to do with SSM or religious freedoms. She can still worship as she pleases. Does this also mean the doctor would not treat a Jewish person if she happens to be Christian? Are her beliefs compromised for giving medical treatment to people of different faiths? It's balderdash...
And, gay marriage won't change the fact that gay couples have families (whether married or not), and they go to school, and deserve to have their families discussed at school. SSM has NO impact on what is taught in public schools. It should be left out of this discussion.
So, NOM, what are your core arguments, considering you fail at convincing anybody with your failed logic and nonsensical fear tactics? You are the butt of jokes on youtube, just in case you weren't aware of it, there are dozens of parodies of your lame commercial. The most important demographic group (people under 30) you should be reaching with your message of fear is laughing at you, not with you...
I just read through this thread and realized that NOM equates marriage with procreation and nothing more (at least Chairm does and On Lawn as well). So, I think they should find another institution for this, rather than hijack marriage. How about getting "procreation" licenses? When we were married, the vows we took made no mention of children whatsoever, and I've never been to a wedding where this was the case. Has anyone out there heard a reference to procreation during a wedding ceremony?
The vows we took were an agreement between the two of us. Now, perhaps you can make an argument saying that it is "understood" that children are a part of marriage, but, in fact this is not explicitly stated in any wedding vows I know of...
Can someone clarify this point? Why is there no mention of procreation at weddings, if this is the core purpose of marriage?
There's apparently at least two types of equal in this discussion?
One equality described as, "Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences."
The other is described as, "I cannot fully love someone of the other gender so the government needs to change its institution to accept my discrimination against them."
Children place a real value and importance on their parentage. They learn real value from seeing the parents they identify with showing each other the true value of their identities in currency of commitment, love and support.
I'm not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I'm just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres?
And when you answer that question, you find that this isn't a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender's participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
I'm perfectly aware that to teach the value of responsible procreation and equal gender representation to certain segments of society is about as fruitful as teaching slave owners the humanitarian problems of slavery. Their lives and very identities they have built for themselves are based on the ability to recognize their own needs, but not others.
I just read through this thread and realized that NOM equates marriage with procreation and nothing more
So disjointed and misconstrued, Dan. For someone who claims to be misunderstood a lot, you sure don't take much time to understand others.
To sum up for your sake and others...
1. Marriage is institution of human mating.
2. The citizens, using the agency of government, are best served having laws that explicitly focus marriage to encourage those engaged in the human mating practice to recognize the rights and responsibilities of all involved in said practice.
I think the arguments raised here for considering the homosexual arguments are valid -- for setting up a program to respect their mutual assignment of trust.
I don't see the reason to remove what marriage has when a better more focused program based on mutual trust can help gays as well as "marriage" without the downside, and can even be used to help any two people not just gays.
Hmmm, Ms. Carrie Prejean has some Skeletons in HER Closet, such a shame for someone so young.
Sourpuss Maggie Srivastav (Gallagher) has goofed again.
Carrie has pictures here:
http://thedirty.com/?p=157850
Carrie has got some explaining to do...
Will NOM put up a new commercial?
On Lawn,
Clearly we disagree about the core, fundamental meaning of marriage. In my view, and the view of some people, marriage is not about mating and never has been primarily for that. No, marriage and mating are two separate topics. I will use another personal example. My sister and her husband decided early in their marriage that they would not have children. For ten years they believed that there were too many people on the planet already and they would do the "right" thing (in their view) and not procreate. I was very proud of them for this stance, because I happened to agree them. Surprisingly, my parents, whose only option for grandchildren was them (at the time I was too young to consider having a child, even if I were straight), did not pressure them in any way, and stood by their decision. For some unknown reason, ten years later they decided to have one child (and one child only). They had always felt that people who have many children (more than two) are selfish, and are doing the world more harm than good by bringing in so many more people to our planet. This could have been because my brother-in-law was from a large family of ten children, and he saw the harm this did to himself, and the tremendous burden it placed on his already economically challenged parents.
So, are you saying to me that because the did not agree with your "core" meaning of marriage (in other words, it's primary function is procreation), that they were not fulfilling their promise to procreate? I find that offensive, frankly. People who don't procreate are doing us all a favor. The Dalai Lama said as much in a PBS show I saw just an hour ago. He said that there are too many of us here for us to be comfortable. Don't forget he lives in one of the most crowded countries on earth, India... So, even if I were to accept your "core" meaning of marriage as procreation, I would be on a campaign to redefine marriage, so that people would not feel "compelled" to procreate. Gays will save the planet, yet...!
I'm sorry if this has been answered in a straightforward way already, there are many posts here and it's 3 am and I'm going cross eyed trying to read them all. Telling me that I am about to invoke some "special cases" here is not good enough, because I have no clue what those special cases are.
I want clear, straight forward reasons as to why these people can get married, when your definition of marriage includes children:
1. Elderly heterosexual couples who can't have kids anymore.
2. Infertile heterosexual couples.
3. Heterosexual couples who simply do not want children.
So marriage is riddled with these "special cases" that are never going to meet your "core" meaning of marriage.
Yet you're going to exclude homosexual couples who CAN have children that are biologically one of theirs, or can adopt a child, and CAN very much form a family that is good for the children.
In browsing through the thread I came across some interesting points;
On Lawn you said that when a homosexual can not fully love a person of the opposite sex they are "discriminating" against them. So when someone can not fully love someone of the same sex they are discriminating against them too?
I've seen it brought up far too many times that gay people can get married to the opposite sex, yet I've seen NO concern for the person that they are married to. Do you really advocate doing that to someone? I think that it completely unfair to the partner.
And inter sexed people have been brought up as well, but I don't think it's been asked, according to you, what gender are they suppose to marry? Or, are they also not allowed to marry?
When a society allows the meaning and the characteristics of marriage to be lessened and changed, then we are headed on that slippery slope, full speed ahead with no return.Because of the breakdown of it's foundation, it is subject to all types of abuse. Our Lawmakers and courts believe that they are helping society, just as when they told both parents they could work and have bigger cars, better houses and vacations. But the breakdown of the family unit, was the result , Children became latch key kid's, parents bought items for children instead of giving children, direction and discipline. Children had to grow fast, so they lacked the skilled parents that learn and grow as a result of direct parenting. Society took on an approach of village mentality, the sharing of parental duties and then left them up to the educational institutions. These schools quickly became overwhelmed and the cycle of push the kid's become adult burdened, leaving their childhood and growing stages completely out of the picture.The children were cheated out of their developmental stages and push into many adult issues and concerns, without proper instruction, time to grow and mature. Children were hung out to dry, being put on drugs and going trough life with adults that were interested in silencing their needs. Now they attempt to silence them at schools with indoctrinations, programs to replace parental responsibilities and rights. Our children are being pushed through a system, and that is NOT PERSONAL FREEDOM, NOR RESPONSIBILITY.
You've got it all wrong Dan. Marriage is about children. Some are unable to have them but overall the whole concept of a committed husband and wife provides the ideal situation to raise children.
The purpose of intercourse is to have children and unite the spouses. Marriage provides a foundation for responsible procreation.
This is what marriage is Dan. Same sex unions can never be marriages because sexual intimacy is always sterile and only ever involves one sex.
They're right. We should protect religious freedom.
As such, those people whose religion freedom allows them to get marriage to a same-sex partner should do so.
This is the problem with arguments such as what NOM puts out. They say things that, on the face, seem perfectly reasonable (such as demanding religious freedom). But, then, you look and you notice that they want to prevent others from having their freedom.
Carrie should have the right to not get married to a woman. But why should another women be prevented, on the grounds of HER religious freedom, to get married?
Secular Heritic:
If that was the case (that marriage is about children), then shouldn't we nullify any heterosexual marriage that doesn't produce children? There are plenty of people that can't or won't have children, yet are granted marriages. Why?
How much money and effort has NOM put forth to fight heterosexual marriages without children? The answer is 0, which means that their mission isn't about enforcing marriage as a child-rearing institution. It's about gays and only gays.
Once NOM starts putting money towards getting rid of childless heterosexual marriages, I'll buy your argument.
So, NOM: when are we going to see a glitzy and expensive ad that condemns married couples that choose not to have children? When are you going to call for a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as including at least one child? When are you going to put on your website a public condemnation to anyone that's married and has no kids?
For some reason it seems that many have no real understanding of the real history of marriage.
Here a few sites that have some decent information on the subject.
www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
(obviously wikipedia isn’t the best source but there are links to several better sources in the notes section.)
Chairm...are you gay?..lesbian?...
Marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman - you don't change God's law.
Secular Heritic, you once again got it totally wrong. Marriage is NOT about procreation. Have you ever attended a wedding where the vows mention procreation or children? Are people allowed to be parents without being married? Are married people allowed to choose not to have children? If so, it blows your argument out of the water. Children are irrelevant to marriage. No wonder your tiny brain can't comprehend same sex marriage. Now, there are probably people who view this differently from me, and still approve of SSM. That's fine, this is merely my opinion. Marriage and procreation are two entirely different topics and should not be confused or mixed. There are plenty of heterosexual married couples who have no intention of breeding. If this isn't proof of my point, then I don't know what to tell you to make you believe me.
I'd like to address what this thread is supposed to be about. Can someone please explain to me how religious liberty is threatened by the two examples that NOM provides in their ads? As of yet, I have not been able to see any connect to religious liberty and the claims in their brilliant "Gathering Storm" ad.
How is a doctor's religious liberty impacted by her dilemma of giving fertility treatment to a lesbian patient? First of all, there is no mention of the marital status of the lesbian, and this is germane to the topic at hand, which is SSM, need I remind you? The woman's marital status is complely unrelated to her request for fertility treatment, so this should have no part in the commercial, since it is unrelated to marriage. Secondly, let's say we buy the argument that the doctor's cannot give fertility treatment because it violates her personal religious beliefs. If this is so, I thought that the aspect of religious freedom meant that ALL of us have religious freedom to believe as we wish, not the doctor imposing her beliefs on others. Isn't the point of Christianity that you accept Jesus as your personal savior? That means you do not project this belief onto others, right? So, how is it a violation of her beliefs to participate in infertility treatments of another individual. The doctor is not doing anything to herself, she is performing a proceedure on someone else. Meaning it really isn't about the doctor to begin with. Lame, lame...
Now, as for the New Jersey religious liberty claim. The Chairm of this blog has admitted previously that the lesbians who wanted to use the church pavilion were refused this because the pavilion was for recreational or conservation purposes only. Their commitment ceremony (not marriage) was for non-recreational purposes, and thus did not fit the criteria for useage of the facility. Therefore they were denied the use of it. Now, the mysterious part is how did the lesbians view this as a case of discrimination? This is what I don't understand, and maybe someone else has an answer. But, it is a giant leap for NOM to accuse the lesbians of attempting to interfere with religious liberty, when this case had to do with recreational versus non-recreational purposes. Furthermore, it is mindboggling that they could associate this with gay marriage or religious freedoms. Was anyone in the church forced to change their reliigous views simply because this lesbian couple wanted to use a public facility for a commitment ceremony?
You have to come up with something better than that NOM for us to believe that religious freedoms will be impacted. Don't forget that each and every state that allows same sex marriage also has the very clear stipulation that no religious groups will be forced to partcipate in same sex marriages. They are protected legally from any suits that might arise, as has always been the case. This is currently the law. No Christian minister can be forced to marry a Jewish couple, and clergy are even protected from marrying previously divorced people. It seems to me that the religious freedom argument should be made in favor of same sex marriage, because there are many denominations and congregations that will perform same sex marriage. There are even clergy who are homosexual themselves. This is a violation of their religious freedoms to disallow them to marry a same sex partner.
Marriage is NOT about procreation. Have you ever attended a wedding where the vows mention procreation or children?
Fallacy of division, Dan. Your ability to create snapshots around marriage that don't have children in them does not prove that marriage is "NOT about procreation".
The purpose of marriage is so resplendant in our society that it even comes up in children's rhymes...
"First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes...?"
I know everyone here can finish that sentence.
I know you've seen it too, but have filed these allusions to procreation into the dustbin of some supposed heterosexist veneration.
You can do that for yourself, that is no problem. But to ask society to do that (through the government jackboot on the necks of schools, churches, fertility clinics, etc...) is exactly what others are worried about.
You don't see value in marriage's humanitarian concerns, so you don't want society to either. That just means neglect and heartache.
On lawn has it exactly right. Perhaps, marriage isn't about children to some people. But that is a choice individuals make.
When you sever children from marriage by definition, it means a lot about how we organize our society.
If children are born, they deserve to have their right to a mom and a dad honored.
Marriage is one way we can honor this right.
As a bonus to society, it helps in a calm organized perpetuation of its existence. We see the problems of the break down in the family everyday. We should be more focused on children's needs, and not adult wants.
Geez, that troll takes up a lot of space. I'm sure it and others pushing same-sex pseudo-marriage are proud of the slimy attacks on Carrie Prejean. Fine. I'm delighted that the American people can now see you as you truly are.
On Lawn, I failed to mention to you one other aspect of black women and their vote against marriage equality. I found out that unwed black mothers account for up to 68 percent of all births in the black community! That's astounding to me, and shows that, at least in the black community, fertility and marriage are two different concepts. But, the aspect I didn't mention was about a common phenomenon in the black community that is so prevalent that Oprah recently did a show about it. It's about black married men who have sex with other men behind the backs of their wives. This is known as "being on the down-low." One of her guests, when asked where he met his potential male sex partners, commented that he met them at church! So, when black women have to put up with this in their own marriages, is it any surprise that they would vote against SSM?
I don't blame them in any way for feeling that black men have let them down. They clearly have. This is yet another reason that great black men, such as Obama, should give us hope.
Gerry, how about contributing something of importance to the topic, instead of just attacking people? You don't have to read what I write, do you? I have yet to hear anything constructive coming from you, accept attacks... We're having an adult conversation here. Want to join?
So, On Lawn, back to our discussion (for which we were rudely interrupted by the bully named Gerry), let's assume you are correct and that marriage is "all about the children." If this is so, then why would you not want children of homosexual relationships (whether they be adopted, or biological children) to have the protection of marriage? Would you prefer those kids to have NO protection legally? It seems to me that's what you're saying...
Gerry, I have a suggestion. Since you seem to love bullying and beating up on people for their opinions, why not join a thread that supports gay marriage? I purposely came on the NOM blog to defend my marriage, and to explain why I think SSM is a good thing and will strengthen marriage. If the best you can do is cut people down and try to silence them, it speaks volumes for why same sex marriage should never be up for a vote. The majority will always squash the minority. Is this any surprise? It's also the reason all of the important civil rights decisions in our history were decided by the executive, judicial or legislative branches of government. The people did NOT vote on them, and they shouldn't, because they usually get it wrong...
I found out that unwed black mothers account for up to 68 percent of all births in the black community!
Yep, and that number is on the rise since the 50's. Its sad, really.
Gerry, how about contributing something of importance to the topic, instead of just attacking people?
As I read it, he is saying the same thing you just did to him but in a more specific way
let’s assume you are correct and that marriage is “all about the children.”
Interesting choice of words, and interesting that you put it in quotes. Could you please tell me where you got that quote from?
Here's what I've actually said about the subject so you can pull more accurate quotes...
I purposely came on the NOM blog to defend my marriage
Hmm, lets see some of these defensive statements...
It looks like, Dan, you are trying to tear down what others value in marriage more than anything else. Why tear down the value society places on marriage as an institution which seeks to ensure recognition of all involved in our human mating practice? You said, "should not be confused or mixed".... hmm....
I will be glad when Carrie Prejean begins her campaign for marriage between a man and a woman. If there is a time for morals, and values, and ethical support for love between a man and a woman, It Is Now. Carrie Prejean will not loose, because the powers of Heaven are on her side.
Just want you to know that I am not against marriage. I am definitely for it. Just the the way that GOD intended for it to me between a man and a woman. When God created us he created Adam & Eve as husband & wife. He didn't create us to marry the same sex. (Opposittes attract!) If you will read the bible in Genesis chapter 19 you will see that part of the reason God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah was the fact that homosexuality was rampant in those towns.
I'd say I'm sorry for hurting anyone's feelings but I'm not. Like I said I am definitely for marriage. And as for Carrie Prejean's comment at the Miss USA pageant, she was taking a stand for God. WHCH IS WHAT SHE SHOULD BE DOING NO MATTER WHO'S WATCHING OR LISTENING!
As she said on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, winning the contest apparently wasn't what God had planned for her life. But it seems to me that is was another step toward fulfilling his plan in her life.
Homosexuals should stop and ask themselves why a child, even adopted children, will spend a lifetime searching for their biological parents. Because as humans we always ask where did I come from, who are my parents. This is a question that has always been sought not only as a child, but even grown adults look for family. Homosexuals must ask this question and many more, will my child hate me for what I have done, taken them away from the true nature of humanity. We cannot fix people brains so they can't think and feel for themselves. Most natural parents worry if they are not mature enough to give children all the emotional nurturing they need to grow sound and healthy, homosexuals don't worry about putting children in strange and un-natural, abnormal homes. Remember every single person has a heart and a mind, and when they ponder life's mysteries. they don't always feel the way we predict.
I posted a few days ago, but no one responded. I really am interested to hear what the mostly Christian traditional marriage movement has to say on this topic:
Both religions and governments are free to define marriage however they choose. Marriage recognized by the state is not a Christian institution. If it were, then why do we give marriage licenses to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc? Also, there are numerous religions (some Christian sects, Unitarians, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc) in the US that allow gays to marry. It is unconstitutional for the government to recognize one religions’ marriages, but not other religions’ marriages (where consenting adults are involved).
If 2 brothers or 2 sisters will be willing to get married in state where the homosexual marriage is legal on what ground it can be denied by state? Will the ban of marriage between close relatives be used?. But this ban is suppose to be based on the theory that the children of such union will be somehow genetically inferior, but in this case no children are involved. So this union must be allowed. In this case we will have clear discrimination based on sex of the person. If the sex of the participant will be different then the marriage will be prohibited. So according to the legal arguments of the proponents of the same sex marriage - it is clear violation of the equal protection clause. This is the proof that if homosexual marriage is legal, then any kind of marriage must be legal too on the same ground.
Stefanie,
The other side of that coin is the government giving carte blanche that whatever a religion thought was marriage is marriage.
I like how it works now. The state says what marriage it will recognize, and allows religions to either perform them or not.
Joey,
You have invoked special rules.
These are not my rules.
SSMers use these rules to attack the core meaning of marriage. But, like you, they disown them when the table is turned and the rules are used to test the notion of SSM.
Your stated standards defeat the complaint about the marriage laws and your own demand for so-called "same-sex" or "gay" marriage.
If you won't agree to adhere to the standards you have stated upfront in your earlier remarks, then, it is fair to say you have argued in bad faith.
To be clear, I will make explicit the rules that your remarks have invoked.
Joey you have repeatedly referred to requirements. You do so as a test of the core meaning of marriage, as I have described it.
For example you have said:
1. “children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.”
2. "nor do I believe a mother and father are required to raise children."
3. "divorce should be automatic if children are impossible"
Your insistence on requirements is not unique. The rule that is invoked:
If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, then, it is not an essential of marriage.
* * *
Of course, the equal participation of the sexes is a legal requirement that SSM argumentation seeks to abolish.
Also consent is a legal requirement. People consent to the marital presumption of paternity when they enter the most pro-child social institution we have.
The man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes. The presumption of paternity stands for the provision for responsible procreation. This is intrinsically a sexual type of relationship. It has a profoundly personal and private aspect, of course, and this is protected; but it also has a profoundly public aspect and this too is protected and secured. But marriage is a type of relationship. It is public. It is sexual. It is two-sexed.
The core meaning of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social institution) that is foundational to civil society.
Point number three is very important. Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution. It does have a core. Society delegates to government the job of regulating the parameters around that core. So marriage law does not create marriage; it merely recognizes the social institution of marriage.
There are other legal requirements that point directly at the universal features of this social institution. But these two suffice for this discussion, I think.
SSMers would abolish the sex-integration requirement and would profoundly diminish or even abolish the presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage.
Why?
Because these do not fit the one-sexed scenario. Now, such a scenario may or may not be sexualized. Wherever "gay marriage" (under whatever name) has been imposed or enacted, it has not required same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, nor same-sex sexual romance.
But even if it did entail love, commitment, mutual caretaking, deep and abiding emotional bonds, and the rest, the same-sex scenario is not intrinsically a sexualized type of relationship nor is it a sexualized kind of living arrangement. Not in the law. Not without legal requirements making the sexualization both public and mandatory.
If the legal requirement test is the slamdunk that SSM argumentation pretends it is, then, it defeats SSM and reinforces the man-woman basis of marriage.
Joey you invoked another rule that SSM argumentation has used to attack the core meaning of marriage.
1. “Many living arrangements and nonmarital agreements could handle this [sex integration].”
2. "integration of the sexes exists just fine in civilization without marriage."
Again, your remarks are not unique. Other SSMers will say that unwed procreation occurs. And that sexual relations between men and women is not exlusive to marriage. Like your remarks, these invoke the following rule:
If (fill-in the blank) can and does occur outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.
* * *
Name an essential of the type of one-sexed relationship or arrangement that you have in mind -- something that does not occur outside of it.
What distinguishing that relationship type from the rest?
Joey and Dan, you have not accurately represented what I have said about procreation.
I have not said it is the sole reason that people marry. I have not said it is the primary reason that people choose to marry.
On the other hand, people make commitments with love. People make love with commitments. People provide mutual caretaking without mutual sexual attraction. Peole engage in sexual behavior without such attraction. People have such attractions that are unrequitted.
If you want to argue in such a reductive way, then, the tables can be turned without much effort.
I think the rules you invoked do not really serve the purpose of making a strong case for what you wish to promote.
If you think that society ought to reward same-sex sexual behavior that is directly associated with some level of commitment, to which you demand the public also be a party, then you do need to explain the societeal signficiance of the same-sex sexual aspect that defines the relationship type you have in mind.
Thusfar you have not distinguished it from the vast range of nonmarital arrangements -- some of which do merit protections -- protections that you apepar to demand solely on the basis of gay identity politics.
Whatever the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind, plainly state it so that its merits and demerits can be fairly assessed.
How the lines would be drawn, and sustained, around that core meaning is another important matter that SSM argumentation itself has emphasized.
SSM is about redrawing lines. So let's start with the core around which such lines can be drawn justly, and not arbitrarily.
SSM argumentation has derided social taboo and public morality. So you won't have that to guide your choice of where to mark the boundaries. Nor would you have tradition. Nor the "it has always been that way" line of thought.
SSM argumentation has done so much to deconstruct the fundamentals of lawmaking, that it seems to have rendered SSM itself rather meaningless and vague and indistinguishable. But that has become your burden due to the stated standards you have introduced.
Typo corrections:
On the other hand, people make commitments with and without love. People feel land make love with and without commitments. People provide mutual caretaking with and without mutual sexual attraction. People engage in sexual behavior with and without such attraction. People have such attractions that are requitted and unrequitted. People love deeply and not so deeply. People vow lots of things they don't live up to. And live up to vows they never made.
On Lawn: The state already does decide what marriages it will recognize and which it will not. The government chooses not to recognize polygamy, but people practice it anyways.
On the Lawn, you still didn't answer my question. Why does the government let atheists and other religious sects have marriages licenses?
Chairm, I don't understand this argument: "SSMers would abolish the sex-integration requirement and would profoundly diminish or even abolish the presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage.
Why?
Because these do not fit the one-sexed scenario."
You didn't give a reason for how government recognition of same-sex marriage would make all children bastards. Please explain.
I like how NOM is letting all people post their views. Unlike the communist far left k ooks over at the Huffington post. Every time I post something that criticizes and exposes the absurdity of gay marriage and the intolerance of those on the far left my posts mysteriously vanish or don't go through at all. I have no profanity in them or anything, however they continue to allow homosexuals to post and drop F-Bombs all over the place.
Keep up the good work NOM, you don't know how happy your organization makes me. It feels like me and my friends/family finally have voice.
I see they are attacking Carrie non stop now, I don't like it, but on the bright side this just exposes them for who they truly are. Don't give up Carrie, you know who you are don't allow these haters to define you and never give up we got your BACK!
p.s I'm and AA against Gay marriage and i find it insulting how homos like to compare their "struggle" to that of those of fought for civil rights. I find it disgusting and insulting there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. Rev. Bernice King is against Gay marriage.
I like how NOM is letting all people post their views. Unlike the communist far left k ooks over at the Huffington post. Every time I post something that criticizes and exposes the absurdity of gay marriage and the intolerance of those on the far left my posts mysteriously vanish or don’t go through at all. I have no profanity in them or anything, however they continue to allow homosexuals to post and drop F-Bombs all over the place.
Keep up the good work NOM, you don’t know how happy your organization makes me. It feels like me and my friends/family finally have voice.
I see they are attacking Carrie non stop now, I don’t like it, but on the bright side this just exposes them for who they truly are. Don’t give up Carrie, you know who you are don’t allow these haters to define you and never give up WE GOT YOUR BACK!
p.s I’m an AA against Gay marriage and i find it insulting how homos like to compare their “struggle” to that of those who fought for civil rights. I find it disgusting and insulting there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. Rev. Bernice King is against Gay marriage.
On Lawn, I noticed we got rid of Gerry nicely. That was simple, as the commercial for Staples says!
I don't know why having SSM marriage tears down anything. We are trying to participate in something that we've traditionally been excluded from. As I've said many time over, I'm very much pro-marriage. I want to enjoy this marvelous institution, and quite frankly never thought I'd be able to. Our kind was excluded, and there are those that are still trying to exclude us (NOM, et al). It was a tremendous gift to marry my wonderful partner of seven years in Oct. That being said, can you imagine the heartwrenching experience we had to go through when our neighbors voted on our marriage? How would you like to have complete strangers voting on whether you could marry your wife? It's disgusting, humiliating, and something nobody should have to ever go through again. It would have been better if we had not been able to marry in the first place, rather than face the fact that our neighbors could, on a whim, divorce us. Fortunately, it looks very likely that the CA Supreme Court will uphold our union, even if they retain Prop 8 as law. They have the power to do this, and I watched the entire three hour proceeding (it was THAT important to me personally, so that I cancelled my appointments that day), and every judge expressed the same discomfort, and even near anger in some cases, when Ken Starr was suggesting that they invalidate existing same sex marriages. There was not a single judge that was supportive of his arguments. All of the legal experts are saying we are safe. But, who knows until the decision is brought forth with in the next month? In the meantime, I'm enjoying every day of being married. It's nice to have health insurance, too!
I still stand by what I say. Marriage contracts are between two adults ONLY. Children can come into this family unit, and often do, and the laws that protect the married couple also protect the children. But, your leap from two people to the absolute necessity to have children is something I will never agree with. It smacks of, dare I say it, identity politics. I have no idea of your religious background, and it's none of my business. But, it is clear that certain religious groups (namely Mormons and Catholics) equate marriage with procreation. I was raised Evangelical Christian, and no such connection was made regarding marriage. There is no assumption made that marriage must lead to procreation, as I've outlined before. My own sister was adamant about not having children after she was married, but later changed her mind.
Now, On Lawn, I do appreciate that you are civil and mostly responsive to my questions, but it seems you have artfully dodged my most pressing question regarding SSM and children. Do you feel that children who live in homes with same sex parents are not entitled to government benefits? Do you feel that the children should suffer because their parents are not opposite sexed? This seems like a reasonable question. I should let you answer first. But, if your answer is Yes, they should not have the protection of the government, because they happen to have had the misfortune (no fault of theirs) of being born, or living in homes where their parents are of the same sex. Are you following where I'm going with this? Reading my mind?
Should children be penalized because their parents are not of the opposite sex?
Why did this thread turn into a discussion of procreation and childbearing, when the topic was same sex marriage? Identity politics is rearing its ugly head again.. Marriage and procreation are separate issues, folks...
Chairm, one thing you've never acknowledged is that people marry for different reasons. All of those reasons are valid if it has meaning to the person(s) involved. Some women are golddiggers and marry men three times their age just to get to the money involved. If that's their "core" meaning, so be it. If it works for both parties involved, who are we to judge it? Some people marry in order to please their parents, because their parents picked their mates. Who are we to judge? Some people, following your approach, marry in order to procreate. Great, I hope they have a wonderful life. Some people mary because they love their partner, and want to spend the rest of their lives with them (that's my case, and like that I get health insurance, and a huge tax break). Just because you seem to think that procreation is the "core" meaning of marriage, doesn't mean that marriage requires this of everyone. It's your Mormon identity politics raising its ugly head again.
Let's face it, people are waking up to the fact that your arguments are stale, and without merit. Just today Maine, and Washington, DC made strides forward towards marriage equality. You cannot stop this trend, and you will soon be in a position where your idea of marriage being only opposite sexed and only for procreation will be history. All this fussing you are going through now won't mean a thing in ten years or less. Same sex couples will be married, you will still have the same opportunity to be married and raise kids, and the children with same sex parents will be protected. It's a win win situation for everyone. You cannot leglislate morality. I know you'd like to, but you cannot impose your personal distaste for homosexuality and personal religious views on us all.
My mantra:
Same sex marriage affects MY life, and not yours. So, what can you do now?
Religious liberty is not threatened. Religious hegemony is prevented. You guys really ought to mind your own business. And, by the way, you brought Miss CA into the fray; now she is fair game. That's the way it is.
Stephanie: Polygamy is not a religion. It is like homosexuality a way of life. And as far as I know if a man has more than one wife, he is legally married to one of them. On the subject of same sex marriage - that's not the way God intended for it to be. We can't change God's law!
On Lawn, I noticed we got rid of Gerry nicely
A very odd and chilling thing for you to celebrate. Gerry made a very valid point, one you seemed to agree with (though hypocritically felt above the need to follow it yourself).
I don’t know why having SSM marriage tears down anything. [... in a later comment ...] Marriage and procreation are separate issues, folks…
Ponder that contradiction, and perhaps the path of understanding will open up to you
How would you like to have complete strangers voting on whether you could marry your wife?
Or on the same token, I know what it feels like to have my marriage, my concern for the very person I created children with and the rights of those children I created 'voted' into annihilation.
You are showing your own intolerance for those ideals. It would be a shame to enshrine that intolerance in the government by re-defining marriage away from its very humanitarian and self-less value of others rights and needs. Others including the most innocent and helpless among us, the children.
Marriage contracts are between two adults ONLY.
Ans that again shows what you wish to tear away from marriage. You needn't make marriage into just 'contracts [...] between two adults ONLY'. Contracts already do that.
So obviously there is something more to marriage that it exists at all. Marriage is more than a contract, and it involves more than two people.
Its a shame that in your own self-identity filled zeal that you wish to tear away from others what you yourself simply don't care for.
your leap from two people to the absolute necessity to have children is something I will never agree with.
This misrepresentation should have already been corrected, should it not? Why do you persist in this lie about what other's have said? What about your position requires this lie about what others are saying that you propagate it so blatantly?
I wonder. Hmmm.....
The history of homosexual mental illness, in 1973 The Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality, as a mental disorder, through much temper tantrums and vile harassment from the homosexual community. Also George Sarros, funded millions and millions of cash. So the law makers are cashing in on what they know full well is a very sick joke, to push all of society into the toilet because of their lustful greed of money and power.
Uriel-238,
On Lawn — Your argument reminds me of the pope trying to object to the “blending of gender roles” in contemporary society while trying to avoid appearing sexist and out of touch.
I actually agree with this point (of which i quote only part). I feel no need to protect gender roles, those are social abstracts which often seem interchangeable.
However, marriage equality can only be achieved if we place equal value on both gender's differences -- in each marriage.
I don't see that in conflict with your understanding of social recognition and needs. Both men and women equally share the responsibility to ensure the rights of the children they directly create. Both men and women equally share the need to support each other in their gendered biological differences and how they combine to create and sustain life.
That equality, marriage equality, is only ensured through equal gender representation and support in marriage.
Regarding children, it is demonstrated time and again that sometimes a child’s biological parents are, in fact, not the ideal candidates to be responsible for their upbringing.
True, and why is that? You mention one common factor in every circumstance -- neglect. They neglected their own responsibilities towards their children.
Now, you tell me. Which ideal of marriage will help people recognize their unique and special role they can and should have with their children.
Or the one I present,
Dan,
Now, On Lawn, I do appreciate that you are civil and mostly responsive to my questions, but it seems you have artfully dodged my most pressing question regarding SSM and children. Do you feel that children who live in homes with same sex parents are not entitled to government benefits? Do you feel that the children should suffer because their parents are not opposite sexed? This seems like a reasonable question.
Oh, I believe I have. But I will again.
Allow me to answer by slightly altering the question...
1) Do [I] feel that children who live in homes with [[committed guardians giving them care] are not entitled to government benefits?
Yes. But where you are narrowly focused on yourself and those who share your identity, I see that much more broadly. I support a program where simply by the virtue of freedom of association that any small group of people can band together for mutual support and commitment. That is what you view marriage as, and I see no reason it should be limited to homosexuals (as Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are).
I mean really. Consider that homosexual activists, after decrying marriage as too exclusive are given a chance to rectify the situation with a government program to recognize others with benefits. What do they do? They immediately instill their program with the same exclusivity.
What hypocrites.
Now, as you know my view of marriage is much more involved than just two people with reciprocal trust. That is a subset of marriage, just part of it. An important part, but too narrow. So we keep marriage to help families stay in-tact, and we have
Reciprocal beneficiaries to help people band together the best they can outside of that.
Everyone.
Not just those who see the world revolving around their sexual orientation.
2) Do you feel that the children should suffer because their parents are not opposite sexed?
They already suffer the tragedy of losing one or both parents. Do you think they should suffer such a consequence by nothing more than the self-centered choice of the adults involved?
It is the hallmark of the homosexuals to always without fail have lies and deceit in their thoughts and statements. They always say how will my marriage affect your marriage or your life, at the same breathe they say we can adopt, and be as good parents, as it gets. What they don't say is if the D.S.S. takes children away from parents that might be ill or troubled, then they can give them to homosexual people. The Catholic Church has already stopped do adoptions because their faith does not permit homosexuals to adopt children. They skirt many issues in an attempt to deceive.
Many times D.S.S. in my home town deliberately give children to homosexual couples, I have meet woman whom are in conflict about this very issue.
SSM argumentation has fossilized. SSMers elide the actual disagreement about marriage.
This, I think, is because marriage is being used like a political vehicle for some purpose that is not about marriage itself.
The low participation rates in SSM (under whatever name) strongly suggest that it would be a very inefficient vehicle for delivery of government bennies to the self-identified homosexual segement of the population. The low rates and the decreasing trends in participation in places that have had SSM for several years also suggest that that segment of the population is disinterested in registering private relationships with the Government.
If marriage had these kinds of low and declining participation rates, the social pathologies would cause all of society to suffer -- from generation to generation. This is evident where the nonmarital trends are about even with marital trends so we can foresee deeper problems if the nonmarital trends became predominant.
What's the point of SSM argumentation, when you get right down to the basics?
A call for protection equality outside of marriage. Fair enough. But that would not require touching marrige law. Provision for designated beneficiaries has long existed and can be repackaged to improve affordability and accessibilty, if these are actual problems. There is far wider consensus on such provision based on actual need rather than on showing political preference for identity politics.
Thanks for answering my question. I missed it earlier.
Here's a wonderful statement by Maine's governor which beautifully spells out why marriage equality is important, and other forms of gay rights consessions will not do:
"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Governor Baldacci said. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."
"Article I in the Maine Constitution states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.'"
"This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," Governor Baldacci said.
"It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine's civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government."
Faithful, I have no idea what age you are, but you remind me very much of my grandfather. During the civil rights struggle of blacks I remember very clearly him using the words "those colored people" repeatedly. For every time you say "those homosexuals" you paint yourself in a very, very unpleasant light. Just thought you'd like to know....
Governor Baldacci notes the problems, albeit in his own way, in Civil Unions. Not marriage.
Maine has decided against the future, to pamper the here and now. They have done something that will, in time, be recognized alongside legalizing slavery as one of the most oppressive things one segment of society has done to another.
You celebrate what gives you what you want.
I cannot celebrate what robs from children and spouses their rights.
Dan,
That has got to be one of the most transparent attempts to paint someone else as a racist.
So tell me, if you believe in the Civil Rights movement why you celebrate the equivalent of establishing all-white and all-black schools -- in the very name of equality?
Marriage is equality is ensured in integrating, not segregating the sexes. Children's rights are recognized by targeting marriage explicitly on the relationship which creates them.
I know it is like telling slave owners that they are being selfish in not considering the rights of others to tell you that, but even if you don't recognize it -- future generations most undoubtedly will.
As I was saying:
At the same time, I reiterate, I see the relationship between children and marriage in late modern and contemporary times as incidental...
Just to let everyone know for a fact, I am not racist and my daughter is married to a black man, but not just a black man, he is one of the best husbands and father that I have ever encountered. I love him very much and I love him more because he loves his wife and his children, and he love God.
Uriel,
Saying that children require a “mom” (read: female parent) and a “dad” (male parent) is expressing a social differentiation. And that is inappropriate in contemporary society.
Saying to create children you require a Mom and Dad, is expressing a biological fact. And ignoring that is inappropriate in any society.
Ignoring the fact that those parents mean something to the child is inappropriate in any society.
Ignoring that marriage is focused on recognizing the rights of all involved (especially children) in the human practice of procreation is something that people do at the detriment of those humanitarian concerns.
Faithful, I was NOT trying to paint you as a racist. If you got that impression, I apologize. Congratulations on your family, too! No, I was painting you as a homophobe. There's a difference. You still believe in discriminating against us, so, unfortunately, I must call you what you are. Incidentally, what would have happened had your daughter been a lesbian? Would you have been equally proud of her and her partner?
On Lawn,
Speaking of anthropology, here's a little known fact. Since you are intent on giving the false impression that gay marriage is a new concept, I'd like to point out to you that the indigenous people of Hawaii had same sex couples who were partnered for life (I don't think they used the term marriage even for heterosexual pairings in their culture). These relationships were accepted as normal. That is, until the missionaries came in, and effectively stopped this from happening. It is yet another historical account of how religions can dominate and crush another culture's values. Shame on them... So, when same sex marriage was being discussed in Hawaii, the native islanders had no problem with it. Guess who operated the rally against it? That's right, Mr. On Lawn, the Mormons! If you've ever been to Oahu you may have visited the Polynesian Cultural Center. It is operated by the LDS cult...
Sorry, I meant Oauhu... Aloha to my Hawaiian friends!
The lesbian couple is not doing the same thing her daughter did.
The lesbian couple isn't even trying to do the same thing. That is an important difference.
As noted earlier...
Now, you tell me. Which ideal of marriage will help people recognize their unique and special role they can and should have with their children.
Or the one Faithful presents,
Let marriage be marriage, and let Dan have the relationship he wants and we will also assume the lesbians in his scenario wants.
Neither happen at the expense of the other, unless you try to call them both by the same name.
I’d like to point out to you that the indigenous people of Hawaii had same sex couples who were partnered for life
I'm not against same-sex couples partnering for life. By demanding the government jackboot stamp out any differences between them by calling them the same name harms our ability to recognize the humanitarian concerns behind the human mating practice.
If you support such an organization as Hawaii has, then you can easily support the organization they now have... Reciprocal Beneficiaries for every committed adult relationship that wants it and marriage for those concerned with the rights and responsibilities behind their creating children.
OK, Lawn, thanks for supporting equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. Now what about their kids? And, will you enact legislation to eliminate rights for those heterosexual couples who cannot or will not procreate? You are climbing a very slippery slop, my friend, and we see through you, Mr. Cellophane... You want to single out gays and lesbians, let's face it, and treat us differently from heterosexuals. Your argument has never been about mating and children. Your argument against SSM marriage pertains to homosexuality (public sex, or whatever you want to call it). You mask your homophobia behind the needs of children, and forget that homosexuals have children too (and some of those children ARE biological). Oh, let me guess, you are also against allowing previously divorced heterosexual couples with children from remarrying, because those children are not a result of the "mating" of the couple who is about to be remarried. Is that right? They shouldn't have rights either, because those children are not a biological result of the marriage? You had better be careful what you advocate for....
You also seem to forget that SSM is about the same sex couple and not about YOU. You act like we're stealing your candy. This isn't the playground. When blacks were granted equality in housing, did whites lose anything? When women were granted the right to vote, did men lose something? This is why I keep harping on the fact that SSM affects me, and NOT you nor your children (unless one of them is gay). So, why do you want to impose on my life? I'm not imposing on you, nor taking any rights from you. But, you are trying to impose on ME and make sure that I don't have those rights you enjoy.... You are a hypocrite, because you don't really favor the rights of children. You want to take away rights from children, or make sure those rights aren't granted if their parents happen to be a same sex couple. I am emphatically pro-marriage. You are emphatically anti-children and anti-marriage. Isn't that clear?
Oh, and your poem to Mary is offensive to those of us who were raised in protestant environments. We were taught that to worship Mary, as the Catholics do, is a sin. I think you have offended nearly half the country with that poem. It's embarrassing, and doesn't live up to your normally respecatable standards... Can you remove that, in order to save face, since you clearly are a NOM representative? You've carefully avoided any religious references so far, and despite the fact the Chairm admitted his LDS membership, you haven't yet revealed your Catholicism, until now...
Dan I am not a Catholic, nor do I go to Church, except occasionally with with my husbands family, which are Catholic. But I do pray to Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner of the worst kind, and I try hard to repent. I have the Holy Spirit in me and God's Spirit keeps me blessed under His Son's Blood, Jesus. I understand the bible as this wisdom is a gift from God. Personally I don't care if it is a sin, to pray to Mother Mary, because the times I do she gives me the principals that have blessed me as a mother. And the protections are very real. I feel the Spirit of God, I feel a comfort that is even more wonderful than making love with my husband, which is tremendously wonderful. But God's Love is so whole, in body spirit and mind. It a kind of love that is inside of me and out. Protected, Blessed and Heavenly. God told me people are not born homosexual, and I believe him, because I went to Him, with that question I only post because I love all of humanity and people, All of God's Children. We all lose our way, believe things that we feel good about and make us feel good, believe it or not, we do feel spiritually sound and healthy and blessed by our heavenly father, when we do HIs Will, It's not easy to change our mindset and our views, but when you accept Jesus, in your baby steps of Christianity, He guards us, making sure it is not impossible, but the evil one will try to attack you and confuse you into not believing, that is when we need to Call out to God the most, Yell Loud Jesus!!! Help me Lord, and we find peace, Well I just wanted to let you know I love all of you, and I want you with us, the body of Christ, the family of God. Praise Jesus, Amen!!!
OK, Lawn, thanks for supporting equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Heh. Why does that narrow focus in regards of equality remind me so much of Animal Farm.
I remember, wasn't that the book that coined the phrase "some are more equal than others". With a narrow focus on how you equalize, true equality goes out the window.
Please equally consider the concerns of all involved, not just gays and lesbians.
Your commentary response to my raising the concerns has been dismissal of their existence. How is that equality?
Amazing
Oh so imagine the hilarity to see you accuse...
You want to single out gays and lesbians, let’s face it, and treat us differently from heterosexuals.
By having a program meet the needs of everyone in committed relationships, that is singling out gays and lesbians.
Call me Mr Cellophane, and my plan would have worked too if it weren't for your insight
As I marked earlier, you've abandoned pretense of reality and the results are disappointing in a humanitarian sense but not without entertainment value.
You mask your homophobia behind the needs of children, and forget that homosexuals have children too (and some of those children ARE biological).
They are. Which means they have discriminated against the other person they created the child with, and thrown the child's other half of the identity under the bus. Its sad, really. Its even more sad that when one points that out, you think of homophobia rather than validate and treat equally the feelings of the others involved.
You also seem to forget that SSM is about the same sex couple and not about YOU.
And there you have it straight from Dan. Its their institution, not anyone else's.
Some are more equal than others, and the revolution continues...
Oh, and your poem to Mary is offensive
Oh my, in his effort to stir controversy Dan has now taken a swipe at John Lenin of the Beatles.
The entertainment continues.
From the article "This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning."
The state has an interest in and can take away parental rights. The courts do not always make the best decisions, were only human and we are all fallible.
On Lawn, you keep using that word, *Humanitarian*. To quote Inigo Montoya (more accurately, William Goldberg), I don't think it means what you think it means. Your concern here, namely the denial of rights to gay couples is anything but humanitarian.
You seem to be under the belief that only those who can create children should be allowed to raise them. Is this so? Does this mean you oppose all forms of adoption, fostership or fertility treatment?
We have far more incidents of children being raised in homes other than those of the same blood that do not involve gay partners than those that do. And we have plenty of gay couples that are already raising children who are of their own blood . The only thing that differentiates these families from other straight couples is their sexual orientation. So the terms by which you would deny them their rights have nothing to do with either the ability to sire, or raise kids.
And all of this will likely be moot in the next twenty years. We've already developed ectogenesis tanks for the gestation of non-human ebryos. It would be one small step (and potentially the end of the abortion controversy) when we allow the same technology to be used to bear human children. And we're already developing the ability to create male eggs or female sperm. Once gay couples *are* capable of having children between them, will you *then* accept that it's okay for gays to get married?
I get the feeling you just don't like gays.
On Lawn, When you ask us to "equally consider the concerns of all involved" it makes me think of the backwater families that would get frightened when someone of dark skin trotted their way on the same sidewalk. Our nation is, by its inherent conception, a pluralism, and part of living in this nation is acceptance that some people think, act and believe differently than you do, and tolerance to that effect.
You have no right to a gay-free community, or to privileges to which gays do not, any more than the Jewish community has a right to ban the pork industry, or to outlaw cheesesteak sandwiches. (Mmmm....cheesesteak.)
I've yet to see a secular reason gays should not be normalized in society, that gay couples should have less than all the rights that straight couples do. And purely sectarian laws are ruled out due to the Lemon Test.
Incidentally, Dan, I also wanted to add that the biblical bans against gay activity (which is implied to be specificly about ritualistic sodomy) may be a device to differentiate the hebrew practices from those of Mithras, whose doctrine dictated (much like El's) that women were soulless creatures, hence only men could marry out of love. Compare this to the preclusion of mixing the meat of a calf in its mother's milk, part of a recipe for an Asheran wedding feast. The god of the bible was a right bastard, and lost a lot of followers for it, hence His policy was to slaughter the infidels and preclude their practices. My point being, much like the meat-and-cheese thing being an inflation of a specific code, so, likely, are the ones now interpreted to be against homosexuality as an orientation.
Not that the more conservative faithful would care; they seem to be more invested in their contemporary, comfortable interpretation of scripture, rather than truth, or spirituality.
Thank you Miss California for speaking for many, many Americans. Stand tall and proud.
Regarding homosexuality, in my opinion it is a mental illness (similar to alcoholism, OCD, etc.). We should be compassionate and loving to individuals who have same-sex attracts and help them understand the root of their behavior and explore the feelings behind it. That doesn't mean we have to accept the behavior. My uncle could be an alcoholic. He can love alcohol and see nothing unhealthy with his behavior. I can help him on his journey to recover BUT his acceptance of alcohol doesn't mean that he's living a healthy life.
For decades the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a illness with a cure... until the gay movement forced them to change their stance. This is the same movement that is trying to get everyone to support same-sex sex.
Mary, I beg to differ with you. Most people (in the U.S. anyways) who practice polygamy do so because of religious beliefs. You may not think those beliefs are valid, but that doesn't erase the fact that those people do it because of their religious beliefs.
Mary, also, you state, "We can’t change God’s law!" Which God? Christians claim to praise the same God, but even they can't agree on what the Bible means. What about the other religions who believe their God thinks gays aren't an evil abomination?
On Lawn, you keep using that word, *Humanitarian*.
I use it to describe the cause that looks after the rights of the innocent and helpless equally with the powerful and selfish.
It seems you don't like me using that word because, "the denial of rights to gay couples is anything but humanitarian."
What a narrow view of the world.
Besides, I'm not denying anyone their rights. I'm fully in support of homosexual couples getting government recognition along with any two mutually committed adults.
Uriel,
On Lawn, your diatribe on your commitment to your wife, while, perhaps, intended to be endearing, does imply you believe you can be more committed to your wife and children than a gay man can be to his spouse and children.
Oh my. The comment intended to be endearing.
I don't want anyone to miss the point.
I’m not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres? And when you answer that question, you find that this isn’t a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender’s participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
Homosexuality doesn’t have to tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage. But it does if they find marriage’s equality in equal gender participation an affront to their own understanding of themselves.
Having set the stage, I'll answer another question that popped up recently...
Lily,
On Lawn you said that when a homosexual can not fully love a person of the opposite sex they are “discriminating” against them. So when someone can not fully love someone of the same sex they are discriminating against them too?
The point is who you show your love and devotion to. That is what marriage is meant to encourage, for the sake of the children and spouse you combined with to create them. Can you love that person with your whole life, or can you not? Seems like it takes more than the alibi of identity to excuse one from that obligation in marriage.
Kate,
All you’re doing is prolonging the pain and suffering of people who just want to enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. [...]
Let them in. Even if it means the downfall of civilization, even if it means “redefining marriage…” set your righteous indignation aside, open your heart and let them come home.
If they really wanted the same benefits, they'd do the same thing we do to get it -- love, honor and cherish the person you potentially will combine with to create children.
If a gay man wanted to marry a woman, not because he wanted to avoid being homosexual but because he believed in what marriage really is, would you 'let them in' to your congratulations and support?
Just curious...
Uriel,
On Lawn, When you ask us to “equally consider the concerns of all involved” it makes me think of the backwater families [...]
Oh my!
And your case for having everyone forgo our concerns for all who have a stake in the process of human mating (children, etc...) to re-define equality around the adult centered "males-only" and "females-only" adult trust relationships, is what again?
No, I think we know who is really asking people to consider their own discrimination for their own kind above others...
On Lawn, I really don't understand what this statement means...
"II’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres?"
You also say this, "The point is who you show your love and devotion to. That is what marriage is meant to encourage, for the sake of the children and spouse you combined with to create them. Can you love that person with your whole life, or can you not? Seems like it takes more than the alibi of identity to excuse one from that obligation in marriage."
I am a straight, married woman and my husband and I don't want kids. Are you saying our marriage isn't a marriage? Are you saying it is lesser than a marriage with children? Would you like to take away my right to marriage because we've chosen to not engage in what you claim is an "obligation" of marriage. Children are not an "obligation" of marriage. Last time I checked people were free to have children or not have children.
You can continue to claim that children are the soul purpose that marriage exists, but it just isn't true.
On Lawn
Regarding the question you post: "Who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create there's?"
I assume you mean by that, "For the sake of one's own children, who is the best person to keep as a partner than their other progenitor [on the basis both will stay together to raise said children]?" Do I have that right?
Your question is confusing. I don't necessarily see (as you seem to do) that sexual intercourse is a "combining of identities", nor is it the (complete) process by which a child's identity is forged. (This is probably because I give significantly more weight to the nurture side of the equation than you do). Hence I reworded your question for clarity.
To answer this question, all things being equal and ideal, it would be more natural, though not necessary, that the child's own parents raise the children, within a larger open community (i.e. not an isolated nuclear family). But it wouldn't necessarily be better. The parents need not necessarily stay together as a couple so much as be able to regard each other fairly. Not all historical societies fell in line with the nuclear family model or even the extended family model. Ultimately, it wouldn't make much of a difference if the parents personally raised the chidren in contrast to a) the state raising all the children (as happened in classical Sparta) or b) children were collectively raised by the community (as happens in a number of African tribes). The idea that it *takes a village* has been an anthopological theory for some time now.
So, even if the answer were the one for which you were begging (mommy and daddy, of course), how would this be a reason to deny marriage to gays? You do know that gays can already adopt, correct? Exactly how are they and their families less entitled to the benefits of marriage, just because they aren't biologically "mommy" and "daddy"? And what of heterosexual adopters? How are they so entitled that same-sex couples are not?
How does allowing gay couples to marry "tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage?" While you're at it, what, specifically, do you mean by the phrase to "tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage?"
You haven't yet addressed that gays can have their own kids, and that straight parents often neglect theirs. You have acknowledged that it happens, but seem to ignore that this runs contrary to this belief of yours that the biological mother and father are best suited for raising a child. Allowing gays to marry benefits these neglected children. It also benefits the children gays have.
Exactly how does gay marriage "re-define equality" at all (let alone to a gay-centric slant)? Tradition is not equality. Status quo is not equality. Equality is about balance. Or you believe straights are intrinsically more equal than gays, until I move the bar to include them as first class citizens in society?
I assume you are more reasonable than to believe that, should gays be normalized, everyone will turn gay and the US will depopulate. Yes? If you don't, what is the outcome that you fear (other than seeing grown men kissing by the water fountain)?
So far, I'm only seeing semantic obfuscation from you. Can you specify who is going to suffer due to the legitimization of gay marriage and how? I asserrt that by far, more children will benefit. Or do you imagine the naturalization of homosexuality in society as intrinsically malicious? Do you?
And FYI, I'm not discriminating "for my own kind" except the human race. I happen to be quite straight, thank you. No, I won't get to push for equal rights for "my kind" until gays have theirs, then transgender folk, then alternative sexualities, then fringe races, then fringe religions, and then atheists and agnostics, since the US would rather have a militant radical sectarian for a president before allowing a humanist naturalist into the same office.
So this isn't about "my kind" v. "your kind." My pursuit is in favor of equal human rights, even when the rights I seek to secure aren't mine. I'm pushing to make the United States the pluralism it is meant to be. It is you who are the one pushing to maintain the elitist status quo for your kind.
On Lawn, as much as I've enjoyed your "entertainment," I think I can rely on the new blog members to fight it out with you. Has anyone else noticed that, while we've been discussing SSM, all of the states that are listed as potential targets for NOM have no approved same sex marriage? You guys are a little late now, aren't you? But, I say keep your umbrellas handy, because the storm has just begun. I'm willing to take bets, but I wager that New York and New Jersey are next. Still haven't heard what's going on in Rhode Island. Anyone know? It seems like New England is a clean sweep for marriage equality. Let's wait until New Hampshire's governor signs it into law.
On Lawn, if your entire case against SSM is because we cannot procreate (with our spouses), then why don't you make this the central argument against SSM? It seems to me that all of the other scare tactics you are employing (loss of religious freedoms, SSM marriage taught in schools, doctors loosing the right to refuse treatment to people who are homosexuals), are simply hollow, and rather than actually scare people they have become the butt of jokes.
If you really believe in your argument, it seems to me that you would put that forth and let people decide for themselves (that includes activist judges and out of control legislative bodies). I, for one, have no sympathy for your point of view, because I view marriage and procreation as separate issues... But, to each his own. Keep your umbrella out and ready to go...
Faithful, I was sincerely touched by your reaching out to me (seriously, I'm not trying to give you a hard time). You are clearly an exemplary mother and a woman who truly "cares" about people. This is why I'm reaching out to you on a personal level and telling you why same sex marriage is so important in MY life. It will have no impact on your life, despite what NOM says. Ask any Canadian, and they will tell you that they haven't noticed any change since they've had same sex marriage. It is a myth that this will come into your life, unless you have a gay child or grandchild. Now, you probably didn't know that I am the son of an Evangelical minister, did you? I went through the first 18 years of my life being indoctrinated (more like brainwashing) in Jesus, so I know exactly where you are coming from. I know you say this out of love, and I appreciate and accept this. However, as a teenager I could see that there was something wrong with what I was being taught. Namely, it didn't make any logical sense. I figured out rather early on that the bible's account of the "creation" story was not believable. I played along as if I believed it, but inside I had rejected it for years before I told my parents this. When I learned in school that the earth was millions of years old, and documented humans have been on earth for 1.5 million years, I realized that the account of Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago was not possible nor credible. So, my belief in the bible begins and ends with the very first verse. "in the beginning God created....etc...." So, as much as I would like to believe it, I can see that the bible is a man-made book written thousands of years ago, and it has little or nothing to do with my life today. In addition to this, I have travelled around the world, and visited every continent except Africa and Antartica. If you were to see the rest of the world,, too, you'd realize that religion and culture intermix. Each culture has created their own god and built their belief systems around that god. So, I view god as man-made not vice versa. Anyway, didn't mean to preach to you, but this is why I will not sit back and let others tell me that I have to live by their religion. If this is what they want, then the Middle East is a better place for them to live, because our country was based on freedom of and from religion. The pilgrims came here to escape a government that wanted to impose its religion on all people. We seem to forget this. Also, our founding fathers were mostly Deists, and not Christians. This has also been forgotten... Anyway, this was meant for you Faithful, and I also want to send my warmest regards to you and your family. In the meantime, just remember that your daughter's boyfriend (or is it husband?) could have been put in jail in some states because of his love for a white woman just a few decades ago, within recent memory. Also, did you know that the majority of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage until just a few years ago (something after 2000)? That means that if we had voted on your daughter's relationship, as mine was voted on in Nov, your daughter would not have been legally allowed to be with a black man. Shocking, isn't it? So, just remember that the laws that now protect their relationship are very similar to the protection same sex couples are looking for.... It is no different. Maybe your religion tells you that homosexuality is a sin, but just remember I don't share your beliefs. So, do I have to live by YOUR rules? It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair...
For you marriage equality supporters, you might find hope and encouragement in this great NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
I have a question for the spokesperson,s of the homosexual community. As The foundation of marriage , is the home of the man and woman, Mr. and Mrs. Husband & Wife, the father and the mother and life from generation to generation. And our children ask zillions of questions about who they are, how they came to be and what the purpose of life is. What the mysteries of life are all about. How do you present these answers to children of homosexuals? As children grow they learn understanding of life's principals, morals and values, when considerate, loving parents give thoughtful, truthful and direct answers, children learn about the riches that family has and how everything grows naturally from it's foundation, it's roots and it's core. How do homosexuals give children the facts of homosexuality as a flourishing and sustaining force in life. Because marriage is the foundation of humanity that keeps it protected for all of its, growing years, bonding and promise of life. So I would like you to tell me how homosexuality fits as the profoundness of the process of it's life and it's growth.
One thing that I taught my children at a very young age is fear is part of life, it is a good measure to consider to keep them safe from harm, if a child learns to ride a bike and has fear, a parent goes along to hold them up and guides the bike to teach children balance. This teaches a child that fear is good, parents protect their children, standing by their side because that is a duty of the parent, a responsibility and the right of that parent to protect them. When children learn balance they can learn to protect themselves, as the hurdles of life can get pretty scary, but with instruction and discipline they can grow confident about their own abilities. That is why parent teach children and prepare them for life. So the fear of homosexuality is a healthy fear. I will always protect children and teach them facts in life. Because it is not only a right of a parent, but it is a responsibility , As it protects them from harm.
God loves variety, he Created the Heavens and the earth, He created all the forms of the life, in all colors, shapes, sizes and creeds. He is God Most High- So He created a man and a woman, so we all know that His plan for mankind is too be fruitful and multiply, Without that elemental and fundamental principal, Life could not thrive and grow. We should stop, LOOK at the facts and draw logical and factual conclusions that represent the reality of it's proof.
Uriel,
Your question is confusing. I don’t necessarily see (as you seem to do) that sexual intercourse is a “combining of identities”,
... Sex is more than intercourse. I realize some people are having trouble in this discussion seeing past their own noses. It is an amazing discourse, to me, of the narrow-minded future of marriage if it is neutered.
For me, I may suffer from the same short sightedness, but my nose then is at least long enough to fathom sex in completeness. It is something that describes the combination of gametes, as well as body parts.
So allow me to rephrase....
"sex is a “combining of identities”
... nor is it the (complete) process by which a child’s identity is forged. (This is probably because I give significantly more weight to the nurture side of the equation than you do). Hence I reworded your question for clarity.
You are right, it is not the complete process. Hence the need to realize that what you do in sex can have life-long repercussions.
Computer programmers have a saying, "programming is like sex, one mistake and you wind up supporting it for your life".
A gay couple feels like a marriage is what makes two people kin. No, that is not right. Two people who divorce after having children are still considered kin. Marriage recognizes the kinship created when two people combine their identity to form a new human being. It is a post-facto blood relationship.
You can either recognize and deal with that relationship, or deny it has any importance. The latter only causes heart-ache at the expense of the most innocent and helpless among us.
People who ask us to ignore that from state recognition are asking for an increase in the social malady of neglect and abandonment.
Neutering marriage (removing its explicit expectation of both gender's participation) is one of the most oppressive selfish things we as adults can do.
Does Homosexuality confuse innocent children? Do they not see friend with a father and a mother, Children that look like their parents, does a child not wonder at some point if homosexuality is right or wrong, they do have that right to ponder their own viewpoint, with their own heart and mind.I know, cause I know children that do just that. Remember you can't fix someone's mind and heart to feel the way you would like, many times children will search to find out the mysteries of life, with their own heart. Will homosexuals strike those children down, visit http://www.massresistance,org. See what they do to churches that help people whom have make the choice to return to heterosexuality, It is totally insane. Freedom to Choose, Not according to Homosexual Activist. According to them you were born that way and cannot change.
You haven’t yet addressed that gays can have their own kids, and that straight parents often neglect theirs.
Your statement here is another good example of the harm people wish to do with marriage.
I agree you are having trouble seeing it, but for all of your special pleading of ignorance I know that others do. Its up to you to catch up to them.
Speaking of special pleadings, I do believe gays and lesbians can have kids. But kids are only created in heterosexual combinations. You tell me are they denying who they are when they have kids, as Dan and Vast have proposed here?
You claim that you are out for your own in the whole human family, but it is intrinsic to our humanity in how we procreate. Yet to deny that in favor of a special pleading for homosexuality is exactly the kind of special treatment that I find repugnant in the current GLBT pamphleteering.
Gays and lesbians can have kids. And then to assert their own identity, act like ex-gov McGreevey who left his wife and children in a shambles of a broken family. Only, we hear from the same people who wish to neuter marriage that his first marriage was the sham, the lie, the false marriage. The special pleading is that because he is gay everything is different. If he were any other adulterer, it would not have been so venerable to leave his family.
So you tell me how you are looking out for the human family, instead of just gays and lesbian special pleadings...
For more information of the pitfalls of homosexuality and the selfishness that hurts children, goggle Lesbian sues lover for child support. It list several cases.
Faithful, I by no means claim to be "the" representative for the homosexual community. I happen to be a straight, married woman. However, I don't see life or marriage the same way you do at all. I've always thought about what I would/will teach my children if/when I have them.
The foundation of marriage to me is love, respect, equality, and compromise. Yes, having children is a beautiful thing. However, having children is just one way humankind expresses itself and its creativity. I put just as much value in other creative human pursuits, such as developments in science, philosophy, and art. To put the emphasis solely on children and ignore the rest of what humanity has to offer the world is lopsided and sad.
You're also ignoring the fact that gays can raise children and pass on values and ideals just as easily as straight people can. It's not like a baby pops out and it automatically believes what the parent does. It's the time spent with children and the parents living up to their values that teach children values.
What you're suggesting is that if someone adopts a child, then they can't possibly teach them the value of creation and I think that's a highly offensive assumption to many people, not just gays. It means you think that if you aren't a biological parent, then you have nothing to offer children and society.
You ask how "homosexuality fits as the profoundness of the process of it’s life" and here's my opinion. Most species have a segment of the population that engages in homosexuality. I see at as a part of nature. Some of these homosexual animals have been found to pair-bond and raise young together. Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of allowing for unwanted young to be cared for without the possibility of creating an excess of more young. Like I said, that's just my opinion. I haven't done any scientific studies or anything, but it seems just as valid an opinion as the one that says "God said so."
Faithful, one reason why I'm straight, but such a strong advocate for gays is because my parents had many gay friends when I was growing up. I'm 34 now.
I can tell you from my own experience that homosexuality didn't confuse me as a child. My mom always told me that they loved each other like mommy and daddy and that was it. However, I didn't even need her to tell me that. I saw their love for each other in the way they treated each other. Are you really that narrow minded that you can't see that?
You say, "Does a child not wonder at some point if homosexuality is right or wrong" and I say, well children are definitely apt to think it wrong if they hear their parents talk about how evil gays are. My parents never did that so I never thought it was wrong. These gay friends of my parents were very kind to me, my parents and each other. I never had any reason to see them as evil and against nature.
Faithful, please explain how homosexuality is a choice. Knowing that most animals have a segment of their population that engages in homosexuality, please explain how and why an animal (not humans) choose to be gay? I think this blows the "gay is a choice" theory out of the water. How can an animal choose to be gay and why?
On Lawn, you keep saying "kids are only created in heterosexual combinations." DUH! It takes a man and a woman's genes to make a baby yes. However, it doesn't take a man and a woman to raise a healthy child. I've seen healthy children come out of single parent homes, gay homes, adopted homes, etc.... I've also seen plenty of unhealthy children come out of straight homes.
Are you claiming if gay marriage is recognized by law that somehow men and women will stop having babies? Please explain how this would happen.
However, it doesn’t take a man and a woman to raise a healthy child.
The point isn't who can raise a child. But that the child is best served when those that created them take the care and responsibility to raise them.
That is the single best way to ensure everyone's rights are met in the practice of human mating.
And recognizing that is by no means oppressive to anyone.
Are you claiming if gay marriage is recognized by law that somehow men and women will stop having babies?
Worse. People will have babies, but say things like we've seen here. That their marriage is only about their own sexual attraction and nothing about the spouse they created the children with or the children themselves.
On Lawn, you say, "the child is best served when those that created them take the care and responsibility to raise them."
So a sexually abusive biological parent is better than an adoptive parent because the abusive parent is the biological one. POPPYCOCK!
Your argument doesn't hold any water. There are many instances when a child is better off without its biological parents. Plus, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gays being allowed to marry won't stop you from getting married, having children and raising them!
Well, this is a new one, "People will have babies, but say things like we’ve seen here. That their marriage is only about their own sexual attraction and nothing about the spouse they created the children with or the children themselves." I don't see this happening. If anything, the government is legitimizing more responsible, committed child-rearers.
With or without gays, we already have a variety of marriages. Marriage is a contract of duties and benefits. For some marriages that includes children for some it doesn't. You are making a claim about marriage that doesn't exist and that claim is that children are the only reason people should have marriage licenses.
If I was Mormon, I'd happily sayso. But I am not.
Too many SSMers depend on negative stereotypes and far too many SSMers standby mutely as the bigoted remarks are made in the name of the SSM campaign. That seems to be a direct contradiction of the stated standards of the SSM campaign and its much vaunted argumenation.
As was the said by JFK at the Berlin Wall, as was said at the closing of the film Spartacus, marriage defenders (religius or irreligious) the spirit of solidarity among marriage defenders can be given voice when we stand to say, we are all Mormons now.
Stafanie, God created man with the highest intelligence of all other in creation, He gave man domination over all the earth, His Creation is the Creation of life, that being He created A man and A woman, with the propose of being fruitful and multiplying. This is His gift to mankind, and His plan. It is a sin for unmarried people to have sex, so we can guess, or my my case be positive that He does not want homosexual to have any kind of sex, nor marry.
See the damage that they do
wwww.massresistance.org
Goggle Boston Children's Hospital Sex Change Clinic
Goggle Lesbians sue lovers for child support
Also they sue sperm donations, the man
Learn the facts and then apply them
Faithful, I was taught the same nonsense you are have taught your progeny. I saw through the lies, and was able to understand that they taught the fear of homosexuality based on their own ignorance and the fact that they couldn't find any truth in the world that was not based on the bible. As I've told you, the bible has no say in my life whatsoever. It's fine if you believe, it's great if it gives you comfort, you can teach your children the biblical principles and laws. I don't want to take any of that from you. But, it's NOT fine to impose those beliefs on those of us who have "chosen" not to believe it. Is that clear? I don't know how else to express it without offending you. Religion is a personal choice. Sexual orientation is no more a choice than gender, or ethnicity. Did your daughter's black boyfriend (husband?) choose to be black? And, yet, to this day there are people in America who would say that your daughter is going against the bible for having a mate who is not of her race. By the way, there are plenty of gay Christians out there, so I don't speak for them. There are gay Evangelical ministers, and I know one personally. So, are you saying to them that they are going against god? I'd like you to sit down and talk with them in person and tell them this to their face.
Faithful, marriage recognized by the state is not a Christian institution. Are you suggesting that atheists, Buddhist, Muslims, Wiccans, and people of many other religions shouldn't be allowed to have marriage licenses because they don't believe in the Christian God?
Also, you didn't answer my question, how can an animal (not a human) choose to be gay and why?
WHEN MAN STRIKES AGAINST NATURE
NATURE WILL STRIKE AGAINST MAN!!!
LOOK AROUND SEE THE SIGNS
THE EARTH IS BECOMING POLLUTED
THE AIR, THE WATER AND MAN
BE MINDFUL OF GOD
FOR HE IS LORD!!!
PRAISE JESUS!!! AMEN!!!
Faithful, you are not answering my questions. Is that because you don't have an answer?
Are you suggesting that atheists, Buddhist, Muslims, Wiccans, and people of many other religions shouldn’t be allowed to have marriage licenses because they don’t believe in the Christian God?
Also, you didn’t answer my question, how can an animal (not a human) choose to be gay and why?
Re: Stefanie's post...
Anyone can create a scenario where a bad version of one side is better than a good version of another. that is itself a rather cheap debate tactic to try to lessen the value of good values and hope that bad values can be seen on the same level.
But it takes a new level of determination in that dishonesty when someone attempts to do that even when good examples of good values are given.
For example Stefanie just said that "when those that created them take the care and responsibility to raise them” that meant even a "a sexually abusive biological parent". No, you can't have that. When someone takes the care and responsibility to raise someone, they don't abuse them.
Oh well. Such is the dishonesty we have to catch and clarify every day.
So let me explain it, and perhaps Stefanie if acting out of ignorance can be helped, but she is action out of malignancy -- nothing can.
A child doesn't choose who creates them, and the parents don't choose whether or not there is a relationship with the child they choose.
Given that fact, marriage seeks to have each party involved recognize their relationship and obligation to each other. The hope is that with such equal recognition of rights and support required of each person in the combination, no one will be sexually abusive.
But if they worship their own sexual lifestyle as an identity, then who knows what can happen.
On Lawn, I'm not being dishonest and I'm not ignorant, but thanks for name calling!
"A child doesn’t choose who creates them" TRUE
"Parents don’t choose whether or not there is a relationship with the child they choose" FALSE
Parents do choose whether or not to have a relationship with their children. People do it all the time. Fathers walk out on mothers. Mothers walk out on fathers. Women don't tell the father that they're pregnant.
You also add a link to a gay family that took their children to a gay pride fest. We have laws that protect children from certain experiences. Any parent (gay or straight) who breaks those laws can be punished.
Are you claiming all gay parents hold the same values? I know plenty of gay people wouldn't do something like that and I know plenty of straight people who do inappropriate things in front of their children.
On Lawn, I’m not being dishonest and I’m not ignorant, but thanks for name calling!
Somehow, I think that was less than sincere
Sorry, you were caught. You can chalk that error to ignorance or malice, I don't care, if you ask me though. Even more important is that I believe you can do better and hope you will in the future.
Parents do choose whether or not to have a relationship with their children.
Parents choose whether or not their relationship involved personal interaction or not, and the quality of that interaction.
However, they are always the "bio-dad" or whatever you want to call them. There is no possible way to erase that part of their identity. And because of that they have a unique capacity to be the care-giver of the child in sharing heritage, identity, and showing through their commitment to the spouse that shared the identity to create that child, the real value of the child's identity.
Lets stay on this point until you completely understand what I'm saying, no?
On Lawn, "sorry, you were caught. You can chalk that error to ignorance or malice, I don’t care, if you ask me though. Even more important is that I believe you can do better and hope you will in the future."
I still don't understand what you think I've been "caught" doing. However, your tone of voice in your writing has become very condescending. Keep it up, it just makes you look bad and it doesn't really add to getting to a better understanding of where the other person is coming from.
" the “bio-dad” or whatever you want to call them. There is no possible way to erase that part of their identity." TRUE
"And because of that they have a unique capacity to be the care-giver of the child in sharing heritage, identity, and showing through their commitment to the spouse that shared the identity to create that child, the real value of the child’s identity."
I don't have a problem with that at all. Unlike you however, I don't see what this has to do with allowing gays to marry. Like I told Chairm, you see marriage as a social institution with one core meaning. I see marriage as a social institution with several meanings. Yes, this institution to protect and promote children and bio parents. It also protects and promotes committed relationships and other forms of child rearing (adoption, including gay adoption, single parent in-vitro, gay in-vitro, etc...)
I think I understand what you're saying. I just disagree.
Faithful, as much as I love you, I pray for Jesus to return soon and take his people with him. The earth would be a far more pleasant place. Less crowded, fewer wars, fewer guns, and homosexuals could live in peace. Peace to all!
However, your tone of voice in your writing has become very condescending. Keep it up, it just makes you look bad [...]
Well I can agree. In that fragment the condescension makes the author look self-contradictory, even silly.
However, as for myself, I was just pointing out a blatant error. You can read it again to see what that error was
Unlike you however, I don’t see what this has to do with allowing gays to marry.
Well, then that means there is yet something important that I see that you still need to understand? From that standpoint, it is hard not to sound condescending
To start this path, I want to note I have nothing against gays getting married.
I do have a problem with the definition of marriage being neutered, because they want to have their relationship all of a sudden called marriage. That in and of itself is no big deal, but it is what is removed from marriage to accommodate their relationship which makes all the difference.
And what is removed is the governments ability to encourage the concerns people have in ensuring the recognition and rights of all involved when having kids. Because it doesn't fit their model of a relationship.
To say it another way this lowest common denominator logic really tears down everything to the lowest common denominator. And kids rights happen to be one of the humanitarian concerns on ready to be removed because they involve recognizing the unique capacity the people who combined to create them have in their lives. Why? Because combining to create the child is a heterosexual act we have to remove/reduce it away. How sad.
Stefanie: "adoption, single parent in-vitro"
Here you introduce adoptin and third party procreation (i.e. use of "donor" gametes).
Both require parental relinquishment (or loss) and government intervention to assign a replacement adult as parent.
That is the virtual inverse of the marital presumption of paternity.
Adoption does not bestow marital status. Indeed, marital status is a legitimate basis for prioritizing adoptors because of the preference for providing children with homes that have integrated fatherhood and motherhood.
Adoption is clearly not at the core of SSM.
The use of "donors" is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. This typically requires that the husand explicitly agree with the impregnation of his wife by this procedure. But before that can occur, the "donor" must pre-emptively relinquish parental status.
That said, less than one-third of one percent of the child population were conceived via third party procreation methods like IVF and ARTs.
For one-sexed scenarios, gay or not, 100% go outside of the scenario to use the gametes of the other sex.
That said, most of the children living in same-sex households, by far, migrated there from the previously procreative relationships of thier moms and dads (i.e. marriages). That is, these children have both mom and dad, it is just that one or the other is not resident.
The presumption of paternity protects these children and their mom/dad parents.
Meanwhile, maybe 4% of the children in same-sex households were attained through adoption; and maybe 1% through third party procreation.
Across the board these scenarios segregate fatherhood and motherhood.
Of the adult openly homosexual population in the USA, perhaps 11% live in same-sex households (which includes those registered with government and those not registered). Of the adult homosexual population perahps 3% reside in such households with children.
Okay, so of the child population living in the households of that small subset of the homosexual population, an very tiny portion were attained via adoption and/or IVF/ARTs.
Meanwhile almost all married people have children. Indeed, more than half of the relatively few who experience infertility already have at least one child.
The context provides perspective that often goes missing in SSM argumentation's emphasis on the adult relationship. The child-parent relationship might be directly established through adoption, but not through SSM.
See the prerequisites that are the virtual inverse of the marital presumption that a husband is the father of his wife's children. That presumption is vigorously enforced in our legal system. It is highy reliable, too. Government interventin is not the default but rather the rarity. Again, that is the inverse of the SSM scenario. SSM depends on the government because its lack of a core emaning makes it very fragile.
How about a comment actually related to the post? The latest tactic of the hatemongers fighting for same-sex pseudo-marriage is to delve into the divorce records of Carrie Prejean's parents. In case anyone had any doubt, here's more evidence that just when you think they can't sink any lower, they do.
Attention trolls: Your constant use of ad hominem attacks on Carrie Prejean only highlights the truth: You sniveling cowards don't want to debate - you just want to silence the defenders of marriage. It's not going to work, punks.
I will just tell you myself as having 10 brothers and 3 sisters, we know what family really is. It is the sharing and caring, the parents mom and dad that instruct us, teach us manners, principals, morals and value. We all struggle and prosper because of the love that is the driving force, the notion that we would ever want to see a man acting as if he wanted another man, is just plain downright against all that family is about. It is about the most disgraceful, and I mean despicable, useless act that any sane, loving person can imagine. And why would we want to imagine that, to make us as children afraid of what kind of sickness or deviancy lurks behind that mind, of what is suppose to be a man, a father, a husband?? That would set the heart, my heart in convulsions. Yes- It would and does make me sick, because thats not loving, nor respectful to my mom, my sisters, my brothers. It is an abomination to mankind and family. Sex is beautiful and brings with it the promise of love, life and family. Don't ever tell me any different, because I have a heart and I love and protect children.
You can have your abortions, homosexuality, breast implants, sex change operations, women chopping off their breast, men minus their penis. you can have your sexual pride parades, you can have your hateful practices, that hurt everyone- Stand up show your
Pride***********
Are you getting enough, are you happy ???
Gee- Look at You- Who the -ell wants too?
Faithful, wow, what a little rant. You're right about one thing, love is the driving force. Gays are fighting for marriage and family rights out of love.
Why don't you stop ranting and engage in a dialogue with the people who disagree with you or are you afraid to?
I'm willing to answer any question you ask of me, but you have to be willing to answer any question I ask of you. I heard a recent statistic today that 46% of Americans approve of same sex marriage. That number is up from the year before and the year before that and the year before that. Pretty soon you will be in the minority.
If you're not willing to even discuss the issue in a debate, how do you expect to possibly win people to your side? Not that I think you actually have a chance.
This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents:
My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Gays are fighting for marriage and family rights out of love.
They want to change marriage into their view of a relationship. If they wanted marriage they would get married. No one is served by this re-defined entity, especially those that think they are married because of it.
I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Does the 17 year old watches a minister try to make segregation from black people sound legitimate, and thinks that intollerance of the other gender (so marriage must change) will sound legitimate?
He has a few things left to learn, obviously.
Stefanie,
FOr the sake of discussion, let's accept that statistic and let's accept your prediction that the majority opinion will eventually favor the merger of SSM with marital status.
Majority rule is not tyrannical if it favors SSM, right?
If a majority on a court favors SSM, even if just by a single vote, that's a good majority, right?
If the majority in a state legislature favors SSM, that, too, would be a good majority, right?
Would you agree that majorities in favore of the man-woman basis of marriage, in each of the above venues, would also be legitimate?
From my reading of the SSM arugments in courtrooms and in legislatures and in venues like this comment section, it seems to me that people who favor the SSM-merger are giving the right answer (equality) to the wrong question (why discriminate against homosexual people?).
And those who are defending marriage are asking the right question (what is marriage?) and being misconstrued when we give the right answer (see the core meaning).
Indeed, SSMers deny there is a core meaning which (contrary to dismissive remarks of some here who have misconstrued) can have several purposes that all link together coherently.
SSMers also talk alot about protections. And most people who support the man-woman basis of marriage, also agree with protection equality outside of marriage. But we recognize that marital status is a preferential status. And the reason it is so, and that it can be sustained as such, is its core meaning. A meaning that is deconstructed by SSM argumentation; unfortunately, that attempt to deconstruct leaves little for which SSMers can sustain SSM itself.
Hence, I say that SSMers tend to give the right answer (equality) for the wrong question (why leave out homosexual people).
Do you get a bettere sense of what I am talking about here?
"Indeed, SSMers deny there is a core meaning..."
Not necessarily. I'll admit that the "traditional," popular or even "intended" use of marriage is to create the idealistic male/female environment for raising children. And personally for myself, the word "marriage" implies a union of opposites, and the unique relationship that creates.
But...
The state doesn't really require a "proper" motive for marriage when granting the civil institution. Yes, maybe it hopes and intends that couples will form a stable bond to raise children, but it doesn't *require* that they do.
Best friends can marry for companionship; business partners could marry for the financial benefits; polyamorous partners could marry while maintaining an "open" marriage.
These relationships all "threaten" traditional marriage, yet the state doesn't discriminate between those and more traditional motives. It merely requires consent for the civil institution, then leaves moral judgements to the various churches if a couple wishes a religious blessing. Some faiths and churches will bless a particular relationship, others won't. In any case though, the state leaves the moral choice to the individual churches.
So I'm not sure why NOM presumes to speak for all faiths, all churches when it "opposes" SSM? I understand it's concerns, but even if NOM is absolutely right with every objection, I still feel other churches deserve a chance to make the moral choice for themselves, this being the "price" we pay for enjoying the benefits of a pluralistic society.
Chairm, no I'm not in favor of majority rule on civil rights, but people like you usually are. I'm just pointing out you might soon be in the minority.
I had another thought on Chairm's and On Lawn's view of marriage equality. By your definition of marriage equality, it would seem that when we finally revoked laws that denied mixed race couples the right to marry that all the couples who engage in same race marriage are discriminating against people of color. How do you reconcile that?
Stefanie,
Now I understand why you wish no children, it is easier for you to stay a child, and I commend you on your admittance of that fact. Now same race marriage if typical as that is how life, is lived and learned, people of the same race, often produce life, with the same race. But then there is a man and a woman that may love someone of another race, and it may be that they want to marry and have children together, that also happens in what we call life, love and marriage, none the less as they can and do marry and have children, producing family from generation to generation. It is what we define as life and love and family,.
Stefanie, Why do largely homosexuals and others of the little value, or no value crowd do so much PreJean and Palin bashing, Maybe they are not like those that truly want to grow up and discover the facts of life, and leave the immaturity and carelessness that causes so many of the problems for themselves, their children and families. The maturity and thoughtfulness of grown adults goes a long way in life to curb alcohol, drug, sexual addictions and the like. When one matures and accepts personal responsibility for their actions and their bodies and minds, it gives a new life to old problems. That is what adults must understand, if they are to stop the insanity that causes so much confusion and depression of the human heart. There are normal behaviors that lead to good living and right actions. They are learned and taught by thoughtful parents, and sometimes the children themselves that see the awful lust and greed of others. To be truly giving and loving one must struggle to overcome their own demons. If there lucky enough to discover God and ask Him in, It is so much more clear and easier. It take determination and thoughtful consideration. Sorry for the rant.
Chairm, I find the historical irony amusing and disturbing that Mormons, in particular, would stand in favor of the oppression of other minorities as far as marriage was concerned. Even the Church of LDS, which has long since discontinued the practice of polygyny continues to be derided for it, and is regarded commonly as a false faith by its peer denominations. In the meantime the fundamentalists are still trading each other's thirteen-year-old daughters as fresh chattel, and claiming it is God's will by which they rape their child brides.
On Lawn, you seem to confuse habitual skeptic disclaimers for ignorance or lack of confidence. In fact, when I express that "I don't see" your point of view, it is an opportunity to present evidence other than your own alleged anecdotal experience, or shut up about it.
I didn't make a "special pleading of ignorance?" Special pleading has to do with saying one group is above a given rule due to special circumstances. I'm not arguing gays are a special case from the rule, I'm arguing your rule is bogus to begin with. I'm challenging what you regard as axiomatic as illegitimate.
So, on what do you base your presumption, say, that marriage has anything to do with procreation? Or that gay marriage will endanger children?
So far, you've only succeed in convincing me that your polarized view of marriage is immutable despite the facts. While I may not (according to you) be able to see much beyond my own nose, it appears (another skeptical disclaimer) you simply refuse to look at or consider what is plainly in front of yours. You take comfort in, if not desperately cling to, your delusional belief system.
The cultures in those countries that have already accepted gay marriage have suffered little for the change. The American Anthropological Association has posted an open statement that human families can take a wide variety of forms, including being headed by same-sex marital partnerships,
The evidence in nature conflicts with the beliefs to which you cling.
This isn't surprising. Blind loyalty to allegedly divine command doctrine has proven an obstacle in the equalization of culture every step in the progress of civilization. In this country alone, it delayed the emancipation of slaves, the suffrage of women, the acceptance of religious denominations (or non-Abrahamic faiths), the legal equality of races, and so on. Every step of the way God's wrath had been promised, should a change take place, and yet we are still here.
Should all of New England accept gay marriages, should Proposition 8 be overturned or repealed, should DOMA collapse, and the world move on, will you still harbinger the doom of civilization due to the inclusion of gays into the fold of society?
I bet you will.
Faithful, I have difficulty determining if your questions are rhetorical (you already have an answer you believe, and are not interested in ones that might differ from those beliefs) or stem from genuine interest, innocence and curiosity. But some of the questions you asked seem genuine and there are answers from those of us who propose gay rights.
Hey- If the whole world was homosexual? would that solve the world's problems.Then they could all give each other what God gave to mankind???????????
Wrong, Wronger and Wrongest. Maybe aids and other s.t.d 's is the cure for the problem. Or maybe just maybe a one man, one woman relationship, marriage solves, many of these demonic struggles. Homosexuality is not about humanity, it is the vulture that destroys humanity.
5/50 states have legalized same-sex marriage, you guys can't hold out forever.
New United Nations Right of the Child will also give children rights in religion, so they will not have religious views pushed on them, which means that religion is going to die out. The world is getting more and more progressive, now you guys are behind the times.
Under A World of Sexual Lust and Deviance, It must Cease, For the Survival of Humanity, Wholeness and Righteousness. For The Lord, God Has Commanded It So.
Check out the urban dictionary, I guess this is what the educational institutions are educating our children with http://urbandictionary.com/define..php?term=swag. The marketing of our children's value system. Disgraceful.
Faithful, now you're resorting to personal attacks and putting words in my mouth that I never said.
"Now I understand why you wish no children, it is easier for you to stay a child, and I commend you on your admittance of that fact."
When did I say I didn't want kids so I could stay a child? Do you think all people who choose not to have children are childish? How would you feel if I said that anyone who has 15 children is selfish? I would never say that because I think people's reproduction is their own business. It's not my right to decide when and if people should have kids.
But if you'd like to know, my current reasons for not having children is that I'm currently working full time and going to night school to finish my degree. Personally, I think it would be selfish to have a child at this time when I'm so busy. Yeah, a hard working American with a full time job and going to night school makes me really childish doesn't it?
I wasn't directing the same-race comment at you. I should've stated it was for Chairm & On Lawn who claim that gay marriage would somehow hurt gender equality. If you feel the same way, then you really didn't answer how same -race marriages are different from same-sex marriages in that respect.
Faithful, what does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? Did I ever say anything about Sarah Palin? Did I ever say anything about Carrie Prejean for that matter?
I think Carrie Prejean's opinion is her opinion and I hate Perez Hilton, but not because he's gay. He's just rude to everyone.
"Why do largely homosexuals and others of the little value, or no value crowd do so much PreJean and Palin bashing"
Why do you claim people who disagree with you have no value? Does everyone have to agree with Carrie Prejean or Sarah Palin on every issue?
"Maybe they are not like those that truly want to grow up and discover the facts of life"
And who are these wonderful people who are right about everything and know everything?
"The maturity and thoughtfulness of grown adults goes a long way in life to curb alcohol, drug, sexual addictions and the like."
Here's another comment that comes out of left field. What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about. Yes, thoughtful and mature adults don't have alcohol, drug, or sexual addictions. I don't have much to argue with the rest of what you said either. I agree that people should be loving and strive to overcome their demons, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand.
Faithful, no one wants everyone to be homosexual. That's ridiculous. Almost all species of animal have a segment of the population that engages in homosexual activity. It's a part of nature. Maybe it's for population control, maybe it has some other evolutionary purpose. I don't know.
Why did God create homosexual animals (not humans)? If you believe being gay is a choice why and how does an animal choose to be gay?
"Maybe aids and other s.t.d ’s is the cure for the problem."
"Homosexuality is not about humanity, it is the vulture that destroys humanity."
You, and other right-wing Christians, say things like that you wonder why gays don't like you? If anyone said anything remotely like God sent a disease to kill me and that I was destroying humanity I wouldn't like you very much either. I'm not even gay and it makes me not like you.
Faithful, do you believe in freedom of religion? Should people be allowed to practice the religion of their choice in the U.S.?
Do you think our government should make laws based on religion?
If so, which religion? The Christian one? Then which sect of Christianity?
Stefanie, Go with Christianity, the belief that, the faith that Christ die for our sins.That He and He alone is the truth, the light and the Life. For everything works for good, in the order of God, Our Heavenly Father. There is a Father that is Righteous, that is pure, and that is the Truth. For He alone is the Creator, So look to Him and confess and repent, Ask Jesus Into your heart, take courage for He is our Rock, Our Salvation and our only hope for Heaven. How far is Heaven???
Praise Jesus!!!! Amen!!!
I don't know what to tell you about your government, because I am governed by The Almighty. So may i suggest that maybe someone that has that government fill the seat at what they call is the white house? Because it sure doesn't look white to me. Maybe a little less corruption, maybe a little more dignity for humanity. Maybe a little less waste and destruction of morally base foundation. Maybe a day without all the garbage that is being unloaded on the people. I don't know what to tell you, as I don't know much. But I do know Jesus, for He is my governor.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Just the mysteries of life, oh how they grow, what does your garden look like???
In The Garden Of Life
In the Garden of Life, Man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, coming together as one, to produce children, the family from generation to generation. Oh- What a passion, Oh what a truth, Oh what a faith, life flourishing in health, in mind, body and soul, What springs of the healing waters can bring, cleanliness, honesty, good nature and faith.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Faithful, there are 34,000 separate denominations of Christianity in this world. Is there any particular one you'd recommend over the others? Most of them preach "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", specific to their denomination. Which one do you think is the true faith that will gain its promise of Heaven? Do you believe the Catholics are true Christians? How about Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarians? Unificationists? Gnostic Revivalists?
Do you believe the bible is a historical document (hence should be interpreted in context of its own history) or do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God?
Do you believe the beatifications are more or less important than the commandments? What about the golden rule? Are the red-letter scriptures more important than the doctrine of Paul, or of equal standing?
Do you believe women are lesser creatures than men and should not speak or prophecy in church? Do you believe children should be beaten in order to be disciplined? Do you believe we should dispense with democracy, and reinstate a monarchy? Do you believe non-Christians (i.e. Jews, Muslims, Neopagans, Heathens, Deists, Agnostics and Freethinkers) should be executed? Do you think freedom of religion as determined by the first amendment to the Constitution of the US is a crime against God?
Christianity as is practiced by some even in the US is an unforgiving, cruel faith, no matter how much is preached about love or forgiveness.
Uriel- I don't know about all that, My Lord, keeps my mind focused on Him. I don't go to Church, except the Church of God, because I pray in His Holy name, at home or where ever I may be. I know His Love and that is Certain. So I would no more harm you and yours, than I would my own. But there is a Judge that you can ask, in prayer that is yours alone, as your relationship with Jesus always is, But as for myself, Jesus is a part of me, and I speak His guidance, For I believe, and His Spirit, The Spirit of God is my Light, My Gift to share with all.
With mother's Day approaching lets ponder on the meaning of The Fruit of the Womb, Ye- Shall Know them by their fruits.
Scattered Lives, Scattered Dreams, Confusing the facts with more of the same
One day I'll write a book with all the nonsense I have learned.
Stefanie, Texas
"Faithful, no one wants everyone to be homosexual. That’s ridiculous. Almost all species of animal have a segment of the population that engages in homosexual activity. It’s a part of nature. Maybe it’s for population control, maybe it has some other evolutionary purpose. I don’t know.
Why did God create homosexual animals (not humans)? If you believe being gay is a choice why and how does an animal choose to be gay?"
@ Stefanie
According to your worldview, homosexuality among human being should be legal because that behavior is displayed in the animal kingdom
I have a few questions:
It's natural for a lion to steal food from smaller animals. So, should we legalize theft?
It's natural for a female praying mantis to eat her mate. So, should we legalize cannibalism?
It's natural for a male Tasmanian devil to force a female to mate with him. So, should we legalize rape?
Just because animals engage in certain behavior does not make it moral or healthly for human society.
Jerusalem's Cry
Can you hear Jerusalem's Cry
Can you see the storm on the rise
Look around you can't deny
This is the hour of heaven's time
Armies gather in the East
For the war that's soon to come
Death will march with the mark of the beast
So seek Light and Walk with The Son
Soon we'll see His Wrath come down
And the Lord descending from the sky
When you hear the trumpet's sound
God has answered Jerusalem's Cry
When the sun goes black
And the moon blood red
And the stars fall from the sky
The Word of God in the Bible says
We're living in the end times
Soon we'll see His Wrath come down
And the Lord descending form the sky
When you hear the trumpet's sound
God has answered Jerusalem's Cry
Soon the dead in Christ will rise
And join Him in the sky
Even unbelivers will see
God has answered Jerusalem's Cry
God has answered Jerusalem's Cry
Dan wrote
"My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish."
There are two flaws with your arguments
First, God hates racism as demonstrated when He cursed Miriam for her bigotry against her brother Moses' non-Jewish (Cushite) wife. Read Numbers 12
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012;&version=47;
Thus, any Christian using the Bible to defend racial segregation is a hypocrite. True Christians like Martin Luther King fought against the evil of segregation.
Second, the Bible is QUITE clear that homosexuality is a sin that should be scorned instead of condoned. Here is a sample scripture:
"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine."
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Thus, those Christians who condone homosexuality are just as hypocritical as pro-racism Christians of the past. The true Christians are those who preach that homosexuality is a sin, but one can be free from it through by being saved through Christ.
I hope that clears things up.
Three wooden crosses
A farmer and a teacher, a hooker and a preacher, ridin' on a midnight bus bound from Mexico
One was headed for vacation, one for higher education, and two of them were searchin' for lost souls
That driver never ever saw the stop sign
And eighteen wheeler can't stop on a dime
There are three wooden crosses on the right side of the highway, why there's not four of them
Heaven only knows
I guess it's not what you take when you leave this world behind you
It's what you leave behind you when you go
That farmer left a harvest, a home and eighty acres
The faith and love for growin' things in his young son's heart
And that teacher left her wisdom in the minds of lots of children, and did her best to give them all a better start
And that preacher whispered "Can't you see the promise land? As he laid his blood stained Bible in that hookers hand
That's the story that our preacher told us last Sunday, as he held that blood-stained Bible up, for all of us to see
He said, Bless the farmer, and the teacher, and the preacher; who give this bible to my mama, who read it to me
There are three wooden crosses on the right side of the highway, why there's not four of them, now I guess we know
It 's not what you take when you leave this world behind you, it's what you leave behind you when you go
Faithful, you really have a hard time answering questions.
Do you believe in freedom of religion as granted to us in the U.S. Constitution?
It's a simple yes or no question. No need to go off on some diatribe about the white house not being white. Is that suppose to be some remark about Obama being black? If so, what on earth does that have to do with this discussion.
Chairm and On Lawn can claim NOM's reasoning is secular, but their followers prove otherwise. The U.S. Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not just freedom to practice your particular sect of Christianity.
Faithful, "I would no more harm you and yours, than I would my own."
WHAT A LOAD OF B.S.
You hope disease strikes down gay people as a"cure for the problem" as you say. You also apparently being gay (and anyone who disagrees with you is) is in a "demonic struggle" and that "homosexuality is not about humanity, it is the vulture that destroys humanity."
Yeah, you're a really kind, compassionate person. Jesus would be so proud.
Faithful, speaking of fruits, do you really think your actions towards gays embody the fruits of the spirit.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22)
Fred, being gay doesn't hurt anyone. The reasons those other behaviors are illegal is because they hurt someone. Behavior between consenting adults is none of my business or yours.
Fred, while we're at it. Not even every behavior that hurts someone is illegal. With the exception of suicide, most behaviors that hurt ourselves only aren't illegal. It's called liberty Fred and it's in the Declaration of Independence. You people seem to really hate this country and what it stands for.
Fred, do you want to take away the freedom of religion granted to us in the U.S. Constitution?
Yes or no?
If no, your Christian argument holds no water on this issue.
1. Marriage as recognized by the state is a civil contract. It has nothing to do with Christianity. If it did, then why do we let atheists have marriage licenses, or any other religion for that matter?
2. There are numerous religions that allow gays to marry (even some Christian sects). Why do you want to deny them their religious freedoms as granted to them in the Constitution?
Stefanie, I said homosexuality is the vulture that destroys humanity. That being said it is the behavior of the person, for thoughtful and loving people practice self-control, to preserve humanity. I have taken no action against homosexuals, except to defend the blood of Jesus, as His blood was shed for the sin of mankind. God, said be fruitful and multiply, the fruit of the womb, As He commanded Man and woman, Husband and wife, father and mother. I can't condone homosexuality as it is against the nature of God's Family. God's Creation is Life, not death-style, homosexuality. I just thought that God may have allowed for disease, as a warning of bad behavior and lack of morals, values and principals. I have always believed that disease, mental disorders and the like are results of sin and lack of morality. Just as alcohol abuse and drug abuse and sexual abuse. I find that good moral behavior and principals and value, goes to the heart of being sound and healthy. I believe I am right, so that is my story and I am sticking to it.
Oh I forgot to mention, I love black people, and most blacks that I know are against homosexuality, not the persons, the death style, the practice. We only have the time that God gives us, to come to Him and confess and repent our sins. All of humanity is Created by God, We are all God's Children, unless we reject Him. For God will not push Himself on you, He is not an abuser, He is the Great Physician, Our Healer,. trust in Him, faith is the foundation of growth.
Stefanie, Can I ask you? Are you Anti- Christian. You seem to spend quite a bit of time and energy denying God's Word. His living Word, that does not change, for to be Christian is to become Christ-Like, Jesus is our family our blood, He is a brother to Christians.
Vast,
I didn’t make a “special pleading of ignorance?” Special pleading has to do with saying one group is above a given rule due to special circumstances. I’m not arguing gays are a special case from the rule, I’m arguing your rule is bogus to begin with. I’m challenging what you regard as axiomatic as illegitimate.
So when I say marriage is targeted at securing the rights of all involved in the human mating practice, that is "illegitimate'.
Just because of gays and lesbians.
Sounds like a special pleading to me. We are all children and we all have parentage and heritage. But because of gay's self-proclaimed identity we have to call those concerns 'illegitimate'...
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Stefanie said: " I’m not in favor of majority rule on civil rights"
What is a civil right, Stefanie?
Would you depend on a majority, or a minority, of judges on a high court to decide a conflict over a civil right?
I suspect that for you the only good majority is the one which agrees with your version of identity politics. I had hoped there was more there for you than that.
Stefanie said: "By your definition of marriage equality, it would seem that when we finally revoked laws that denied mixed race couples the right to marry that all the couples who engage in same race marriage are discriminating against people of color."
What is my definition of "marraige equality", according to your reading?
I start with the meaning of marriage. You start someplace else.
I also point to the two-sexed nature of the one human race.
Do you point to the one-sexed nature of the various "races" of humankind? Please explain.
When you talk about sexual orientation are you now claiming that sex differentiation is irrelevant or nonexistent? Because it seems you are heading that way with your misreading of my notion of sex equality.
I know alot of gay marriage supporters don't understand why we only support traditional marriage. So consider this scenario.
Let's say a man, who is 58, wants to marry a woman, who is 26. The catch. The man is the woman's father.
Would you support that marriage? Would you support it even if:
--It didn't hurt anyone else's marriage
--It posed no threat to churches
--They loved each other
If the answer is no, then you will begin to understand why we don't support same sex marriage.
Uriel-238, as I am not a Mormon and am not deeply familiar with the history of the LDS in this country, I wonder at what you intended by your remarks about multi-marriage.
Please elaborate.
Uriel-238 said: "So, on what do you base your presumption, say, that marriage has anything to do with procreation?"
The presumption of paternity by which the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage. For starters.
On what do you base the complaint about so-called sexual orientation discrimination in the marriage law?
Uriel-238 said: "Blind loyalty to allegedly divine command doctrine has proven an obstacle in the equalization of culture every step in the progress of civilization."
You addressed On Lawn in that comment but I am going to point out that he has not invoked "divine command doctrine".
Nor have I.
But SSM argumentation continually invokes special rules and hope to runaway when those rules are aimed at their own assertions. Maybe there is some religious-like feeling about those self-defeating rules, I dunno.
The assertion of supremacy via identity politics is one of the most reliable sources of injustice, bigotry, corruption, and persecution.
Gay identity politics is no exception.
Stefanie said: "Chairm and On Lawn can claim NOM’s reasoning is secular, but their followers prove otherwise."
Ours is a pluralistic society and it is not an irreligious society.
Laws are expressed in secular language but that does not mean that the font of wisdom for the law is some anti-religious enclave populated by those who'd seperate government from civil society.
That said, the core of marriage has remained the same throughout recorded human history and across cultural, religious, and irreligius divides. There are universal features of this social institution. And there are near-universal as well as variable features.
SSM argumentation seeks to blind society to the universals and to turn attention to the variables only.
Look, if the things that you would emphasize are of such great importance, then, go about establishing a new relationship status based on those things as the essentials, the core, and leave marriage intact.
It seems a real shame that SSMers attack marriage and attack religion for the sake of gay identity politics. A less extreme approach would focus on the merits (and demerits) of the relationship type that SSMers have in mind.
Can't you guys focus like that instead of deriding the social institution of marriage and the religius supports for that institution? Do you really want to marginalize religious instutions in the public square? What is the value in doing that?
Faithful, I don't know why it's so hard for you to answer a simple yes or no question.
Do you support the freedom of religion granted to us in the U.S. Constitution?
I feel like I keep answering your questions, but you won't answer mine. That is not a dialogue.
Faithful, no I am not anti-Christian at all. I support the freedom of religion as granted to us in the Constitution. I'm opposed to one group of any religion trying to make their religious beliefs into law in a pluralistic society and your comments here prove that making laws based on religious beliefs is what NOM members are trying to do.
Stefanie, is the freedom of religion granted in the Constitution? Maybe you did not mean "granted" but something else.
Faithful, I also could ask you the same question. Are you anti-Christian? There are many different branches of Christianity and you spend quite a bit of time and energy denying what some of them believe is God's Word.
Chairm, I think you and I both know what civil rights are, but I'll humor you. Civil rights are the rights of all U.S. citizens protected in the Constitution. They allow for all people to live their lives freely without discrimination. In my mind that has nothing to do with the courts. This has to do with rights and the Constitution.
Chairm, "I start with the meaning of marriage. You start someplace else."
No, you start with your sect of your particular religion's definition of marriage.
Chairm, you're right, ours is a pluralistic society, but you apparently don't know the meaning of the word.
"That said, the core of marriage has remained the same throughout recorded human history and across cultural, religious, and irreligius divides." FALSE
The definition of marriage has been in flux since it's beginning. Marriage has been a property institution (the ownership of women and children), marriage has been a political institution ( the union of tribes and countries), marriage is now a secular civil contract that grants benefits between two parties who are deemed legally fit to enter a contract. There is no law that in the U.S. that says marriage is for procreation purposes only. Just because you want it to be doesn't make it so.
I'm not attacking marriage, you are. You are attacking the marriages of those who don't fit your personal definition of marriage. I will wholely support your right to marry for procreation reasons only. Now let the rest of us define our marriages for ourselves.
Chairm, why do you want to marginalize religious views that disagree with yours?
Chairm, quit avoiding the question and answer it. I'll rephrase it, but you know you're being stubborn on purpose.
Is freedom of religion covered in the Constitution and do you support it for all religions, not just your sect of Christianity?
So, according to Lisa, swine flu is God's punishment for gay marriage? But it's not legal in Mexico, so why'd he strike down so many Mexicans? Oh, wait--because, like terrorists, God can only strike at the U.S. through Mexico, eh, Lisa? Wow, that's some religion you got there. A book with rules of which you really only obey one (anti-gay "rule" in Leviticus, but none of the others listed there), and a god that can't get across the border.
Wow, and according to "Faithful," God created love between people of the same sex to feed like a vulture off of humanity, and its a "deathstyle." Not sure why its a "deathstyle," but you should copyright that word, Faith! It's a doozie, and sure to be used by others!
Personally, I just can't wait til nevada legalizes gay marriage so gay people can partake in that most sacred ceremony, drunken marriages officiated by an Elvis impersonator!
Look, Homosexuals and supporters, I have told you God man variety, That is why he made man and woman, so that they could rear their children with the differences and also the likenesses that the human, spirit could learn to live as such. God created man and a woman, to come together as one, to produce life, as God is the Creator of life, He gave that ability to create life, He made man in His image, Man is the more intelligent form of life, over all of His Creation. It is essential for children to have a father and a mother, this is the process of the completion of life, that is rich and full, That is why He made intercourse, for a man and woman to comfort each other and keep them close to one another, in that process they create life, which God has commanded, be fruitful and multiply. He, God wanted man to have a way to create lie, with the special bringing together of that specific union, To rear children with a man and woman, father and mother, thus creating the next generation. Marriage is a way of a man and woman filling that specific role, of marriage, children and family. For without this combination no life would be possible. Stop the stupid arguments as it is showing how to work to mutilate the facts, it also exposes your deliberate discount of factual events. God did not make homosexuality it is a deviance to moral sexuality.
Does the homosexual community remind anyone else of Nancy Pelosi- For some reason it sticks in my mind.
Before the anti-religious sentiment grows into the kind of intollerance that NOM is worried about,
Let me add this. Whether God created man-woman relationship or nature, the outcome is the same.
We all know where babies come from. Most of us know that marriage is meant to have everyone involved in that equally recognize the rights of everyone else involved.
I think government needs to continue to see that too.
Faithful, not every religion, not even every sect of Christianity, sees God the way you do. Why do you get to enact laws based on your religious view? How does that protect anyone, including yourself, to express their religious freedom?
I don't know why I'm bothering asking because you are either incapable of or unwilling to give any answers.
Faithful says "It is essential for children to have a father and a mother". This is based on Faithful's religious views. Faithful wants this view put into law.
If Faithful is willing to enact laws that deny gays the rights to form families, who is to say Faithful will stop there? If you use Faithful's religion to make laws we might possibly see an end to all single person or unmarried couple adoptions and foster homes. It's already happening. The people of Arkansas already voted in a law that forbids unmarried people (gay or straight) from adopting or providing foster care.
NOM is not just against the rights of gays. NOM is against the freedom of gays and straights as individuals to build our own families the way we see fit. Welcome to theocracy.
Faithful, I thought the Christian God made everything. Yet you say, "God did not make homosexuality."
If God didn't make homosexuality, then that means he didn't make everything. If he didn't make everything, then how is he God?
Sorry, but you can't claim God made everything, but leave out the things you don't like, such as war, disease, homosexuality, etc...
Oh yes I do claim that God made everything, and He did, He made everything to work for the Good of His Creation, You may skip over the Wrath of God, but He made the commandments and the price, If you break them. Jesus died for the sins of mankind, He suffered, and so shall we, if we refuse to keep His commandments. God Created Moral behavior, Principals and Values. That is what His commandments provide. He Created man in his image, So act accordingly if you are a Christian.
Stefanie, why did you use the word sect in your previous comment?
You don't know if I even have a "particular religion" much less can you claim that I have invoked a "religious definition" of marriage.
* * *
So for you a civil right is a right specified in the text of the US Constitution.
That pretty much destroys your claim of a civil right to "gay marriage". Just because you say there is such a right does not make it so.
I see that you have not addressed the contradition in your remarks. You oppose the assertion of abritrary authority and yet here you asserting such a claim for abitrary authority.
You may sincerely believe that your axiomatic beliefs merit special treatment in the law. But that puts you at odds with your own pose of being on the side of religious liberty.
* * *
Stefanie, marriage has universal features. The flux you referred to is in regard to the variable features.
I have not said that the law forces people to procreate, no matter how much you wish to put those words into my mouth.
I have pointed out that the marital presumption of paternity is part and parcel of what people consent to when they enter marriage.
You oppose the legal requirement that integrates man and woman. You ignore or pretend it is irrelevant that there is a vigorously enforced legal requirement regarding procreation within marriage.
So be it. You are intent on making marriage mean less and less. That is an attack, Stefanie, and you should own it with all your heart and mind.
Leave marriage alone and make the case for the relationship type you have in mind.
* * *
It is not a religious belief that the nature of humankind is two-sexed, nor that the nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed, nor that the nature of human community is both-sexed.
From this, the foundational social institution, marriage, arises from civill society. By contrast, the claims for "gay marriage" are fragile and depend utterly on Government. The SSM argumentation on display here demonstrates the lack of intellectual honesty and the sheer superficiality of the gaycentric view of marriage through human history and across the anthropological record.
If there were stronger pro-SSM arguments, they would have been put forth by now. All that has been offered is old and brittle stuff that was hatched more than a decade ago. It is self-defeating dribble that is driven entirely by an cult-like adherence to identity politics of the gaycentric variety.
Homosexuality is irrelevant to marriage. But it seems that gay identity politics is about all that the SSM campaign is about.
For the gay activists, their interest is not in justice but rather "in just us".
All of you, begin to know that God, Almighty God Created the heavens and the earth, and all that is in it.
He Created this for brotherly love,. sisterly love and parental love. For God so loved His Son, That all whom believe in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting, eternal life, with Him as so did Jesus, His Son. We shall, all of God's Children live with Him for eternity.
John (#300),
Honestly, I would not care at all. My only concern would be in the possibility of any offspring the two might have--since such close inbreeding has most definitely been proven to be harmful to those who are a product of it. That being said, such a couple would not necessarily have to procreate; nor would they be precluded from doing so if they decided not to marry.
I think that a lot of people would care, though. A lot of people would go on about how it's morally wrong, or a sin against their particular deity. Such a couple would probably be social pariahs.
But for all the public outcry they'd likely endure, their union would affect no one else. Taking offense at the private deeds of others--deeds that harm no one--is a choice, and a poor one at that.
Even assuming that, in your view, gay marriage is a social harm, aren't there more worthwhile harms for you to address? If you're going to go on about being a Christian, how about, I dunno... doing something Christ-like? Maybe just take five hours of your time that you would have otherwise spent rallying against gay marriage to instead care for the poor?
In fact, every time you have the urge to pass judgment on the private goings-on of someone else, just try to channel that negative energy (and since it's *against* something, you can hardly claim that it's not negative) into something positive.
The world feels like a better place already, doesn't it?
pass judgment on the private goings-on of someone else
Marriage is a public act, recorded by the state.
Marriage, of both sexes give children protection that they have a family name and blood, If We assume that homosexuals carry marry and produce children from different sources and many sources, such as two females having children within the same so-called marriage, this puts society at risk, as youths can marry, brothers and sisters, and other relatives without even knowing. It is bad to let society go to the dogs. It's hurting all.
That an act is recorded by the state, or a matter of public record, does not make it an inherently public act. If that were the only requirement for an act to be public, there would be very little left of the private sphere.
Maybe you've inadvertently cut to the heart of this debate, On Lawn. Is marriage public or private? I think there's room for argument, but the problem with declaring something "public" is that it suggests that the public should have a say in it.
This could have nasty consequences for marriage, indeed--even discounting the debate on gay marriage. If marriage is truly public, wouldn't the public have a right to invalidate individual heterosexual marriages it didn't approve of? Would every proposed marriage be subject to a vote?
It seems to me that, for practical purposes, marriage is best left as a contract between parties. A married couple may wish to open up various aspects of their relationship to the public, but they're under no obligation to do so.
Faith,
First, I'm not here to espouse the merits of incest. I don't think anyone else is, either.
But from what I could understand, the situation you describe is of a same-sex couple somehow having a child (maybe by artificial insemination) that would grow up to unknowingly procreate with a blood relative of theirs.
I agree that this is an unfavorable outcome. But it's also 1) unlikely and 2) capable of happening in plenty of situations that do not involve same-sex parents. For instance, a straight married couple could adopt a child who grows up to have a kid with a person that, unbeknownst to them, is their second cousin.
Again, this is fairly unlikely. But given that it's a concern, it's easily-remedied thanks to modern technology. A simple DNA test can solve the problem of whether a man and a woman are at risk of conceiving an inbred child.
Finally, while they are related topics, I would like to say again that gay marriage and gay parenthood are not the same thing. There are gay parents who never marry; and likewise, gay married people who never have kids. If you're making an argument, be sure to remember what you're arguing about.
That an act is recorded by the state, or a matter of public record, does not make it an inherently public act.
Inherent or not, the act of getting married is public.
but the problem with declaring something “public” is that it suggests that the public should have a say in it.
None the less, marriage is a public act, recorded if sought to be recognized by the state.
If marriage is truly public, wouldn’t the public have a right to invalidate individual heterosexual marriages it didn’t approve of?
You mean like...
Marriages where one of the spouses is already married?
Marriages where they are related?
Marriages where one or both are under-aged?
I have to wonder where you are going with this...
marriage is best left as a contract between parties
Marriage is already left as a contract between parties. However we also have something that is just a contract between parties ... they are called 'contracts between parties'.
I know marriage is best left to one man, one woman
This affords the protections of all concerned and protects the children, the innocents, as it gives them foundation from it's core of that union. Marriage is a private matter between the two that are responsible for their lives and how it affects their children, the future of mankind and the preservation of family and blood lines, future generations. Marriage within it's confines is a health issue, promoting a positive emotional and the physical security essentials that shape the offspring soundness and sanity. Simply put it is a good institution worth defending and preserving, as society will always have that structured institution, the core of mankind.
If a stream is flowing and provides clean and fresh water, for the wild life, trees and fish that depend upon it. If someone, with an idea believes that they could improve that stream to flow more abundantly and puts a dangerous mix into the water creating a hazard, causing, destruction to its pureness, would we take such a risk, say in marriage, I say don't mess with mother nature, marriage has it's core, it's foundation, for all to see, live and love.
Someone told me years ago that God Created Music, With the purpose of Giving Praise to Him. That there are note's of music, in heaven that we haven't heard yet. I haven't found it in the Bible yet, as I have not read the entire Bible, I am sure it's in there.
When my daughter's were in high school they told me they had a homosexual teacher and ask me why someone is homosexual, So I as their mother told them the truth.
In the garden of life
Heterosexuality is the flower that grows and flourishes
Homosexuality is the weeds that wither and die
I am not trying to be mean spirited nor hateful
I have a way of looking at nature from it's form
It's creation and growth
That is just me
This is not a civil rights issue or an equal right issue. It is a moral issue, like wallowing in sewage, some people are unhappy with the STINK. An (( ungodly gay )) man represents immorality, and when they impose their immorality on us, this is the response they get. Keep your immorality to yourself, so we can just get along, and endure this insanity, until the Redeemer returns, to make everything right.
A man and a woman (are) meant to be together, and man and woman, together in love, is the supreme value in life. An (( ungodly )) gay man is a (( perversion )) that destroys love between man and woman; because, he cannot satisfy a real man the way a woman can; so that (ungodly)-entity attacks her like a diseased rabid dog, out of his own spite, contempt, and envy. Carrie PreJean, you are the ultimate value, to a REAL MAN of honor and morality, and it is Us who need You, BE THERE FOR US! Also, forget about those semi nude pictures, or M. Phelps, they stand for nothing, and the Powers of Heaven do smile upon you, Carrie Prejean, and will support your every effort; because, you represent that which is Heavenly, upon earth.
Let's be clear! A gay man is (( un-godly )), homosexuality is subhuman, and the human race cannot evolve with them, so gays and homosexuals are a restraint on human evolution. Only when gays and homosexuals stop interfering with us, will we make the next step forward in our own evolution, and achieve the Heavenly rewards that gays find offensive. It is us who need liberation from their irrational rabid disease, they attack us because they need to corrupt us and spread their irrational disease (just like a virus). They can marry and live together, just don't attack and diminish our beautiful women that we adore; if they do, there are consequences.
One thing is for sure, I will damn that judge hilton, for his rabid attack on Carrie Prejean; and, when he is begging for forgiveness, on Judgement Day, I will do to him what he has done to Carrie. HE IS UNFORGIVEN!!
I talk to two lesbian woman, whom are going to marry and they want to have their babies at the same time, so they plan to get pregnant at the same time. Which only proves how ill these people really are.
Like I said if two homosexuals are allowed the right to marry, then why can't polygamist marry, aren't they husband and wives, or wives and husbands, this is the reason why marriage and it's core meaning of one man, one woman, cannot change. Homosexuals believe they have a right to destroy marriage, yet they depend upon others to come into a so-called marriage, to give them children, Polygamist on the other hand can create their own blood related family, yet they cannot marry, This is the dangers of breaking apart marriage, into cults and zoo's. The intelligence of man is far more advanced than animals, and cults. we realize the importance of emotional health, physically essentials that provide for the procreation of life, that is the joining of the man and woman, in the order that serves the need of marriage and it's offspring.
If one lives in a house built of straw, and claims that house is every bit as safe and sound as a house built of wood or stone, If challenged by the elements of the earth, such as wind, rain, fire and storms, is it justified that it's claim is valid? We must fight and fight to the very end, to insure that marriage remains intact, not attacked by the very one's that seek to destroy it.
As I am fifty-five yrs. old, married for over 3 decades, I realize now more than ever how important the institution of marriage really is. One must seek the question and answers with commitment and truth, because the future generations must not be cheated by the lustful and wanting ways of the insensitivity to the grave impact of it's dismantling.We must as husband and wives, fathers and mothers, insist on the dignity of the legal rights and responsibilities that insure that the home of the man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, remain intact, for it;s survival of it's elemental and fundamental purpose of it's foundation.
But it seems that gay identity politics is about all that the SSM campaign is about."
Chairm, polls show that the public is rather split on the SSM issue. While SSM supporters are still the minority in most (but not all) states, the gap is fairly small - and closing.
So unless you're suggesting that nearly half the population is gay, I hardly think this is about "gay identity politics." The vast majority of SSM supporters are NOT gay themselves.
Josh,
Actually, it is a civil rights issue. It may be a moral issue as well, but as I keep saying, it is not an issue that should be decided based on the morals of particular religious groups. Especially when members of those groups (assuming they're not interested in being personally married to someone of the same sex) are unaffected by the outcome.
The United States does not recognize any particular religion or set of beliefs, as many countries do. It is therefore inappropriate to legislate as if it does. Again: YOUR RELIGION IS NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS.
As for the slights against "ungodly" homosexuals: I would be insulted, except that it's hard to take you seriously. You're not engaging in rational debate that actually weighs the pros and cons of same-sex marriage. Instead, you're talking about how particular citizens of this country are subhuman. I'm afraid to say that I've never heard a salient point about civil rights made by a person who walks around questioning the humanity of other people.
Also: "attack and diminish our beautiful women that we adore"? Are you still talking about the beauty pageant contestant? Because really, who do you think does the hair and makeup for those ridiculous events? And if you are talking about her: doesn't she seem, stylistically, a little more like a biblical harlot than an actually-beautiful woman?
Faithful,
Exactly what point does your twin-lesbian-pregnancy point prove?
Regarding polygamy: sure, why can't polygamists marry?
To be fair, there are key differences. Sexual orientation is, counter to what some would believe, immutable. It cannot be changed. If you think it can, try willing yourself to be attracted to the same sex, just for a few minutes. If you can't make it work, you'll know what I mean. Conversely, I think that most people would have no biological problem with a polygamous or polyamorous relationship. What holds most back is social conditioning--the strong taboo against any type of relationship that is not monogamous.
If, just for the sake of argument, though, polygamy was legalized, what do you think would happen? Honestly, probably not a lot. Unlike same-sex marriage, which is being sought by millions of couples who are already together, polygamy (legal or otherwise) is relatively rare in this country. And you know, for those who did choose it, I think it would be fine.
Polygamy in the past has been problematic largely because of the forced subjugation of women. If three or four people wanted to get married, treat each other equally and with respect, and raise a bunch of children, where's the real harm in that?
The 1950's ideal of the nuclear family, in its single-family house with its 100-foot curb setback, has done a real number on the social fabric of this country. Ask anyone from a large, tight-knit family, and they'll tell you how important those extra family members are. Maybe, in these troubled economic times, bigger families with more parents are what the country needs.
My point here is that there's usually a legitimate argument to be made for letting people do what they're wont to do on their own. You can argue all you want about how it's against your god, but not everyone believes in that same god. And even if they do, I'll bet that most people would agree that no one person or church really has the inside scoop on divine wisdom. So, for once, how about making an argument that's based in logic, or social policy, rather than your individual belief in god?
Rex, it appears you shrug when it comes to the eligibility to marry because for you there is no public interest at stake in marriage per se.
That can be consistently applied, however, it would mean no marriage licenses and no legal status based on marriage.
Private contracts and arrangements are already available.
Indeed, more than that, and based on affidavit, we have long had provision for designated beneificiaries.
On the other hand, do you agree that society has an interest in at least two things --
1. Providing a baseline for the equal treatment of the sexes across society; social coherency between men and women; and otherwise adjusting socially for the human fact of sex differentiation and free will?
2. Providing a baseline for ensuring the birthright of children to be raised by their parents in light of point #1?
Society is not owned by government Government is insituted to secure certain essentials for a civilized society and for the optimumization of self-governance.
Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social instituton that provides the baseline for civilization. It is not own by the government -- no more than civil society itself is a government created and owned entity. It actually goes the other way: the people have a government, not the other way around.
Rex- Your comment on letting one do what they want on their own, pertaining to marriage, does not hold sperm in the effective light, as a man and a man cannot do it on their own, if they are to wed and have children, the producing of family they must depend upon other sources. This is exactly what my point is, Creation of life, the flourishing of it depends upon man and woman, and that fact, that elemental foundation does not change. So seek your own contract with your own sperm and what it represents for your brand, it is not the foundation of marriage. And that my person is the facts.
As the commercial for the crackers states, get your own box. Crackers Get It.
Actually, Charim, the foundation of societies is the hunter/farmer relationship, which is why many cultures base "marriage unions" on one hunter, one farmer/gatherer.. The gender of either did not matter. And human hetero pairs tended to bond for only three years, coincidentally the point when a child learns to walk.
And JOSHUA proclaims (in his infinite wisdom and a phD, no doubt) that homosexuality is against evolution--wait, I thought you people did not BELIEVE in EVOLUTION! "Let's be clear.." who the heck are you? You don't know anything about gay lives, and the VANITY of presuming you know God's evolutionary intentions, plan,in the manner of which you profess wow. Did God tell you all about evolution, even as you denied it to children in school? No Xtian I know would dare go that far. I think the Bible describes you as a special sort of sinner, Pharisee. All of you. Let THIS be a reminder--Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and cast the first stone, ye...the arrogance and hypocrisy of you NOM people is staggering.
And Chairm, do you have a degree in even basic anthropology? One based on research, I mean, not one from those ridiculous places like Liberty Univeristy" where they teach about teenage dinosaurs fitting on an arc?
which is why many cultures base “marriage unions” on one hunter, one farmer/gatherer.. The gender of either did not matter.
Modern women are excellent gatherers
And human hetero pairs tended to bond for only three years, coincidentally the point when a child learns to walk.
Most babies learn to walk between 12 and 15 months. A few muscular, ambitious ones start as early as nine months.
Three years is the equivalent of 36 months.
I thought you people did not...
Your swinging and missing quite a bit here...
And Chairm, do you have a degree in even basic anthropology?
Actually I was going to ask you the same thing. You struck out (0-3) in what you presented as facts...
Chairm states: "the core of marriage has remained the same throughout recorded human history and across cultural, religious and irreligious divides." Oh, come on. Where do you get this official "core of marriage" stuff from? Where exactly is this written? By whom? And why should we all have to live by this definition?
The "core of marriage" depends on the individual marriage. For many, the "core" is love. For some it is money, or power, or whatever. Who gave Chairm and his ilk the authority to define the "core of marriage" for everyone else?
As for this "core" of marriage having "remained the same throughout recorded human history" -- that's a joke, right? In the Bible, most of the prophets had multiple wives, along with concubines. Didn't King Solomon have several hundred wives? What was the "core" of his marriage(s)?
Marriage differs from culture to culture, even now. For example, Muslims in the Middle East continue to practice poligamy to this day, and a man can legally and religiously divorce a wife simply by saying "I divorce thee" three times!
If the "core of marriage" is universal and changeless, Chairm, then how do you explain all of the countries around the world that have already legalized SSM? Present reality flies in the face of your argument.
You may argue that these are not 'real' marriages until you're blue in the face, and you have this right, but the FACT is that a whole lot of people disagree with you and no one appointed you and NOM to be the arbiters of marriage for the rest of us. Gay people are not allowed to be the arbiters of your marriage either.
Your definition of "the core of marriage" is yours to believe in, and welcome to it, but it's hardly "universal." And nothing has "remained the same throughout recorded human history." Things change. People change. Cultures and institutions change. Some people call this "progress." Deal with it.
All of this arguing will be for naught once gay marriage is tha law. And, is there any doubt about it? As the old people die away, the young people under 35 are close to 60 percent in favor of gay marriage. You will lose this fight eventually. Maybe not in five years or ten, but civil rights will march forward with or without your bible.
In meantime, I'm still waiting for a bible beater to explain why it is that you cannot accept the FACT that humans were on earth 1.5 million years before Adam and the rib lady...
All of this arguing will be for naught once gay marriage is tha law.
No, it is at that point that the civil injustice it poses will bring the subject up even more fervently.
As was said long ago...
You can't step on who children are and expect future generations (future children) to admire you for your ability to pander to adult intolerances of another gender at their expense.
Neutering marriage will be seen with slavery as the top injustices that one segment of society applied to another segment of society.
-- Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC
link to the 800lb gorilla quote from the preceding comment...
Did you see the breaking news of Drew Peterson, that person? That killed all of his wives, Do you look at him, really look at him, and take notice of that smug, disgusting, boastful, prideful look, my thoughts were have I seen that look before, Oh Yea- It was that despicable Prez Hilton, The PROUD HOMOSEXUAL, the pride of the Homosexual agenda, That is what you lesbians are raising your sons for, think about that as mothers day is celebrated. How anyone can go trough life without consideration of their children, is beyond belief.
Happy Mothers day- To all the mom's and dad's out their whether you are weathering the storm of the of the parental responsibilities by yourself, or dad and mom together, Remember their is no right more worthy and rewarding than to raise your children in God's love, to give them life and hope for a future that is bright as new life is birthed. An innocent child that is needy and pure, loving parents with the bright light of love, in a world that sometimes is hard and cold. But what makes it all worthwhile is Dad and Mom, Happy Mothers Day, Bless You Alll!!
Praise Jesus!!!
The Son of Faith, The Son of God's Love!!!
FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD
THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY BEGGOTTEN
SON
THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM
SHOULD NOT PERISH
BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE
(JOHN3:16)
There is a Gentle wind blowing
A wind of a Mother's Love
The Love that Reaches,
Searches, the Heart and The Soul
It's Warm, and at the Same Time
Gentle, Faithful and Just
Because it's a wind of Trust
A Mother's Love is Eternal
The Warrior's Prayer
Heavenly Father
Your warrior prepares for battle
Today I claim victory over satan
By putting on The Whole Armor of God
I put on the Girdle Of Truth!
May I stand firm in the truth of your word
So I will not be a victim of satan's Lies
I put on the Breast Plate of Righteousness
May It Guard my heart for Evil
So I will remain pure and holy
Protected under the blood of Jesus Christ
I put on the Shoes of Peace
May I stand firm in the Good News of the Gospel
So your Peace will shine through me and
Be A Light To all I Encounter
I take the Shield of Faith!
May I be ready for Satan's Fiery Darts of Doubt
Denial and Deceit
So I will not be vulnerable to SPIRITUAL defeat
I put on the Helmet of Salvation!
May I Keep my Mind Focused on You
So satan will not have a stronghold on my thoughts
I take the Sword of the SPIRIT!
May the Two-Edged SWORD of your WORD
be Ready in my Hands
So I can Expose the Tempting words of satan
By Faith your Warrior has put on the Whole Armor of God!
I am Prepared to live this Day In
In SPIRITUAL VICTORY!
AMEN!!!
Sorry in the eighth line of the poem was suppose to
Read May It guard my heart from evil.
Praise Jesus!!!
Why Lesbians should not practice homosexuality
God said to me
A young boy seeks the love of a father
He need that bonding, that unconditional love, that assurance of the promise of manhood
He needs the trust in that bonding, that it is not abusing, but of the true love of a father and his son
If he has not that bond, he may seek it from others
Others may abuse him, promising love but taking
his mind and body away from him
The boy , whom is not a man will be confused by this abuse and accept it as love
The boy seeks love but is tricked by the abuser
This is an evil that grows a wrong perception, and then becomes an addiction
The boy is hopelessly caught in the greedy lust and has not the courage to change it. For he was not prepared with the love of a father
The woman homosexual feels that she is betrayed by man, and turns to woman, for the comfort, the love that was to marriage, the coming together of the two, male and female, now she too is caught in the deception. Oh- what a tangled web we weave when we try to deceive.
God's Spiritual Love
You can't fill that hunger for His love
With Sex, Drugs, Alcohol, Music, Big fancy cars, Mansions, nor friends, For God's Love is His Mercy and His Grace. His will is that all Live with The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of God, Ask Jesus In to the trouble Heart, The lonely, The heavy
Faithful,
Doesn't your mention of Drew Peterson kind of illustrate how terribly wrong monogamous heterosexual marriage can go? The guy married and divorced (or killed) four times, and almost got away with a fifth. He had several children with these women.
I don't mean to make light of the situation, which is quite frankly disgusting. But how can you hold up such an example of "traditional marriage" and not see it as more of a threat than a couple of law-abiding dudes buying a house together and adopting a golden retriever?
Just as Drew Peterson is obviously not a good example of a straight married man, Perez Hilton is not a good example of a gay man. I think it's an overstatement to compare him to a convicted murderer, but he's nevertheless obnoxious, self-aggrandizing, and a completely hollow imitation of an important social commentator. Any publicity he receives from gay-rights groups is negative, and I don't know a single person (regardless of sexual orientation) who likes or respects his "work."
It's unfortunate that he did ask that question of miss what's-her-name at the artificial-beauty pageant. There's no point in asking a controversial question to someone who's incapable of giving a reasoned and coherent answer. Everyone remembers Miss Teen South Carolina, right?
Because some people don't have maps. For our children.
Rex, My whole point of what I am saying is all of mankind are sinners, That is why we need the Holy Spirit of God, to Keep our mind focused on Him, The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, He gives us the morals, and principals and value that we need to keep us Holy and Pure. When we sin we must confess to God our Sins, and Repent of them. By asking Jesus to come into our heart and admit to Him that we have sinned, Jesus puts the spirit of protection over you, so that we may find peace, in His comfort and love. Then you may seek to Repent by way of stirring clear of sin. Reading the bible and asking Jesus for insight, wisdom is the Way to have a personal relationship with Him, Son of God,. That will Save you and God with His Grace, Forgives the Sin. I hope you understand and if you need me, I'll be here for you and maybe you might be here for me. God Bless!!!!
Stephen,
You have hit the nail on the head!
Same-sex advocates only want their lifestyles to be validated, not equal rights.
SSM will NEVER be equal to True Marraige, the Natural Law won't allow it.
Christian Children Fund by way of removing the Christian identity from their title, is making a statement that it's group, organization perceive themselves to be oppressed by a virtue of shared principals, values and morals that as Christians work together to do their Good Works, The Lord thy God saith, Be not of this World, For the Ways of the World are not My Ways. This children's fund has has acknowledged that they are not in interested in The Good Works of a Christian, they are like any other group that makes claim to use money for good purposes, without the value that God Fearing People would find comfort and trust of the donation of their resources would be used in a manner that is consistent with stated purposes. They acknowledge to it's contributors. that they are practicing identity politics. These principals are not the values of Christians, they are the tactics of the government, used to corrupt the Laws of God.
All that a Man has is what God, The Lord has given him, To use in a Godly manner, with the love of a Christian, To become Christ Like, with the principals, morality and value that God has commanded. To serve the Lord, In His Name, For The Glory of God. Man cannot be Good for Goodness sake, without God's Love. The Spirit of God, survives by His Living Word, Living in accordance of His Faith. By the Blood of His Son,. Jesus, we seek His Blessing, His righteousness, To Give Glory to His Name.
Praise Jesus!!!! Amen!!!
Marriage is meant for one man and one woman.
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based on Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is repulsive, disgusting, and immoral. We oppose that gay judge attacking our beautiful women, our values, and making us unhappy with exposure to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie's RIGHT to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that “We The People” have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. In litigation thereafter, the U .S. Supreme Court declared in,( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness to marry a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge, who slandered Carrie Prejean, because of her support for traditional marriage and because of her pursuit of traditional happiness. Why, because that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie's career, and livelihood, because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn't attack him, he attacked and slandered Carrie because she rejected his pursuit of happiness, and this the way it always is, gays exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
---------------------------
Note to Faithful: it is the responsibility of every man, and woman, to use the Bible as their model and their example of how to use the Knowledge of Good and Evil to do that which is right; and, to do the things that GOD would do if GOD were here, in all situations. Why, because, the invisible soul/consciousness of Satan has taken dominion over all life on earth, when the 1st Adam was tricked into disobedience, and death. So, GOD intends to forgive the transgressions of all those who exert effort to overcome Satan's dominion over them, and to disregard Satan's malevolence. Since the soul of Satan cannot materialize, here in real life, Satan takes possession over the mind of humankind and encourages them to do those things that Satan would do, if he was here. A reward is offered, for our effort to resist Satan, until the time of Redemption, and at the reclaiming (redemption), GOD will extract the soul of Satan out of the matter, energy, and life, of planet earth; and all those who are worthy, will be given the opportunity to be reborn into the Heavenly Matrix of love, peace, and paradise upon earth; and they will be given an opportunity to complete the development of morals, ethics, and honesty, upon earth, without Satan's treachery.
Joshua, Thank you so much for sharing God's love, it's so nice that we can communicate in a matter of seconds in this age of computers, I never thought I'd appreciate this modern method, as I believe it was so much nicer when people shared company. Now I fear much more evil can be done with this new age technology, especially to the children. I am sadden everyday because children are being abused, rape, murdered, my tears are like a shower. My heart feels so heavy that I feel like giving up, where are the fighters that will go to the state house and knock the wall down, this is abuse of the most despicable kind, adults should not have the right to attack a child's innocence. Today they tell the parents in the schools to go to hell and indoctrinate the children into garbage and filth and lies. Check out http://www.massresistance.,org.
Also goggle Boston Children's Hospital Sex change clinic. I could just slap the face off these so-called adults, but I don't have children in school .I feel so sad for Neil Horsley, that man that was running for Governor of Georgia. He is in the fight of billions of Life's against abortion, I am praying for him. What is wrong, so wrong as when people act like beasts and brag like it's an honor. I know that Jesus' heart is broken, I find comfort with Him, as He understands pain more than anyone.
God Bless!!!!
Kathryn Borkowski
Faithful, what your web-link demonstrates is that prophecy has come true: (Matthew 24:3-15) As he sat on the mount of olives, his diiples came unto him and said, "tell us when shall these things happen, and about the signs of your 2nd comming, and of the end of the world." And he said, there shall be wars and rumors of war; nation shall make war against nation, and kingdoms against kingdom; there shall be famine and pestilence, and earthquakes. Then shall their faith be tested, and many will be offended, and they shall betray their faith and hate one another and hate GOD Himself; many false prophets shall arise and shall decieve many, and because evil and malevolence shall be abundant in the world, the love of may shall wax cold. Then, the revelations of the Lord God shall shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end time come.
=========
So, just like Carrie Prejean's faith was tested, when that rabid gay judge attacked her, so will the faith of everyone be tested. Why, because, there will be no hypocrites, deceivers, or con-artists in Heaven above, or when Heaven is re-created upon earth. So, ......to make people expose themselves for what they truly are, everyone will be tested. Those who pass the test will evjoy the ultimate of peace, joy, and happiness. In addition, the best way to pass the test, is to get an understanding of the prophecy and the truth of reality, so that you will not be deceived, and I have tried to give you that, here and now. I know its just a small piece of understanding, but it will help for now.
Joshua
The Fox news has reported that the Tri-Ad marriage zoo is fighting for the Civil Rights of Marriage. No surpise here, they aren't going to be satisfied until all of our children are out in the streets having sexual relations with animals.
The question that the homosexuals ask quite a bit is if I am not really gay why do I look different? I believe it just may be that when Satan take possession over the minds of humankind, encourages them to part take of Evil, their looks change to accommodate their new found heritage. Maybe that's the hole idea behind queer eye for the straight guy.
Yes, their looks do change! Try this, when you see a magazine or a news paper photo of G. W. Bush, put two short devil horns on the photo, and you'll see that it suits him. Do the same with John Kerry, and even that new Pope (He's totally Scary). Also, most succussful women like Dolly Parton and Glenn Close look like witches when you draw a witches hat on their head. Their looks don't lie!!
It's sad that Carrie Prejean still wanted that crown, because of the marketing of evil that is put forth in society today, these youths don't totally grasp the idea that if they move towards these things such as marketing your beauty and getting involved in sexual advertising that they can so easily loose sight of what is important to their character and value. I feel sad that the sex industry and drug industries have such a destructive influence on our precious children.
Yes, You Are Right! And, ... it is up to the (NOM) and people like you and me, (who have faith and knowledge and understanding), to run a gauntlet of interference against those evil entities, and expose their true objectives, so as to maintain the human-godness that Carrie Prejean represents. It is the corporate authorities who will now exploit her, and feed off of her human goodness, and her naive innocence. Moreover, it is the mature-elders who must now be on the front-line to protect her, and, they must repel the deceitful malevolence that will corrupt and destroy her. However, Carrie Prejean could become Miss USA, and on this platform, she will give marriage between man and woman even more value, if she does. Note: the Lord works in mysterious ways, and this may be his work to repel the tidal wave of homosexual infestation. Remenber, the Heavens do control the kingdom of men (Daniel 4:20-33).
Honestly, I don't agree with those who support gay marriage for many reasons.
1. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, and the mere fact that America has "accepted" them is appalling!
2. Homosexuality was once defined as a mental disorder. I feel that it should still be considered a mental disorder, because its not right to be having homosexual feelings.
3. I realize there are traces of homosexuality since Grecian and Roman times, however, did you ever stop to think that those persons has mental disorders other than homosexuality?
4. The word "Marriage" was created by the Jewish and Christian Faiths of this world and defined of as between one man and one woman for purposed of procreation!!!! You CANNOT have two men procreate between themselves, nor can you have two women procreate between themselves. Therefore, you cannot have such a thing as same-sex marriages or partnership.
5. Ancient marriages were not termed "marriage" and we treated much like slavery and for PROCREATION ONLY!
If gays and lesbians want to continue their protest for gay marriage, they need a history lesson and need to read the Bible to really learn about marriage. Maybe then would they realize that marriage is not happily-ever-after as so many want to believe. Marriage is instituted to procreat and multiply the earth and that cannot be done by partnering with someone of the same sex.
I know this may seem very harsh of me, but this is how I was raised and this is what I choose to believe. I will respect those who do choose to believe and support same-sex marriage as long I am given an equal respect to my beliefs and the facts that I have presented. I do not personally condemn those who choose this lifestyle because it is not my place to judge them, the only one who can judge them is God. I do feel that America needs to re-establish its roots and values of traditional marriage and support those of us who were raised to believe and choose to believe as such when presented with facts, not opinions. I do believe that traditional marriage and same sex marriage are not equal because a child needs a mother and a father to be properly raised, since marriage is instituted for procreation purposes. I feel that the supporters of traditional marriage need a bigger voice for what they believe in and need to be respected by the supporters of same-sex marriage. I also believe that the supporters of traditional marrige should respect the opinions of the supporters of same-sex marriage. We don't have to agree with each other and that is okay, but we do have a right to speak up for what we believe in and we have the right to be heard and to be respected
Also,
I am proud of Carrie Prejean for standing up for what is morally right!
Americans, what's going on with you? I'm from Russia but live in America. Who will protect my opinion about marriages? Homosexual-attack on normal marriages it is discrimination! I against homosexual marriages! I vote for marriage between the man and the woman!
Faithful, it sounds like your devotion to Christianity is a personal one, rare thing. Jesus advises to pray, solitarily, in the closet, or on the hill, rather than at the pew. For obvious reasons this isn't often acknowledged by organized ministries.
Then I have to ask, why is Romans 1:26-27 more important to you than Matthew 7:12?
The Bible is rife with words, the meanings of which have been lost to history. The anti-homosexual interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:8-10 (as Fred noted) hinges on the Greek term arsenokoitai which is still debated by scholars of classical Greek,
You can learn more about this specific controversy at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc7.htm
(I'm testing the effectiveness of HTML in the NOM forum in this post. Ignore the markups it if it doesn't work right.)
Chairm, you made a statement of unity against equal marital rights for gays, stating "we are all Mormons now," suggesting a comparison to JFK in Berlin and the well known I am Spartacus scene. I was pointing out the Church of Latter Day Saints is not the most reputable nor consistent of bedfellows.
While I have, in the past, taken a stand against those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the LDS church as a denomination of Christianity (some have even gone as far to declare that Mormon marriages, even when monogamous, are not true unions). Their own front against same-sex marriage was disappointingly unempathetic to the gay community. Outside the controversy of gay rights (in which they happily allied themselves with the Vatican who otherwise disparages them) they are not well loved by their Christian brethren, and are still regarded as misguided, if not outright infidelic. Consequentially, declaring yourself in alliance with the Mormons will probably weaken your position significantly more than it helps.
The most interesting thing to come out of the Miss California press conference this morning was pageant director Keith Lewis calling out National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP) president Maggie Gallagher for retaining 42% of donations as her salary.
Gallagher made $125,000 in 2007 at IMAPP in addition to whatever she earned from speaking engagements, her Bush administration-funded syndicated column, book royalties, and other perks.
Compare that to the national-average nonprofit executive salary of $57,278, according to PayScale.com. In New York, the average is $89,614 (NOM is based in New Jersey).
Chairm, I assume you believe the sole (or primary) purpose of marriage is based solely on establishing paternity of children, this despite our tendency as a species towards adultery, or polygyny that permeates history to its dawn. So do you have a basis for this, or is this merely your own, intuitive opinion?
In your defense, your view is not unique. Indeed, the majority of rulings in opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage have, by far, associated marriage to the state's interest in procreation. (The rest identify homosexuality as your allies do on this forum, as ungodly in accordance with modern interpretations of biblical scripture) The Court of Appeals of the state of Washington (Singer v. Hara) even went on to say the interest remains "even though married couples are not required to become parents and even though some couples are incapable of becoming parents and even though not all couples who produce children are married. These, however, are exceptional situations." (Which is when those on the marriage equality chime in not that exceptional.)
It was the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that finally addressed the issue of pairing procreation with marriage:
The judge in the Superior Court endorsed the first rationale, holding that the state's interest in regulating marriage is based on the traditional concept that marriage's primary purpose is procreation. This is incorrect. Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity). People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry. See G. L. c. 207, 28A. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.
Moreover, the Commonwealth affirmatively facilitates bringing children into a family regardless of whether the intended parent is married or unmarried, whether the child is adopted or born into a family, whether assistive technology was used to conceive the child, and whether the parent or her partner is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of non-marital child bearing and the creation of families by non-coital means. The attempt to isolate procreation as the source of a fundamental right to marry, post at (Cordy, J., dissenting), overlooks the integrated way in which courts have examined the complex and overlapping realms of personal autonomy, marriage, family life, and child rearing. Our jurisprudence recognizes that, in these nuanced and fundamentally private areas of life, such a narrow focus is inappropriate.
The marriage is procreation argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage. Like Amendment 2 to the Constitution of Colorado, which effectively denied homosexual persons equality under the law and full access to the political process, the marriage restriction impermissibly identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996). In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect.
So, yes, Chairm, what you identify (erroneously) as special pleading on behalf of us equal rights advocates or SSMers as you prefer, is rather, according to Massachusetts, a mechanism by which destructive stereotypes are sustained, stereotypes that On Lawn has demonstrated on this forum to hold dearly and with conviction.
Additionally, when the US Supreme Court struck down the Texas criminalization of sodomy in 2003, Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion was related directly to the opening of marriage to same-sex couples. He posed:
...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising [t]he liberty protected by the Constitution, ibid.? Surely mot the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case does not involve the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decision of this Court.
In 2005 that Jamal Green noted the precedent that determined why procreation and marriage are separate entities. Divorcing marriage from procreation Yale Law Journal, 2005, regarding the decision made in Turner v. Safley:
The Turner Court held unconstitutional a Missouri prison regulation denying inmates the right to marry except for compelling reasons... Because the Turner Court struck down a marriage ban that applied to a population with no legal right to procreate and that provided an exception for pregnancy, the decision undermines any claim that marriage is fundamental because of an inexorable connection to procreation.
As for your allies who like to deride gays as ungodly and contrary to scripture, and who like to threaten us with Hellfire whenever we displease their delicate pious sensibilities, we fortunately have the First Amendment right, the wall of separation it provides, and the Lemon test (as per Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971) to keep arbitrary biblical decrees (i.e. gay = bad) out of our lawbooks. That way they can screech all they want (as per their First Amendment right) and not cause too much harm.
On lawn, I missed on NONE, you are intentionally reading more detail than I presented: A child can walk WELLL BY THREE, and if you don't like the facts argue with the UNIVERSITY STUDIES that studied and published them, unlike you. And THERE ARE ENTIRE TRIBES containing MALE FARMERS, DUH. In fact, I know a lot of modern day male farmers! Fancy that! Yeah, so your response if as absurd as the rest of your "arguments."
OOP! God spoke to Faithful--he countered every study done on gay parenting--so that's it folks, argument over, cuz god spoke to his new prophet "faithful."...LOL!
-- Murphy v. Ramsey, Page 114 U. S. 45
-- Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).
Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)
-- Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)
and
-- Turney v. Avery, 113 A. 710, 710 (N.J. Ch. 1921)
\
-- Kingsley Davis (ed.), Contemporary Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution (New York: Russell Sage Foundation) (1985).
-- Margo Wilson & Martin Daly, Marital Cooperation and Conflict, in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions 197, 203 (Charles Crawford & Catherine Salmon eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 2004)
Before:
Re: CJ1
And human hetero pairs tended to bond for only three years, coincidentally the point when a child learns to walk.
After:
A child can walk WELLL BY THREE
I don't have a problem with the studies. Your interpretation seems to vary significantly over time however...
By the way, On lawn, I am a female and a very good hunter, thank you very much. And now that I destroyed your mirage of a reply, you still haven't responded to any real point. We no longer trade women like commodities, your "definition" of marriage is untrue, and so...what's your next "reason" for your religion to be inserted into other citizen's lives?
We no longer trade women like commodities, your “definition” of marriage is untrue, and so…what’s your next “reason” for your religion to be inserted into other citizen’s lives?
That is simply incoherent.
Trading women like commodities is more the same-sex marriage view of women -- trading their gender and identity for money as wombs for rent or eggs for sale.
Nor was marriage ever a commodity trade.
BTW, Onlawn, you seem to have missed the whole point about hunter/farmer marriage. IF a male wished to be a farmer, he could, but it meant he had to marry a hunter, male or female. And regarding "commodities," feigning lack of understanding (or claiming incoherence through being intentionally obtuse) is the last harbor before defeat. Unless you really are that clueless. Good night, good day, see you on the battlefield. I have enough of the circular logic and hairsplitting nonsense you try to pass off as supporting evidence and/or logic.
>>> >>> FAITHFUL <<< <<> Deuteronomy 21:21 << We still live in a world of [ survival of the fittest ], the matrix of True-Love has been defeated upon earth, so the ancient [ beginnings ] of law and order predominate the mind, even though we cannot carry it out.
Let's understand this, The human body has an immune system, the immune system consists of natural killer cells (NKC) that will hunt down and kill any microbial invader inside the body. The killing of the NKC is vital to the health and well-being of the living body, and the body will become sick and die if the NKC did not perform its function. This same principle must be applied to the society, and the community, of people. Those people who attack and destroy the community of people must be [ removed ], so that the COMMUNITY of people (living body) will remain SAFE (healthy) and SECURE (mature) and PROSPEROUS (successful). Unlike our modern world, the criminal destructive-mind is set free, (and placed in positions of authority) to continue to attack, erode, and destroy the health and well-being of the community, and society itself. When the authorities of the community allow this to happen, the authorities create an anti-civilization that is nothing more that a living-hell upon planet earth.
Please tell Uriel=238 not to ask for answers that offend.
I have an open question to Maggie,
Maggie, with the attention as of late on Don't ask don't tell. There are thousands of gay men and women who are oversee's fighting. I wonder, how are you going to look these people who are fighting for you in the face and tell them, they are not good enough to marry the person they love?
Just curious.
Uriel-238, I believe, that the S.J.C. mangled and tangled wording, stirring from their death bed, using that meaning of a man and woman that cannot produce children. For the common link of marriage, the common good of a civil society is bringing a man and woman together in a legal marriage for the future generations, and the name sake, and all the rights and responsibilities that come from the common cause. I am not going to take time to list all of these common interest, but as for love, marriage and the survival of all of it, marriage serves a purpose of common causes and needs. Children happen to be the most common spring, that springs forth the new life of the generations. That is the common good for society and the future of the next generation, so therefore the meaning of the S.J.C. is flawed and incompetent and corrupt.
Hearing what Carrie Prejean had to say and defend her position that marriage, in her heart and the way she was raised, and how she is an advocate for marriage between one man and one woman, made me feel so proud of her , her honesty and her courage.
The real test of faith, is courage. When a person has the character and the respect to speak the truth even when it is going to cost them some reproach.Carrie, I just want you and the world to know what you have said and done is the most common, interest of the family of marriage. As the young boy grows and matures, from boyhood to manhood, and a young girl grows from girlhood to womanhood. This is the natural pattern of life, given by God, as a gift to mankind, to insure the process of humanity from generation to generation. I took notice of this, As I sat with my husband at a local drive in restaurant, there was a group of teenagers in a discussion about when they grow up and get married and have children. They were discussing what they would do as the parent, the boys were addressing themselves as fathers and saying that they would instill discipline and have their children know that what they say they mean, not like the kid's today that don't have discipline. The girls were talking about their roles as mothers are referring to the kid's habits and talking about schedules and bedtime and t.v. and computer time, and the damage that it does when not supervised. They all had a common interest in the child's development . On the other side, the homosexuals make a claim that marriage doesn't necessarily mean the inclusion of children, which may be true, but the common interest and foundation of marriage, it's essentials will always remain as it's elemental and fundamental of it's own accord..This is a lesson that Carrie Prejean has in her heart and the spirit of her soul and should not be reproached by one's, that lack the facts.
The Pulling of the wool over the eyes of the Lamb
Must Cease
The Silencing of The Lambs
No More!!!
Joshua J. Israel, when you ask "Please tell Uriel-238 not to ask for answers that offend," who are you asking? Was this an appeal to authority, because you are not willing to address me directly? To God? To the form administrators? I'd hate to think you were appealing to throw out voices of dissent.
You have said plenty of things offensive to me, from your decree that homosexuality is subhuman to your belief that Carrie Prejean (in all her augmented, dim-witted glory) represents human-godness to your furious (and rather unChristianlike) damnation of Perez Hilton (which was inappropriate regardless of whether or not you or I agree with him). Or, heck your implication by your reference to Deuteronomy 21:21 that we should still stone people who offend our delecate sensibilities.
Even First Amendment rights aside, the whole point of an open forum is for opinions to be expressed freely, which is why I'll tolerate your provincial dogmatic rants no matter how offensive I find them. And no matter how offensive I find your desire to condemn a segment of the population as less than equal (less than human, as you put it).
Otherwise this is just a virtual tea party.
On Lawn as I said before, there are plenty of legal opinions to the effect that marriage is connected to procreation. I'm surprised you had to harken back to a time that women were lesser citizens, when antisemitism was rampant, if not household, and when miscegenation wasn't even yet an issue since races were severely segregated.
The difference is, the Massachusetts court (and the California court, though I didn't quote them) had to actually think it through, and verbalize an explanation of their dissent from tradition, far from making the hasty radical, activist decisions some have claimed they made.
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Faithful somehow I do not imagine you would be calling the Massachusetts statement flawed and incompetent and corrupt if they agreed with you. Indeed, the legal academist who noted the Turner case felt their conclusions were correct, though their methods were unsound (arguing that gay couples are isolated by excluding them from marriage, setting an implication that the state agrees with their second class status). His argument was that even those who had lost the right to reproduction still had the right to marriage, which defines the separation. I think both are strong cases.
But I get the feeling that neither you nor On Lawn care about rational points that conflict with your own rigid belief system. (and I wouldn't even give consideration to the possiblity that one could appeal logically to Joshua J. Israel) I suspect that the mere thought that gays can marry, that they could walk in the street out and yet unmolested, just plain makes you uncomfortable, and for you, that is reason enough to maintain the status quo, or better yet, to strive for a simpler time, when everyone looks the same, acts the same and worships the same dieties.
That, however, is not the pluralism that is America, and never was. Inch by arduous inch, we will establish equality for all. You folks are merely the Jim Crows of this era.
I feel sure that this must go against the grain of the white women. Is there any reason why the white women should not have only white women working across from them on the machines? -- asked of President Woodrow Wilson.
I give Carrie Prejean *****
I made you my hero yesterday. You did not let the gay community intimidate you. I am sure if your father was gay before you were born, we would not have seen such beauty from God's creation. Forget about Miss Cali, you are Miss Wold.
Anyway, to all gay marriage couples, I love you all as individuals but I just cannot accept what God has not ordained.
(Genesis 2:18-25)
It's a shame to see what people can dig-up in the past to embarrass anyone who stands for what they believe.
Uriel-238 The matter of marriage is such that most people get married, the majority of people marry with all the dreams and desires of family and children. Family that is blood related that assures life for future generations and past Grandparent and Great Grandparents. Yes true, some couples cannot conceive and they can adopt children that need the love of a father and mother. Gay's cannot produce children in their un-natural state. Therefore they are not really qualified to plan a family toghether, as a child seriously needs a father and mother. Children need a man's structure of character as a man, as a father and they need the structure of a woman's character, as that is how they learn the likenesses and differences of the two. This give a child a balance to start from and the healthy justice, that embraces the structure of life's beginning and growth. They need the facts of life, the truth that is essential to that growth. It may not seem important to some, but it is a huge deal in the process of life and family. Knowing how a child is birthed and grows healthy and sane, is an assurance that society remains in the bounds of protection that the laws of marriage provide for, all though in Massachusetts, they require no blood test for marriage now that we have counterfeit marriage. This opens the door for all types of relationships, zoo's, circus's and cults. Marriage is not a party. It is a blood related family that is essential to it's foundation, it's elements.
>>>Uriel-238 << FAITHFUL < 100%! And,… I will take the high-road in my response to you. The truth of reality is as a two-edged sword (Revelation 1:16 and Rev. 19:15); it SAVES those who are moral, ethical, and honest; and it DAMNS those who are immoral, unethical, and criminal (Revelation 21:8). The Lord God-HIMSELF did warn and prophecy to everyone, and HE pleaded with everyone, and HE gave notice to everyone of what HIS response would be to our choices. And, this is what he declared, “Blessings And Curses Go Before You” (Deuteronomy 11:26-28) “If you choose to become moral, ethical, and honest, I will bless you; <>if you choose to rebel against all that I have taught you, and choose to be irrational, and destructive, and choose an immoral way of life, then curses go before you!” <> As a result, us moral Christians have chosen to moral, ethical, and honest, and WE have prevailed against that gay-judge who attacked and slandered Carrie Prejean, and this is just the beginning of our BLESSINGS. As for you, you should read this before you respond (Ezekiel 3:17-19), and I warn you, the depth of knowledge, here, has only just begun, and it is not favorable to you.
>>>Uriel-238 <<<
I do support FAITHFUL 100%!
And,… I will take the high-road in my response to you. The truth of reality is as a two-edged sword (Revelation 1:16 and Rev. 19:15); it SAVES those who are moral, ethical, and honest; and it DAMNS those who are immoral, unethical, and criminal (Revelation 21:8). The Lord God-HIMSELF did warn and prophecy to everyone, and HE pleaded with everyone, and HE gave notice to everyone of what HIS response would be to our choices. And, this is what he declared, “Blessings And Curses Go Before You” (Deuteronomy 11:26-28) “If you choose to become moral, ethical, and honest, I will bless you; <>if you choose to rebel against all that I have taught you, and choose to be irrational, and destructive, and choose an immoral way of life, then curses go before you!” <> As a result, us moral Christians have chosen to moral, ethical, and honest, and WE have prevailed against that gay-judge who attacked and slandered Carrie Prejean, and this is just the beginning of our BLESSINGS. As for you, you should read this before you respond (Ezekiel 3:17-19), and I warn you, the depth of knowledge, here, has only just begun, and it is not favorable to you.
Uriel-238 @ May 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm,
You comment reinforces the special rules of SSM argumentation which, when aimed at the core of marriage are deemed essential to pressing for the abolition of the man-woman criterion of marraige, would destroy the claims for SSM anyway.
Look to the anthropoligical and historicla record. There you will see the universals of marriage; and, sure, you will also see variables, on the same record.
SSMers seek to make society blind to the universals and instead to become enamored with the variables of marriage.
The man-woman basis is not contradicted by polygamy for example, but polygamy is out-of-bounds in societies that seek to encourage the equality of the sexes within marriage.
No relationship type that excludes one sex can provide for sex equality within it. While polygamous practice has been allowed in places for the purpsoe of mitigating certain social ills, it has proven to be an inferior form of sex integration and an inferior form of responsible procreation.
Line-drawing has a couple of requirements. The first is that the core of the thing be identified; the second is that the lines be justified based on that core.
SSM argumentation guts marriage of its core meaning and then leaves the lines of eligibility unsustainable.
Uriel-238, your talk about hunters and gatherers does not even suggest what you hope to prove.
All of us are born equal, of a man and a woman. It was true then and is true now.
The societies you have emphasized did indeed unite man and woman through pair-bonding and through the bonding of these parents to their children.
But the prehistorical record is sketchy, to say the least, and you might do better by turning your attention to how societies -- especially those civilizations for which there is far more evidence -- adapted their cultures to the biological and physicological facts of humankind.
Maybe that is not political enough for your liking, I dunno, but the consensus on the central fact of marriage is very wide, deep, and thoroughly established.
SSM argumentation, on the other hand, is just another varitation on the theme of deconstructing the foundational social institution of marriage. And that has been, and remains, a political project from head to toe.
You're Right > Chairm with morals, ethics, and honesty.
You're Right - Chairm - and I'm not challenging you! I only wish to try to add an understanding. Long time ago, the development of the human conscious-mind made a man more supreme that other men; and at that time, child-birth is what gave a woman prestige and value. So, because a man with a conscious-mind was very few in number, these men attracted many women who wanted to give birth to his child, so that the mind of their child would be superior to others. This how that polygamy trend got started, and this is why GOD gave consent to it; because, GOD's objective is to evolve the human conscious-mind, > with morals, ethics, and honesty.
SOCIAL CHAOS- IS WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH- SOCIAL CHAOS- WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY WILL CREATE IS SOCIAL CHAOS.
BUT AS FOR ME AND MY FAMILY WE SEEK THE LORD- NOT PERFECT AM I EVER- BUT I DO LOVE JESUS AND WITH HIM, I SEEK HEAVEN.
PRAISE JESUS!!! AMEN!!!
Faithful with all due respect, the beliefs to which you adhere regarding the nature of human family models are not backed by history and evidence. To put it more succinctly, you don't know what you're talking about.
Firstly, homosexuality is not an unnatural state. It is paralleled all throughout nature.
Secondly, even if it weren't, that wouldn't be reason alone to decide that those who were gay are unfit to raise families. Neither would the inability for gay couples to create progeny without medical assistance (unless you wish to rule out all infertile heterosexuals as well, which I doubt).
Thirdly, the absence of one gender or another in a household is no greater an influence on a child's upbringing than the number of siblings.
And fourthly, you don't care. Problems such as alcoholism, mental disability and poverty are far greater contributors to childhood than the number, genders or sexual orientations of the adult members. If you really cared about our children, you'd be advocating towards the resolutions of these problems in families, rather than here arguing with me that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
As I said before, and again affirmed: you do not care.
Joshua J. Israel you embody exactly what I find distasteful of contemporary Christianity. As I said before, for your blind dependence on the bible to tell you what is right or wrong, indeed from a god that commands the genocide of entire peoples down to their livestock, a god considers entire cities of humans damnable and nukes them, a god that regards women as soulless chattel and advocates (and regulates) slavery, a god whose mores have fallen millenia behind what mankind has attained (as per the Geneva convention), I have already regarded you as a lost cause.
I have already renounced your scripture as obsolete when considering bases on which to build the mores of society. The ethic of reciprocity is a stronger foundation on its own without the edifices of scripture adding their burden. And I do not fear, nor care if you curse me or damn me to Hellfire, but instead enjoy the irony that you would do it in Jesus' name, as if cursing me is what you imagine He would do.
Uriel says:
On Lawn as I said before, there are plenty of legal opinions to the effect that marriage is connected to procreation. I’m surprised you had to harken back to a time that women were lesser citizens, when antisemitism was rampant, if not household, and when miscegenation wasn’t even yet an issue since races were severely segregated.
Wow, he just said that equally recognizing everyone's rights in the human practice of mating is the same thing as "antisemitism", "women were lesser citizens", and "miscegenation".
The seething animosity being shown towards our values is simply amazing right now.
But I get the feeling that neither you nor On Lawn care about rational points that conflict with your own rigid belief system.
There are no rational points of conflict within my position.
If you feel otherwise, please specify.
Chairm You do seem fond of speaking of the special rules of SSM argumentation, if only I knew what you meant. As I've stated before we advocates of gay marriage do not lay claim to special rules (at least not the logical fallacy -- you may mean something else). Rather we call the rule in question entirely.
You seem to be making an appeal to tradition when you suggest that I look to the anthropological and historical record, and yet the history of social progress is always in violation and question of tradition. Just as Darwinist evolution is not a scientific or natural advocacy of social Darwinist doctrine in human society, appeal to tradition solely for tradition's sake is not a valid argument to keep things the same. Tradition has supported racial segregation, women's oppression, arranged marriage, slavery, abuse of POWs, torture, and so on. Discrimination based on sexual orientation fits right in.
We've not seen a form of egalitarian polygamy due to the equality of the sexes being both new and not yet complete, but I would put to question the presumption that a family that included multiple males and females would be inherently dysfunctional. The only reason that modern polygynisitic practices are problematic is that the women involved are not allowed the opportunity to make informed choices concerning their own marital destiny. This isn't a problem with polygamy so much as the oppression of women that accompanies it.
Once again, when you say no relationship type that excludes one sex can provide for sex equality within it. I'm, again, unclear as to what you mean. In most (heterosexual) Christian families sexual equality is excluded by adherence to scripture. Is that to say we should oppose Christians from being married? It is up to a given family to define for themselves how they structure themselves. In some cases, the adults are egalitarian. In others, one or the other defines themselves as head of household. In fact, yes, one gets a tax credit for being the alpha.
Now I don't recall (nor can I find) when I mentioned hunter/gatherer activity, but I'll see what I can do to field your points.
First off, in the pre-agricultural epochs, we weren't nuclear families, but bands. Yes, it would take a man and a woman to create a child but the entire band would raise them. And yes, even then there were women who hunted and married women or men who gathered and who would marry a hunter man, and though the toleration of this sort of thing might have varied from one tribe to the next, population was in such short supply that it was necessary to endure each other's oddities no matter how much it might offend someone, even the chieftain. And I'm not even beginning to cover hermaphrodites or those who had sexual ambiguity that we surgically correct in the contemporary era.
No, it's only recent civilizations in which homosexuality is regarded as an issue, since the concept itself started in the nineteenth century. Christianity had an invested interested in increasing populations since we suffered from a population shortage throughout the dark and middle ages. Before that, entire societies not only endorsed, but practically commanded gay marriage. The soldier worshipers of Mithras believed women had no souls, hence love could not be experienced between men and women. The habit amongst them was to marry their battlefield brethren, and to populate with their chattel at home, or on the field via rapine.
But if you bothered to study cultural anthropology a tad, you might, in fact, learn something, rather than presume the world's history already reflects your narrow, Procrustean belief system.
Your very wide, deep, and thoroughly established consensus on the central fact of marriage isn't so much, and your saying so and repeating it time and again isn't going to make it true.
The values to which you refer, On Lawn, to which I may seethe with animosity, appear as nothing less than hatred and intolerance of your fellow humankind.
But I may be wrong. Considering how you misinterpreted what I said, you may just not be able to understand. It may not be your prejudice that I am trying to overcome, but your stupidity.
Perhaps the reason you do not see rationality in points that conflict with your position is because you cannot comprehend that which is rational.
As I’ve stated before we advocates of gay marriage do not lay claim to special rules (at least not the logical fallacy — you may mean something else).
Special pleading...
Gays seek the special exception to the policy of marriage being about procreation.
It is a special exception to have a program of integration (marriage) be removed in its recognition and expectation of integration to allow segregation. I know of no other institution level integration being asked to step down from that stance of equality.
Gays seek the protection and support of which is given to the disabled, without being disabled.
Need I go on?
We’ve not seen a form of egalitarian polygamy due to the equality of the sexes being both new and not yet complete,
Correct, equal gender representation promotes egalitarian recognition of participants.
Another reason all-male and all-female is a degradation of equality, not an enhancement of it.
The values to which you refer, On Lawn, to which I may seethe with animosity, appear as nothing less than hatred and intolerance of your fellow humankind.
So how is equally recognizing the rights of all involved in the human mating practice "hatred and intollerance".
You've not stepped out of the hole with your assertion of how you see things. You've entrenched yourself in the inversion of equality.
The values to which you refer, On Lawn, to which I may seethe with animosity, appear as nothing less than hatred and intolerance of your fellow humankind.
It seems you have re-iterated your interpretation, yielding the same conclusion.
The values to which I refer are explicit, "equally recognizing the rights of all involved in the human mating practice". Your categorization is equally explicit, "hatred and intollerance".
your stupidity.
There now, lets not get testy. Your conflict is not remedied by calling people who point it out "stupid".
You are a self-professed adherent to reason (maybe even logic), and I expect you to already know that.
Perhaps the reason you do not see rationality in points that conflict with your position is because you cannot comprehend that which is rational.
Have no doubt. Your ability to be reasonable is in question.
Before that, entire societies not only endorsed, but practically commanded gay marriage.
No one has yet provided an instance in history of same-sex couples being seen as the same sex, and considered by the same name as the procreative combination.
You may provide an exception? Go ahead, give it your best shot.
The soldier worshipers of Mithras believed women had no souls, hence love could not be experienced between men and women.
Interesting, a gay centric society not only oppresses women, but is unusually militant.
Still, not an example of gay marriage as you note with yourself it was not considered the same.
At best an argument for civil unions for a militant state.
But if you bothered to study cultural anthropology a tad, you might, in fact, learn something, rather than presume the world’s history already reflects your narrow, Procrustean belief system.
Keep trying, but goading is no replacement for an actual example of an exception to what marriage has been recognized as through the centuries ... the institutionalized social practice of human mating.
First off, in the pre-agricultural epochs, we weren’t nuclear families, but bands
Its interesting how quickly you hearken to those pre-civilized days of yore for examples of the fact that marriage doesn't have to be linked to responsibility of our procreation. I think the link between the advent of the two continues to evade you...
But on the scholarly note, you are making a rather rash assumption on pre-historic societies about whether their ability to see importance in direct relationships was viewed or not. Since such records would be seen in language patters, and virtually undetectable in the deduction of their living patterns left behind. There is no reason to believe that social banding of kin precludes any recognition of direct relations.
Your talent for parsing, On Lawn, is creatively applied. It proves you can read what and when you want to do so.
My conclusion remains unchanged, as does my confidence that it actually can.
Uriel-238, What you homosexuals and supporters of them always do when you are losing the argument, is direct the facts to other circumstances, only confusing the issue at hand, How dare you say I don't care about other problems,. as the oldest girl in a family of 14 children, do you not think I have handled these issues, yes I have personally taken care of an alcoholic and stopped him from drinking after 20 years, as I am his help, mate ( my husband) I also had a sister die in the same room with me when I was 5 yrs. old and I knew she was going to die that nite, she was born with M.D. and then god gave me another sister 10 months later that looked identical to her, 0nly difference was my sister that died had black hair and my new born sister had blond hair. I nursed both my daughters holding them close to my heart and I tell you my children are more precious to me than anything one could offer or imagine. Because of love of my daughters, I understand why God would want His children to love Him that much, because His gift is one of Life to His Children. Therefore, I trust Him and give Him all the Praise and Glory. I thank him for my husband, my children and family, It's not about a claim to sex, It's a claim to the life He Has afforded us. The gifts and His Holy Power., As He gave man life and then He gave man, woman to be a helpmate, that is precious to us, were not fighting about that, nor having wars, nor hurting our children. We love each other and our children, We are family born out of the miracle of life God has given us, and we understand truly understand what divorce can do, as we pondered that road once. There are so many experiences that life can present, but staying together and building a strong family is the best way to go. Many people spend a lifetime wasting their energies and time in useless endeavors, But a family is forever. A Father is the head of the family and the mother is a helpmate, praise Jesus. I stand on my own accord as woman, wife, and mother, and grandmother,. grateful that my children are healthy and sound .
@Faithful: "But a family is forever. A Father is the head of the family and the mother is a helpmate, praise Jesus. I stand on my own accord as woman, wife, and mother, and grandmother,. grateful that my children are healthy and sound ."
That's wonderful, Faithful. I'm actually rather envious of you.
Tell me though: what then for a woman such as myself who can never bear her own children? Who will never know the joys of a biological family? Am I cursed to never know a true marriage blessed by God?
I'm honestly asking you this, not to debate you, but because I wrestle with it every day of my life: without the ability to bear children, am I a "failure" in God's eyes as a woman since I can't fulfill his Gift of procreation and family? What is there left for me then?
I'm sorry, Faithful was I losing the argument? I didn't notice. I figured when On Lawn resorted to parsing my words for segments out of context against which he could take pot-shots and accuse me of making brash statements, that I was doing rather well.
Can you tell me when I started losing? If anywhere it might have been when I started fielding someone else's debate about prehistory that was redirected at me. Evidently that led some to the conclusion that I was proposing a militant society that oppressed women. Let me assure you that's about as far from the truth as one can get.
How dare I suggest you don't care about families, because the issues I mentioned (twice!) are by far greater risk factors towards raising dysfunctional children than whether the parents are biological or adopted, gay or straight, single, or multiple. If any of you really had the interests of children as your priority, you'd be addressing these concerns, and not trying to deny rights to a minority.
So I not only do I dare, but without hesitation.
How dare you consider denying what has been cited as an inalienable right, even above that of procreation to a select minority just because it fails to personally affect you? Would you change your mind if one of your daughters were lesbian? Or could you not even think of such a thing?
Who would Jesus disallow from marrying? Would he deny this guy?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u95a3Kp8lkg
Marie, I feel for your pain, as I have always felt if I could not have children of my own I may have married a man that had children, that was raising them alone. But there are many ways that we can fulfill that aching need to be mothers, trough prayer God can lead us to that enrichment. I am truly sorry if I made anyone feel hurt or pain, there are ways to bless others, such as teaching children, working with children and being blessed as a result. I will offer a prayer for you, include you as my friend and pray that God will show you that path, if it is His will. God has a purpose for all of us, and I am prayerful that you will have that relationship with Him to really know Him and receive His Blessings.
God Bless you and yours
Faithful. Kathryn Borkowski
The killing of the NKC is vital to the health and well-being of the living body, and the body will become sick and die if the NKC did not perform its function. This same principle must be applied to the society, and the community, of people.
That's just frightening. Even if homosexual activities are immoral, these are people we're talking about. God's Children. Demeaning them to the level of a virus to be "removed" is just an attempt to justify the violence and hatred corrupting one's heart.
Don't give in to that dark temptation. Pray, love, have compassion. I understand the dispair and frustration. But giving up on people is giving up on God.
That young 17 yr. old youth is speaking about all the things that would make him happy, yet he is not thinking or speaking of the children that he will keep from their mother. This is why it is dangerous to deny one's own feelings about the right or wrong of one's own wishes and personal feeling, without the reality of truth about the entire picture. A mother nurtures her children, holding them close to her heart and soul and that spirit is yanked from a child, because of homosexuality, which is not the nature of family. The highest concern about marriage must be the foundation of the family and the true nature of it's process. That is the basic element that is essential to it's procreation and life from generation to generation.
@Faithful: I am truly sorry if I made anyone feel hurt or pain...
And I'm sorry if I made you feel bad as well. Your words hit a sore spot with me, but I'm glad they did as it's something I need to stop hiding and running from. And your kind words certainly help
Bless you as well,
Marie
Your talent for parsing, On Lawn, is creatively applied. It proves you can read what and when you want to do so.
Oh sour grapes. Parsing is not a bad thing. You erred, and I pointed it out.
Certainly you can explain exactly how this is in error...
Was I wrong about the "values to which" I refer? Or in quoting you in direct reference to it?
There is no special parsing about this, Vast. It is all to direct, perhaps too direct for your view of yourself.
Can you tell me when I started losing?
I'll tell you. It is when you attempted to present an irrational opinion as rational.
The basis of neutering marriage is not based on ration. I've reviewed your arguments as well as many others. I've shown where your arguments are wrong. If I missed any argument that you feel is sufficient to uphold neutering marriage, please state it.
On Lawn, you don't get it, and having ruled out ignorance on your part, I'm down to considering stupidity or malice.
I've done you the service of reading what you've had to say, and responding.
I've also provided a lot of material on this board. Read it. Address it in context.
Or don't.
Faithful, surely you cannot be saying you believe this seventeen year old boy will snatch away some woman's child like an old-world fairy, can you?
And you cannot believe that this boy would, denied marriage to a man he loves, somehow renounce his homosexuality to sire children, do you? That is not how gays work, and you know this, right?
So whatever could you mean when you speak of the children that he will keep from their mother?
Uriel said: "the special rules of SSM argumentation, if only I knew what you meant"
1. If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, it is not essential to marriage.
2. If (fill-in the blank) occurs outside of marriage, it is not essential to marriage.
These are the most commonly used special rules of SSM argumentation. But these are stuck on stupid because they defeat the claim for SSM itself.
There are legal requirements that SSMers reject. Pushing aside those defintive requirements, SSMers then runaway from their own rules of argumentation.
Go ahead, state the meaning of "marriage" and then test your asserted meaning against just those two rules and the absolutist way (the special way) that SSMers insist they be applied. SSM implodes.
* * *
Uriel said: "making an appeal to tradition when you suggest that I look to the anthropological and historical record..."
Nope. Just stating the facts.
Social scientists can distinguish marriage from nonmarriage by the essentials -- the universals -- without which marriage would not be recongizable.
Now, are you going to deny that marriage is first and foremost a social institution? Is that because you mistake the essentials for mere tradition? I suspect so. Please clarify.
You seem to emphasize the variables rather than the universals. Maybe you deny there are universals. That is, for you the meaning of marriage, and its boundaries, are completely arbitary assertions in each and every civilization. Right?
Meanwhile your comment has invoked yet another special use of a special rule:
When (fill-in the blank) is based on tradition alone, it is not an essential of marriage.
SSM argumentation makes a lot of noise about the relatively modern tradition of romance. Indeed, it seems that is all that most SSMers assert as distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage.
But the man-woman basis of marriage is no mere tradition. Nor is the provision for responsible procreation merely a tradition. These are universals. These aspects combine to form a coherent whole. That is, the core meaning of a social institution that is foundational to civilization.
* * *
Your account of "bands" is quaint but highly speculative, and necessarily so.
* * *
Your remarks about polygamy point back to the societal significance of sex integration and responsible procreation.
* * *
Meanwhile the anthropological record and the historical record are as I have described.
As is the nature of humankind and the core meaning of marriage as a social institution.
* * *
Your remarks about homosexuality don't really add much to the discussion of marriage which is indifferent to the modern notion of gayness.
There is no legal requirement for gayness, not in any place that has imposed or enacted SSM (under whatever name).
Gayness occurs outside of SSM so is not essential to SSM.
The tradition of same-sex romance is not exclusive to SSM and is romance is not a legal requirement of SSM. So nix that as well.
Why would you bother to emphasize something that is not a legal requirement, occurs outside of SSM, and for which tradition alone is insufficient basis for the law?
Guess there is something being left unsaid by you and other SSMers.
When homosexuals talk about their attraction to the same sex, they are indeed feeling guilty as this young stated, he wants others to make him feel accepted and equal, while in his own mind he is fearful, doubtful and feeling that if others would just accept this then he would be whole. That would only be a ban-aide to the real troubles in his heart, for upon further seeking of facts and truths he could understand why he has these feelings of un-equality. These feelings are there for a reason, which has nothing to do with others making one feel right or wrong, they are feelings of a conscience, that is trying to speak of truth and the righteous facts of life. Environment and conditioning has a lot to do with the way one perceives what they think the believe, it is not an indication of truth drawn from facts.
Encouraging all of You
TAKE COURAGE
FOR I HAVE OVERCOME
THE WORLD
PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME
JESUS!!!
FAITHFUL; .... Maybe you can see something here. Uriel-238 is desperayely trying to get us to accept his immoral existence; however, we don't even need to acknowledge him, to be content. He is here everyday stating his case, trying to say he has value, that GOD loves him, and that GOD accepts him; and that GOD created him; but at the same time, he finds no contentment until he can make us believe his perverted rationale. So, Uriel is a prime example of a worthless, valueless, parasite, that is using force, fraud, or coercion to make its host believe his ILLUSION of power and self-worth. If Uriel cannot get us to believe his perversion of trutht, it is him who will suffer a mental break-down, and perish. Our acknowledgement of him, is what gives him his reason to live. So we should never give in to homosexuals, they know they are unworthy, and know they have no value, they know that GOD will cast them-out and damn them forever, and without our acceptance of their immorality, they will self-destruct.
Joshua, I agree with you 99.9 percent, but the one worth-while purpose that Uriel-238 serves is that all things work for the good of God's Order, Uriel-238 has provided us with the ability to show the direct opposition to God's purpose for mankind. For the humanity of His people and the Good News of His promise, His living Word. That if he, Uriel-238 and others of his kind turn to Almighty God and confess and repent that God would heal their hearts, their souls and bodies. This is what we pray for as Christians, as we know this homosexuality can only cause death.
Ye- Shall know them by their fruits
God said a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, that shall become as one, and produce children, the family, from generation to generation.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Stephanie,
I know there are other religions who have their gods, (Budhism, Islam, etc.) I don't know all of them. But I do know that there is only ONE & will always be only ONE TRUE GOD. We can't compare GOD to the gods of other religions. After all He said to have no other gods before HIM.
He is the creator of the universe, and everything in it. But He did not create homosexuality. Poeple are not born homosexual; they just choose to be homosexual. If we would all choose to be what GOD created us to be (his children), there would be no end to the blessing we'd get from our father GOD!
Stehpanie,
And like the BIBLE says. We can't change God's law. We can't change the way He work. We can only let God change us & make us who we are supposed to be.
To Uriel-238,
The Bible doesn't make us blind but opens our eyes to what God wants for our lives. Yes in the Old Testament there are lots of stories about God destroying an entire town or city (including the livestock). Look in Genesis at what he did to Sodom & Gomorrah for what they were doing. They were engaging in homosexual activity, so God destroyed them. God created the earth & everything in it. He was getting rid of the evil that was in His creation. He did the same thing with Noah & the Flood.
So if God sees something in my life that is keeping me from getting closer to Him, then let Him do what wants to do & has to do to get rid of it.
We will all have to answer for our actions someday. Even homosexuals.
On Lawn, you don’t get it, and having ruled out ignorance on your part, I’m down to considering stupidity or malice.
Oh, how so? Where is the ignorance?
Yes I'm calling your bluff. I know better, I know your degradation from trying to present evidence to simply complaining about me is more motivated by lack of evidence on your side.
Or you can prove me wrong.
Its simple.
As I said, On Lawn, or not.
-------- FAITHFUL-----------------
They wanted evidence, here it is, --- Just like that gay-pageant-judge created a problem for Carrie Prejean, where she had none, so have other gay-authorities, in government, created a problem for moral Christian parents, where they have none. Gay and lesbian authorities were the one's who spear-headed the women's liberation movement [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_woolfe [ note the organization Bloomsburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_Group ], and their intent was to shatter the traditional family, and destroy the man as head of house hold and as the sole provider for his family. They diminished the man's pay check, so that both parents MUST neglect the child, and work for a paycheck, just to make financial ends meet. So, now that a man is no longer a provider and the head-of-house-hold, and that both parents must struggle against the economic slavery that is designed to destroy the family, a gay man now deems himself equal to the man who has had his prestige and recognition diminished and stripped away, by gay and lesbian authorities. Like I said before, homosexuals use their equal rights to obtain a higher platform to attack traditional Christian values, and bring us down to their level of DIS-SATISFACTION. Now, after diminishing and destroying heterosexual relationships, a gay man accuses heterosexuals of being bad parents, and claims that he can be a better parent. Here is REALITY, heterosexuals are in a life and death struggle against an immoral corruption campaign that is waged against them by homosexual authorities, in our own government, and most of us don't even know it; YET, and this unnecessary strain does damage our ability to be better parents. What the (NOM) is trying to do is to make heterosexual parents aware of this immoral homosexual crusade against them, so that together, we will repel this immoral corruption campaign made by gay and lesbian authorities.
I have an open question for all of you so called "traditional marriage advocates";
There are possibly thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, fighting your war and fighting for your so called right to discriminate and repress and dictate common law to fit your own tiny and narrow definitions of life and providence.
When these young people return after sacrificing for you…….
How are you going to look them straight in the face and tell them that they are not good enough to marry the person of their choice, or to enter into the same level of commitment and declaration of love and support as any other citizen of this country? The country that they have fought for. .
Are you going to tell them this?
Go ahead and tell them and then go stand before you tin gods with your phony morality and justify your so called Christianity and bigotry. Who are you to judge what is wrong between two loving people. If you folks are going to be in heaven I want no part of it.
This is important this is from real religous people in Mass. These are the only people who know the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJF5TREeliw
Mark- Homosexuals and their argument is with God, they need to turn to the Heavenly Father and seek His guidance on all matters to do with love and honor. Humans can really believe what they perceive to be their truth, But God can give them the insight, Light, faith and wisdom to discern. We as Christians must not be taken by the tempting ways of Satan, as he is clever, deceitful and corrupt. Pray to God for Light and His Justice. Man's Law is not God's Law.
That woman, Nancy Taylor seems to be having trouble speaking as though see really believes what she is saying, the words don't seem to flow truthfully, on the same lines as Nancy Pelosi. Just and observation from one Christian.
For He made them male and female, He said the man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become as one flesh. They shall create life together the children, the family, from generation to generation. Blessed is thy Fruit of the womb, Jesus, How did that fruit of thy womb, be blessed? Not man and man, not woman and woman, but by God, and He said a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become as one.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
God created man in His image, with the ability to produce life as God is the Creator of life, he gave that ability to man, and He gave man, a woman, to be fruitful and multiply with. Your argument is with God, Seek Him and His Truth.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Do Not Break The covenant of God. For His name sake and all of His Commandments. To receive His Blessings. His promises, A Christian vows to remain true to His Law. Protected under The Blood of Jesus, Bringing Glory to Our Heavenly Father.
Praise His Holy Name
Amen!!!
Revelation 22:7
7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this Book
8 And I John saw these things and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this Book: Worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the saying of the prophecy of this Book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he
which is filthy, let him be filthy still" and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and O'me-ga, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and Idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Je'sus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root of the offspring of David and the bright and morning Star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And who so ever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the word of the prophecy of the Book, If any man shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part 'Out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,
Amen.
-------------------------- FAITHFUL ----------------------
I will now deliver to you the modern scientific understanding of this man to woman procreation issue. During her pregnancy, a woman is using her own body to duplicate another human life form, and to bring forth a Living-Soul into the world of the living. Therefore, at the time when the sperm enters the egg, there is a firestorm of electrical activity within the female human egg, and what is happening is that the woman is duplicating her own SOUL into the fertilized egg. Now, this is the important part, when GOD took genetic material from Adam (flesh) and made a woman therefrom, GOD was using Adams genetics (flesh) to duplicate a woman from the same genetic element combination of Adam (in essence, GOD caused Adam to give birth to a woman). Then, GOD is the one who placed a Soul, within the body of the woman (Eve), and breathed into her nostrils, the breath of life, and Woman became a Living-Soul. Therefore, the Woman was born out of an ACT of LOVE, between Adam, GOD, and the Woman. Now again, this is Much MORE important, as you will notice, GOD has never again created another man and woman like he did in the beginning; why, because GOD has Given the POWER and the AUTHORITY of creating new human life exclusively to the WOMAN. Yes, the creation of new human life is an exclusive power and authority transferred from God HIMSELF to the Woman. So, during an act of LOVE (procreation), between man and woman, not only is the woman ENCOURAGED to duplicate her physical body to create a human child, but in the process, the woman also duplicates her soul into the fertilized egg, at the time of conception, and a Living-Soul is now created out of an act of LOVE, between man and woman. Creating new human life is the exclusive power and jurisdiction of the woman, the creation of a new living-soul is only to happen during at act of love, between man and woman, and this sacred power is what authorities want to have control over; and also, this is sacred power is what gays and lesbians envy. In ancient times, once man and woman had procreation, they were deemed to be married; because during procreation they were together as ONE entity; however, gay and lesbian authorities have deceived humankind into believing in recreational procreation and multiple partners, and, this was the first step in the destruction of man to woman relations, and marriage between them. You See, during procreation, man and woman become ONE physically; when the are also in LOVE, they become ONE physically and spiritually, and this is what marriage is all about.
Can someone answer this question that is burning in my mind for so very long now. If our President and largely the liberal party, can call for abortion rights and extend these so-called rights to include partial birth abortion, and also extend these rights to the tax payers to pay for not only U.S.A. rights to have an abortion, but also for the U.S.A. citizens to pay for other countries to have it's information on them, and the abortion procedure done paid for by us by us. How can they claim to be the party of compassion, love and justice, knowing full well these policies cause death? They claim loving intentions to let homosexuals marry, yet this hurts not only the homosexuals that have real emotional and spiritual problems, as they know in their conscience that this behavior is wrong, and need the approval and acceptance, because they know down deep this is not right, no more than aborting innocent babies, that they are refusing life too, for their own selfish interest. Babies can be born and others raise them, people want babies and need them for human reasons of growth and love. Man and woman, Mr,. & Mrs. Husband and wife, that want children to grow their family. When people work so hard to put a end to the life and growth of children's rights, we can't take believe a word they say. For they are the dogs, the murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers that are mentioned in the Book, are they not?
NOM must be sooooo proud to have such a righteous, straightforward, lovely spokesperson as Miss Prejean. She is such a fine example and a great rolemodel for the youth of today. This wonderful woman lied to the Miss USA committee about photos taken and when one surfaced she told them there was only one....Then all of the sudden there are several....Then it was windy and her boobies were exposed (the photographer said that it was she who exposed them). Then this upstanding young lady breaks another rule by doing interviews which whe knew, by contract, needed to be approved. What a wonderful example of a true Christian. After that she appears in a commercial for a special interest group....Again she does not tell the Miss USA organization and this too is against the rules. Does she get fired....Oh no she is still such a good person and the pictures were tasteful????? If I had broke my contract with the company I work for I would have been fired long ago.
How proud NOM must be to have Miss Prejean and her fake boobies as a spokesperson. How proud to have a liar, cheat, and fake represent you. But I guess that is what you are all about anyway.
Alan W-
Carrie Prejean was viscously attacked because she stated the truth of what marriage is. She spoke with courage and truth, even though she knew that she would be reproached by a rabid dog. So let Carrie confess to God and repent because she, like all of us are not perfect. You and I must ask God, not point to someone's else's behavior, unless that behavior is affecting us, as we know the horrible, deplorable and destructive media, and what they are feeding our youths, calming that it is good , porn for everyone. Carrie is struggling to make sense out of the despicable images that are throw at these youths today, and what is right and what is good. The Lies and deception of this age is overwhelming and robs the heart and soul of decency and respect, honesty and faith. So let Carrie deal with herself with her God and her family and her pastor. I am sure she has a good foundation to build on, For with God All Good Things Come to Life.
------------ Faithful --------------
You don't have to defend Carrie Prejean, GOD's instruction to us is to OBEY the law of the LAND. The law of this land allows Carrie Prejean to earn MONEY and PRESTIGE this way, Carrie didn't violate the law; and, most important, this sexploitation of women is what society expects of young beautiful women. Those who criticize Carrie are hypocrites; because, they should criticize the magazine, the photographer, and the entire modeling and Hollywood industry. Since they don’t, they must be disregarded.
-------------------------
To answer your question, about government, a President must represent the current status-quo that keeps the President in the power of his office. If the President initiates something that is against the will of the people, it is the power of the people that will remove him from power (G. W. Bush). Remember, the USA is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. [ If the majority of people demand what you have asked for here, you can best believe, the President will initiate it ]. That is why I give understandings, herewith, to wake-up the minds that sleep. If the majority of men and women wanted to reclaim the sacred value of marriage, the President must support them.
@Joshua:"If the majority of men and women wanted to reclaim the sacred value of marriage, the President must support them.
That's not quite true. Civil and constitutional rights override the popular vote. Even if the majority of americans wanted to bring back slavery or ban women from voting, it couldn't happen unless the very fundamentals of our rights were changed first.
The problem I think is that some people consider SSM a purely moral issue, while others see it as a matter of civil rights. The moral people want this put to a popular vote. The civil rights people feel the courts and legislatures should decide according to the law.
I don't think the two will ever truly understand one another. Which is really ashame, as I don't think either "side" is really trying to be mean or evil here. Both are doing what they feel is best for society and their loved ones.
But all this seems to do is bring out the worst from everyone. The left unfairly brands SSM opponents as bigots and homohobes. The right unfairly brands SSM supporters as immoral and godless.
There MUST be some way to bring everyone together, preserving the dignity, beliefs and rights of all involved?
Our founding fathers always prayed each day before their duties to decide case and laws. They made the constitution under their best judgment of what they believed was equal justice for all of the citizens, to live in a society that is fair and just. A Civil society that could live under civil laws, that afforded protections and decency that would require common respect under common needs of a society, to remain healthy and sane.Common principals, moral and ethical behavior and value that would grant a decent measure of respect for the un-educated and the skilled and schooled. There is a way that we can turn the tide back to a healthy and prosperous nation, to elect leaders that have a common link to God, Honor and Respect. This is the foundation that made this country safe and sane. When people truly new that they could set out and accomplish their goals and ideals. What this country is lacking is basic common decency and respect. Their is a reason why they say order in the court, and their is a reason why it is healthy to live in a Godly Manner.
This country is doomed as it is losing it's moral grounding and faith that these golden rules truly have a huge impact on all.
@Faithful:and their is a reason why it is healthy to live in a Godly Manner. This country is doomed as it is losing it’s moral grounding and faith that these golden rules truly have a huge impact on all.
I know, I've been looking at that massresistence site you have a link to, and some of the things they show there are just unbelievable!
But I sometimes think the people they're showing there, and the horrible things they do.. really aren't representative of the gays I've met and have as neighbors. The ones I know don't march in parades, aren't activists, aren't obsessed with sex or being promiscuous or anything. Being gay is just incidental, it's not an "identity" to march in "pride parades" about for them.
They pretty much live the same life I do of work, sleep, eat, repeat, lol. They just happen to do it as same-sex couples. They aren't out to corrupt all mankind to their evil ways or anything, they're just trying to live out their lives with some sense of dignity and peace.
And in their own way, they're TRYING to be godly too. I mean who amoungst us is without sin? The few I know are genuinely Good People whom I'm proud and honored to know, regardless of their "sin." I know I sure have a ton of my own sins and issues to deal with too. We're ALL struggling in our own ways, aren't we?
I realize that still doesn't make it biblically correct to do, but still it's really hard for me to condemn gay people in general JUST because they're gay. I don't think the people on that web site represent gays as a whole any more than porn stars represent heterosexuals.
Meet some people. Individuals in real life. Then decide. Don't go by a web site. It's just to easy to round up all the "bad" elements of an issue and combine them in one place, making it seem like EVERYONE is like that.
Marie- In my home town we have many homosexuals, The woman generally look to be like anyone else in s0ceity today, they talk about children they have together like two lesbians and their kid's from previous marriages.many like to go to the mardi graw and watch the Ellen show. I have a banker that has 4 children an is considering going homo- as her husband beat her and she is convinced that if she was with a woman, than she would not live in violence. We have kid's that come out of Boston and New York that are trans-gendered and hope to have surgeries. It is pretty discouraging as I have stopped and talked to them, and they don't seem to think much about much. We have a man that has big fake boob's and I gave him a ride a few time and asked him, why he is doing this to himself and he said women get more attention and he would get surgery he they'll pay for it, as he is on S.S.I. The real problem is the way the government is set up, the liberal want people to be held back as it usually brings them to the booth to Vote the Big D. This is the real root of the problem. Abortion weighs on the soul of people also and these types send their children out to attack Sarah Palin and people like Carrie Prejean, to preserve their rights of choice. Choice to what murder children.??? It makes one sick when they look at the full picture. How abusing towards the innocents of humanity. I don't know about much, but my heart and soul is in deep trouble, for I love the children and they deserve better, MUCH--- BETTER.
Marie- right around the corner from where I live there is a woman whom owns a variety store, and has several young girls working for her, sometimes when I go in there they have howard stern playing loud in the store on that pay for radio station, and other comedians of sexual content, this is not right for a public establishment. She is also a lesbian according to the talk of the town.
Marie, I believe if parents did a better job,and payed attention to the problems of child rearing and were concerned about the affects of all this sexualization of youths, like our tax dollars paying for it- so the liberal politicians can pander to the lobbyist, that lobby for the drug companies and sex industries, Then we could see the real dangers of representatives such as Barney Frank and the corrupt lives they live and the negative and destructive affect it has on our children How about governor McGreevy. and so many others,. Isn't it grand that we live in an age where children and their need and innocence are the least. concern of adults minds, because they are just like any one else. You can't win, but If I can, I will try for the sake of innocent children everywhere.
And I forgot to mention all the A.D.D. and other disorders that they readily put children on drugs, they told me when my girls or 3 and 5 yrs. old to put them on ridiulnine, or I would have huge problems with them as they got older. I told them I don't believe in putting children on drugs. They pushed hard to convince me, but I would not budge. My daughters have no problems, quite the opposite they are loving and intelligent and good wives and mothers. I know I only went to ninth grade in high school, and went to get my G.E.D. when my kid's were 3 and 5 yrs.old. Also I started college for Nursing, but never finished, because of family obligations. But having concern about a child's development and spiritual health is about the most crucial stage of their soundness that parents can grant to their offspring. Without foundation we are null and void, the village will galdly give a crack at rearing children. This is extremely dangerous and deadly. For I believe a family is not a cult nor a zoo or circus.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the men homosexuals as they are most of the worst of the worst, like rabid dogs, for the most part, I was watching a talk show on five young men, that were looking for love, and grown men were giving them money promising them love while having sexual relationships with them, The boys said they didn't feel loved and the grown men told them get used to it- that's just the way it is. These boys said they felt addicted to sex and as they got older they would have sex with anyone whom happened by. This is a sicknessness, that grows with addiction. At least that's my way of seeing it.
Why do the decent and respectful people that instills morals, principals and values in their lives and children have to fight off the rabid dogs of society, when the laws of the land are suppose to protect the citizens from deviant sexual people that seek to destroy what is Good and Loving. Because they choose to live in a manner that is careless and thoughtless of decency of public behavior, like indoctrinating children into every sexual practice and information? This only confuses the innocents and hurts their ability to grow sound and healthy.
Give me the old days when playboy magazines were put undercover, as a protection of children's innocence. When adult presumed that they had an obligation to protect children from the ills of minds that were seeking unrestricted, adult concerns and pleasures. For parents for the most part have a different course to follow, the concerns that children need protections and respect, decency and honesty of the facts of life. Not sexual practices and information of sex of all flavors and types. I believe that God's Commandments can provide such protection and respect and honesty. What Say You!!!
I believe that is why sex is such an emotional issue as it is the one thing that bonds, that is the natural course of life, Sexual soundness is born out of moral decency and respect, principals and value. One man, One woman, coming together as one, to produce children the family, the way Almighty God, Created man and his woman. For this purpose is loving and giving, honest and clean, respectful and life producing, the thing that children count on for life, from generation to generation.
Order in the Court of Almighty God, For without God there is nothing Good. For His Law is the only Law that counts in the promise of eternal life, His promise to mankind.
Why don't the Christians want to put these bible verses into law?
Shrimp is an Abomination too, but we don't outlaw that...
(Leviticus 11:10-12) And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Kill Your Children for Cursing You
(Leviticus 20:9) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.
Slavery
(Exodus 21:20-21) When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Rape
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Kill People of Other Religions
(Deuteronomy 13:13-)"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.
Stefanie, God's Instruction to us is to Obey the Law of the Land. In those days laws were so much different than they are today. That is why we have a constitution, which our founding fathers made with prayer, they were given wisdom from Almighty God. When one prays in honesty and confesses and repents, God gives them wisdom to discern, for the truth drawn from facts, that leads to a just law.
For All the Uncommonly Good Parents Concerned about the development of their children's health and soundness Please Visit http://www.drjudithreisman.com/
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
I'd like to make a suggestion. I believe there are many Christians that have strong feelings for traditional marriage as I share with them. I would caution the tone of the comments here. lets not alienate the gay community here. A post that puts down or demorizizes the gay community only draws them farther away from the debate and likely they won't even consider your post as a valid point. Please lets be civil and careful about our language.
Adam-
If it were not the case of children being indoctrinated into the homosexual, trans-sexual and bi-sexual agenda in the schools, which is making victims of our children and also the parents that work hard to rear children with morals, I would not be so extremely sickened by this ugly nightmare , not to mention the total destruction of the institution of marriage, and also Boston Children's Hospital Sex Change Clinic. And also the fact that our stinken, rotten, filthy politicians pushing this crap on society for their own benefit of money and power. And the corruption that We the People have to be silenced by the stupid Politcal Correctness, that is destroying this countries chance of Truth, Faith and Honesty. Our children are trashed. Our marriage is trashed and our family way of life. Now I don't know how to say this nicely. We America are sitting in the toilet waiting for someone nice like President Obama to flush it, or do something About this pollution.
Adam, I agree with your cautionary note.
But keep in mind that to disagree with SSMers is itself considered, by most of them, as a putdown -- indeed as a hyper-personalized insult.
There are valid points on both sides of the discussion, however, I rarely have seen an SSMer who can honestly accord even one iota of moral legitimacy to the arguments that stand against their axiomatic belief that "gay marriage" is a form of marriage.
If people with deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, feel compelled to speak of those beliefs, and do so civilly, then, as fellow citizens and as mature adults we ought to take those remarks at face value, seek clarification if there is misunderstanding, and seek first to understand before seeking to be understood.
That goes for all sides. Unfortunately, the pro-SSM side tends to ignore the actual disagreement and to misrepresent the views of others -- regardless of how civil and cooperative defenders of marriage may be in public discourse.
That has been evident in the comment sections here.
Of all the arguments made in favor of "gay marriage", I think that Jon Rauch has made the most substantive and the most compelling. I disagree with his conclusions, but at least he acknowledges the actual disagreement and respects there are legitimate moral claims made among those who disagree with him.
But ask an SSMer to cite the best argument that they know in opposition to their proposed reform of the law and of the culture. They pick strawmen or they pick very weakly put arguments. They runaway from the actual disagreement and prefer to linger on misunderstandings or misreadings. That's not in our control to correct, try as we might.
There is no outside door knob on the door to the heart and mind.
I'm going to second Adam's remark above.
I appreciate the worry about sexualized child education in general, and how difficult it can be to teach responsible procreation.
No matter how wrong you think homosexuality is, that does not make marriage right. There are many if not worse things that heterosexuals are capable of specifically because their relationship can create children.
If you want to break into camps, make sure and clean your own camp first before taking pot shots at the others.
Faithful, I think it has more with showing respect and setting the example in my opinion. We can agree and have arguments civily. The tone of some messages makes them not even readable. If you are trying to get others to agree with you, its not a good idea to push them away with hard language. You may have many people that agree with you, but they are already on your side. Its the gay community that you should be addressing, not those who already believe what you do. And I am on your side. A good example of what I am talking about is Carrie Prejean. She said something that was an honest answer of which I believe was said in a respectable civil manner. Now the judge 8 goes on a tirade making himself look childish. He really alienated a lot of people from him in the gay community. They don't want him to be Representative of their community. Carrie Prejean waited patiently through it all and came out the winner. She got the final voice on national TV again, and was able to restate once again politely her stance on gay marriage.
I am on your side, but lets not push the other side away. Where will the discussion go? It will be tirade against tirade.
Faithful, I think it has more with showing respect and setting the example in my opinion. We can agree and have arguments civily. The tone of some messages makes them not even readable. If you are trying to get others to agree with you, its not a good idea to push them away with hard language. You may have many people that agree with you, but they are already on your side. Its the gay community that you should be addressing, not those who already believe what you do. And I am on your side. A good example of what I am talking about is Carrie Prejean. She said something that was an honest answer of which I believe was said in a respectable civil manner. Now the judge 8 goes on a tirade making himself look childish. He really alienated a lot of people from him in the gay community. They don’t want him to be Representative of their community. Carrie Prejean waited patiently through it all and came out the winner. She got the final voice on national TV again, and was able to restate once again politely her stance on gay marriage.
I am on your side, but lets not push the other side away. Where will the discussion go? It will be tirade against tirade.
On Lawn- I believe by taking away the essential, the foundation of marriage, it is taking God away from the minds, hearts and soul of mankind, This is only one way that the politicians are destroying the fabric of society, For when marriage has it's original meaning and core, it is the ultimate way to show God's Love in the human condition. I am not saying that people don't have their problems, sexual addictions, drug addictions, material obsessions, violence and other illnesses and disorders, but if we don't have a role model and tear it down because they claim that society is a joke anyway, then the true loving spirit of God is not shown. This means in essence that the secular side view, the practice of destroying the God's presence is gaining in force of the law of the land. We as Christians must speak, we must bring truth of The Living Word into mankind world, not let it be pushed out by the Lies and Deception of the Evil One. These one have not the Word in their dead souls, they can;'t appreciate the Goodness of the Gospel. They seem to be void of faith. I know you maybe right, but sometimes one must take a stand and refuse the push and push back. Our children are counting on us, not to let this happen to them. Because God does not want us to stay in our comfort zone. We must speak with his Word of Truth and Justice. Faith and honesty. To build faith in the hearts and souls of mankind, takes discipline, respect and honoring our Heavenly Father, Through prayer and the sharing of it. So yes you are right, but we must not stay silenced, Jesus was not silenced, We all have sin, without Jesus, we are doomed.
I never came right out and said this, but for all the trashing I have heard against President Bush, I have always felt that President Bush tried to make laws that were ethical and sound, The direct opposition that Obama has shown to reject the honesty of the policies of embryonic stem cell research, the legalization of abortion, and partial birth abortion and the forcing of the people to pay for it, against their will, is very telling of where he is rooted. President Bush, I believe did the correct authorizing of these bills, from a decency and respect of all lives, to put the protection of them into policy. I have heard that Obama and Bill Ayers wrote the comprehensive sex education bill, that affords the public push of all sexual content, information and practices on the public schools and squares. So therefore it is telling that Christians by voting for Obama, they have not defended the truth of God's Law. If Christians cannot see the Truth, The light, The Way, The Life, then how is it that we are living the word, sharing the Truth and Faith of the Gospel? Can we not discern good from evil? What is the purpose of His commandments if not to keep them, share them and live them? We need moral clarity on these matters. I believe in Jesus, I believe He is the Son of God, I believe He Died and Rose Again, I believe He paid for Us all. And I believe He is Here Now, Standing in our Midst. Here with the power to heal now and the Grace to Forgive.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Let's do a little assignment, considering the media and the music industry, goggle walking in Memphis, read the history of this song, Consider the struggle of Great music artist like Elvis Presley and the awesome music talent he was gifted with, now consider his struggles with drugs, sex and violence. Yet at the same time his religious music spoke volumes of what passions are rooted in the soul of men. Where does this awesome talent, gifts and blessing, born of, It is the Gifts of Our Heavenly Father, and the struggles of our own demons. But there is an evil presence that must be snuffed out, by the Heavenly Presence of the Spirit of God, The Holy Spirit that lives in the soul of mankind, A Gift of Almighty God, Himself, We are protected under the Blood of Jesus. For He is the Way, The Truth and the Life.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Faithful,
I appreciate your concerns about irreligious, and the efforts to sterilize government discussion from its influence. I think that is overly totalitarian. We should all have our belief system, values, wear them on our sleaves, and make our decisions by them.
That is democracy.
I'm just saying that even if you think homosexuality is very wrong, that doesn't make one-man and one-woman in marriage right.
We all need to remember the reason marriage is so important to us. Its not to put down homosexuality, because marriage doesn't do that. If you want to find a vehicle to do that, you'll have to look somewhere else.
You need to be more pro-marriage. We all need to be. And what we are for in marriage needs to be in the forefront of our minds.
I know what marriage means is on the forefront of the mind of every child without a father or mother. Its on the mind of every wife who's lost a husband. Its on the mind of everyone who wishes they knew their real father or mother, and saw them loving each other in pure love, honor and cherishing of each other's unique qualities.
On Lawn, What makes one man, one woman marriage right is forsaking all others, for what God has brought together let no man put asunder. Only with God can we know the true love of His promise. Marriage should represent love, decency, respect and discipline. So you are right we should not focus on homosexuality, As it really does not represent marriage at all.
------------ Prophecy Has A Purpose -----------
It gives us foresight into what the future holds, based on current behavior, and if a responsible person changes its direction, and chooses a better future, that person has value. 3000 years ago, prophets accurately predicted what the future would be, we are all well aware of those prophecies; but, most of the people in the gay community ignore the prophecy warnings, and continued to do that which leads to misery, suffering, death, and the extinction of the human race. Only a person who is self-destructive, with itself, and destructive with everything and everyone else would do such a thing. Therefore, every individual is responsible unto itself, and must make its own choice, and must determine its own value and its own fate. This is the 3000 year old prophecy that has come true on matters concerning marriage and family => [ Micah 7:6; For the son dishonors the father, the daughter rises up against her mother; the daughter in law against her mother in law, and a man's enemies are the men in his own house. ] This prophecy is about the destruction of marriage between man and woman and their family. Now, if the family is at war with itself, it cannot prosper; if the families of the community are in distress, then the community will perish; and if the nation is in turmoil against itself, another will defeat that nation. And who is the one entity that corrupts the family, that destroys the community, and causes its own nation to fall, well see for yourself (Genesis 19:1-29). Now, in this modern day, the ELE events of 2012 is the same as Genesis 19:1-29. Should better decisions be made today for self preservation in the future? Well, don't ask the gay community!
Faithful,
No one wants to deny you your beliefs, whatever I personally may think of them. However, why should you have to right to enshrine your beliefs into secular law and thus force them on those of us who have different beliefs?
Mary, I think it's very unfortunate that you think your sect's interpretation of your particular religion should be made into U.S. law. Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution isn't written that way.
Faithful, you do know there are U.S. states and other countries that have allowed gays to marry and the sky has not fallen yet.
"SOCIAL CHAOS- IS WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH- SOCIAL CHAOS- WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY WILL CREATE IS SOCIAL CHAOS."
Chairm, I don't think Adam is talking about merely disagreeing with those of us who believe gays have the right to marry. He's talking about the many NOM supporters who call gays "viruses" "evil" "sewage" etc... From the looks of this message board, people who support NOM are hateful people, not just disagreeable.
No Stefanie, We have told all of the same sex people that want to be married way marriage is the union between one man and one woman, with the very core of family and procreation of it. Blood is important to Jesus, as we see how the evil one spilled His Blood because of hate, now we don't want to change marriage and it essential core of man and woman, Mr, & Mrs. Husband and wife, father and mother, Grandfather and Grandmother and on and on the way family begins and grows. Now we have tried to reason with logic and the true facts of life, But still the homosexuals want to force their way into our home, marriage the home of the man and woman. Not only do they think they have that right, but they believe they have the right to indoctrinate our children into very unhealthy and un-natural sexual practices and information, changing the hearts and minds of our precious children. Putting them at many disadvantages and dangers. Now we see how mean and uncaring and nasty they really are. Because they believe children should be taught about such things as toys, and oils and condoms and all the other dirty things that turn children into beasts, the way the gays are. No we are not mean, we are loving and protective parents that want decency, respect and honesty .
Like I stated if Gays are so Proud, and they are convinced that they are good and right, then they should have no problem making their own club, cult or zoo, or whatever. Stay out of Marriage, because marriage has it's essential foundation that is the core of it's life. We are serious and do demand justice. For our way of life is different from yours. Our characteristics and dreams and hopes for our offspring, the way nature and God Created us, we don't subscribe to the joining of others in our lovemaking, our procreating and growth. Marriage means something very profound for the development of our bodies, our minds and our hearts. We two, that become as one, and build our family and future, Just the two of us, thank you!!!
Stefanie, the man-woman basis of marriage is not a purely religious idea or belief.
The SSM campaign is wrong to make this into a clash between religion and government.
Government is not secular. There is no font of wisdom that is purely secular anyway. We live in a pluralistic society and our laws are expressed in secular language, very often, but that does not negate the influence of religious beliefs in making our laws. The history of the USA is full of examples whereby civil society is based on freedom of conscience, first and foremost, and government is not the owner of civil society. Rather, it is the other way around.
There is no justice in the assertion that the religious beliefs of your fellow citizens are null and void in the public square. The law is not above the influence of people who exercise their freedom of conscience. Government is the servant, not the despot, in the USA.
As per usual, Chairm's identity politics are speaking loudly and clearly. He says, Government is not secular. So, I guess that means government is sacred? He says that government is not the owner of society but the other way around. In other words, Chairm believes that if most Americans believe in god (and they do) then all Americans should believe this way. This isn't the America I want to live in. How about taking the religious connection to marriage completely out of government? The French government's approach is the right one. Marriages that occur in houses of worship are not legal. Every couple goes to city hall to marry. Therefore, "legal" marriage in France has no connection to god whatsoever. Marriage in France is a civil matter, and not a religious one. Would that appease you Chairm, and Faithful? You can still have your celestial marriages, and holy matrimony, but the government doesn't recognize it with any legal meaning. Your religious freedoms remain in tact, and gay people can marry without offending anybody's gods.... Too many Americans assume that our country was founded on religious beliefs. It isn't. The Puritans came here to escape government controlled religion, let's not forget this... And, here we are falling into the same trap, by those like Chairm, who would like to impose a certain religious belief on all. If we followed his approach we will become a theocracy, which we can all see is evil (look no further than Iran and Saudi Arabia)...
Dan- You must think your quite the man, or not, whatever. I can tell you one thing for positive, God made mankind, it has always worked for marriage, because if it didn't we wouldn't be born You seem to keep forgetting that essential, elemental foundation of life itself, like say man and woman, use just a basic fact to build on, before you start getting rabid.
Now just think about this, my daughter just called me from Conroe, Texas as she just moved there. She informed me that she is reading these threads, and she said Mom,. When my sis and I were in High School and we had a homosexual teacher, we asked you why would anyone be gay. See my daughters never really thought about homosexuals, So when I replied heterosexuals are the flowers in the garden of life and homosexuals are the weeds that wither and die. My daughters thought about it and said that's to wried,. Then a few months went by and they had two homosexuals pastors, kissing on the t.v. they both made the sound of barfing and said that's really gross. So If homosexuality is so normal then why does no-one want to think about it or talk about it, until the day comes when they force you too by indoctrination. Most people realize that it is just plain wrong, not natural and really don't want to think about it. it's like rape, no-one really wants to think about it, but they do when it happens. Not a pleasant subject at all.
1. People need to understand that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. It is not "just wrong" or "not natural". Many species of animals practice homosexual behavior--this is a proven fact. Homosexuality is part of the natural animal kingdom.
2. Marriage is a contractual agreement between two consenting adults, and is defined by the rights that it gives those two adults. These include tax benefits, the right to visit one another in a hospital, etc. It is not defined by the possibility of procreation, and does not require procreation or even the possibility of procreation. It creates a family unit, which need not include children, and may be any of the following: two men, with or without children. Two women, with or without children. A man and a woman, with or without children. A single parent with children.
3. Christian ideals of marriage do not define marriage in the United States. I am not Christian. I have the ability to get married to the person I love in the United States (because I am not homosexual, I am not discriminated against).
4. Allowing same-sex marriage does not take away rights. It grants homosexuals the right to marry the people that they wish to marry, and wish to create family units with. Discriminating against homosexuals in public institutions is not part of religious freedom. Churches will not be forced to marry lesbian/gay couples, but they will not be allowed to claim tax benefits for public places while discriminating against homosexual couples.
5. Marriage equality does not mean one man and one woman (On Lawn's strange notion of "equality between the sexes"). Marriage equality means any two consenting adults can enter a the contractual agreement of marriage. Homosexuals are not "discriminating" by refusing to wish to marry members of the opposite of sex. They are simply not attracted to members of the opposite sex, and have no control over that. Heterosexuals are discriminating against homosexuals when they deny them the ability to marry.
6. There is separation of church and state in America. The fact that you many of you see homosexuality as a sin should not change the law of the United States of America.
Those who say gay marriage has no affect on traditional marriage are clearly not aware of the data that shows a strong correlation between acceptance of gay marriage and dangerously low levels of fertitlity. States with gay marriage have dangerously low fertility rates and states with constituional prohibiltions on gay marriage have fertility rates that are at or slightly higher than replacement level. While some radical environmentalists may think depopulating industrialized nations is a good thing, keep in mind that the theory of natural selection says that populations that don't replace themselves get replaced by those that do. For anyone not paying attention it is the Islamo-fascists of the world that are one of the groups filling the demographic gap and their sights are on us.
With all the sexual abuse that we see in the schools, educators having sexual relationships with students and the extremely immature so-called adults we have because of the breakdown of family and society, why would we want to change marriage, the one hope of the family, one man, one woman, instead our lawmakers and courts have decided that marriage is no longer an institution that is deserving of the principals of its foundation. They further have decided that our youths, should be subjected to all types of sexual practices and information and be told that their is no difference in what choice they make. This is abuse of the most deplorable and despicable method., it not only takes the rights and responsibilities away from a child's parents, this give homosexuals rights to children accessed by any method they prefer. If two lesbians wish to have their babies at the same time, and form a kind of circus of a mommy and a mommy for these children concerned. This opens the door for any type of zoo, cult or child abusers to access children freely for their type of preferred abuse, Children are being used as pawns in the struggle of power and profit of our politicians and courts. Marriage has a specific essential core, it is a natural protection that is afforded by nature of the family, typically it is what bonds the family from the beginning and throughout it's process, the Protection of the children born of their parents, with the true facts of life, given to them for the true path of it's creation. It is a slap in the face and a stab in the heart to both the parents and their offspring, that such a natural bonding of the human heart, spirit and soul can be violated for corrupt purpose's under the guise of equality. Their is no equality as such of the one man and one woman that produce children the family from generation. For if it were so it would not have to be forced on us.
If we could only begin to understand why our hearts are so hardened and cold. Why we can't see what we are doing to the innocent children, whom only wish is that their father and mother could afford them the love of a true family. To be the example of the decent and honest love that our Heavenly Father created us for. We all as children of God have that ability and gift. Whether or not we want to see it, we are hurting our children, lying to them about the facts of life, be it heterosexual or the direct denial of God's Creation and call them gay. Adults of all types have the same responsibility, to live in accordance with God's Law, For He is the Creator and His Commandments are our protections against evil, deviancy, false ways and destruction. The grass may look greener on the other side, till you get there and find your swimming in it.
Did anyone ask the question about the swine flu, maybe it's not a new strain of flu virus, maybe it could be some sexually transmitted virus, a virus that is taking of new characteristics, maybe a lower form of aids or HIV, or other sexually transmitted disease. I don't trust our government to give the information,even if they have it. But knowing our government they probably don't even know.
Check out this
http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/default.aspx?ld=531184
I am right at this moment thanking our Lord, Jesus. I have just returned from counseling two young men that believe they are gay.After talking with them for a few hours, and they look at NOM, and made a decision to do some reading of this organization, they do feel that sometimes they believe homosexuality is not right, they aren't certain if these feelings are their conscience or other people's dislike of this practice. Each boy does admit they do like girls and feel that they can date them as well. I advised them not to date each other or any girls at this time, to stay friends and talk to each other about what they are researching and how they feel about the information. So they are happy and feel that they are trying to do the right thing and be responsible for their choices. They believe it may just be a choice, but they are confused about what they believe.
Praise Jesus!!!
On fox news they were interviewing a spokesperson for the homosexual G.L.B.T and this person was saying that the advertisement with the young children describing the confusion of homosexuals and trans- people is abusing children, Isn't that the height of hypocrisy, these sexual deviants lie to each other about their obvious sexual fraud claiming love, like lovers and marriage, yet they are really nasty people, then they further the deception and turn it to children, and then they turn it on society's children. Their abuse is a life long abuse and they must inflict it on everyone.This is an extremely sickened world and their is only one hope for truth and sanity, as we see how twisted and corrupt things really are.
One more example, extremely demonic.
Goggle oxfordschooljanitor
Are you going to tell me this isn't going to give children nightmares and their parents??????????????????????????????????
Parents beware, this society today, with the schools and political correctness, are deceiving your children by way of making them feel as if they are grown-ups, leading them to believe they are sopfiscated, then they hand them all the trash and filth and lies, and confuse them so completely that it is a disease. Just as Obama wouldn't so much as comply with the law, and show his birth certificate, many Christians voted for him, they didn't even discern the corrupt nature of his refusal.
We need to do better at discerning the corrupt least we become just like them.
Diane -
Is it considered abuse and hating now if we disagree? I don't hate gays and lesbians, but I don't think they should be called "married" when in a relationship. Is that abusive to you? I disagree with many things that others think are fine but that doesn't make me "hate" them. You might want to rethink your victim complex a little.
Let's focus, why is it that bonding and the promise of children, the promise of life itself, the driving force of all that is important and desired by humanity. Why is it, how is this miracle, the birthing of hope, the ultimate gift and promise of the generations. How is this great mystery the common link between all of mankind .Because it is the nature of life and all that is promising of the unborn, to come to life, the process of new hope, new horizons that leads to family, respect, honesty, truth and faith. Marriage is the home of all the promise of these promises to be born out of. The man, the woman, of all the races, coming together as one, with this one promise, the only promise and miracle that belongs solely to these two. A man and a woman, Mr. and Mrs., Husband and wife, Father and mother the promise, the beginning, the creators of life, in the order of God's Promise, be fruitful and multiply, make a family, protect the blood of the offspring into healthy and saneness, flourishing into the promise of the future generations. The common man, his hopes and promise of life, as it is creation of that union.
When one bows down, and asks God to come in to their soul, they are acknowledging the spirit of God Himself, to be the Light of His Truth, His Hope that turns into Faith. By Accepting Him, you are acknowledging that He is The Creator, and accepting His Promise of Everlasting Life The New Life is born, with all His Promise, His Protections, And you are rejecting the evil one and his deception, his false witness and destruction. God give man a new heart, a heart that hears His Voice. His Direction and All of His Protection and Promise. You are born of a new heart and a new life, In Him. Dead to the old ways of the corrupt. God's Hand is Upon You, holding you Upright, for His Son's Glory. The Glory of Truth, Honesty and Faith. So the day the evil one strikes, you are blessed by His Blood, Christ Jesus, The Savior of Mankind, God's Children, His Family.
Some asked why I compare Drew Peterson to Prez Hilton, But if one looks at recent news, they find that a blue barrel and a woman's body was found, I have been praying for quite some time that this man would be found out, that not another woman would suffer his violence and destruction. Now God has answered my prayer, Yes Prayer does work and everything works to the good of God. When one does not have God's Spirit in their soul, all hell can break loose, but with God, Light of Hope, turns to Faith and springs forth a new life.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
I am praying for Drew Peterson's Children, with Drew in custody his children might begin to morn, without the presence of that evil standing over them, also eventually they may begin the process of healing. Also Drew Peterson might have time to turn to God and confess and repent. I am also praying for all of us, that we might turn to God and receive His guidance and learn the discipline and respect for the gift of a new heart and new life.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
If these so-called churches in Boston are correct in their conclusion that marriage is changing and has been for many years, Then why would God, command that a man and a woman come together as one, to be fruitful and multiply? Why would He say a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, Why would He say you shall know them by their fruits? Why does God talk about the bride? Why then should we permit Bride and Groom, be removed, or Husband and wife, Father and Mother?, Mr. and Mrs. Why would we let these frauds change our foundation and elements and truths. What would stop them from forcing Churches that follow and keep the commandments of Our Heavenly Father, from their terrorist ways. Because they Lie and Deceive and hurt the foundation that God, Himself Created for Mankind. All in their efforts to Deny God. Their efforts to destroy what God has brought together, to produce life in a healthy and loving and life giving nature. Did God not create nature and love and family? Did he not say these things. Whom do you believe them that deny Him, Or our Heavenly Father, Whom is the Creator of Love and Life and family? Those Whom love to create a Lie, not a Life, and God does so lovingly, so preciously , with respect for the man and woman, bride and groom, husband and wife, father and mother, from generation to generation. Whom do you believe and trust? That is the only question that should be considered, for all others are deceitful and corrupt.
faithful... you are spouting religious propaganda. If everyone in the United States was as devout a Christian who followed the word of God as closely as you, then there would be no controversy over gay marriage. However, the United States' government is not, and should not, be run by the church. The founding fathers separated church and state so that Christians like you would not be able to force your views upon the millions and millions of gays in this country. Gay marriage is about equal rights under the law, not under the Christian version of God.
Faithful: I love you, and you have a good heart and intentions, but I hope and pray that you someday learn to find the Divine and Good in people - all people - instead of just the demonic and profane.
Marie- There is only good in people because God Created Them, For you are only a Child of God, When you accept His word and His Law, that is why to be reborn into the family of God and His Truth, we must accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Because without Him We fall short in the Glory of God. I am not putting this effort and time into these threads because I am great, nor because I hate, I am here to let others hear The Word, So they might have a choice of what their heart is for. Without hearing, God's Word, one doesn't have a real clear choice, things get fuzzy and blurred. Once you hear the Word, Then you have a choice to make your own choice of what is Truth and what is not. That is why God is the judge and Jesus is Lord and Savior. I believe God called me to come out of my comfort zone and speak about His Teachings, So I do the best I can. As a Christian I am required to do so, but I also Love God's Word and His Law. I am sure I will learn more as I grow as a Christian and I pray others will find that Truth and Peace.
Love In His Power, His Holy Name
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Faithful: I understand, but these people are not going to hear you if you refer to them as terrorists, demonic, deceitful and corrupt... and to their relationships as cults and zoos.
If you want to spread the Word, you're going to have to speak from your heart to theirs, from Love and not condemnation, making them feel worthy of being saved instead of dehumanizing them as rabid viruses to be "flushed" from society.
These people are worthy. They struggle as we all do with sin and living a Good Life. And when you say these things, someone, somewhere who is struggling and reading these blogs is hurt by it. They feel less worthy. And they close off even more.
Open your heart to them, and encourage them to open theirs to you. And then maybe something truly good can begin to happen.
Check Out This Book
Dawn Stefanowicz
Out From Under
Goggle It
I can't understand why adults would not want to see the purity of an innocent child's heart, their need for respect and honest love, clean and pure, their heart does thirst for the love of a mother and a father, a grown person, that knows another kind of love that is not of a sexual nature. but one of protection and honesty, respect and wholeness. We cannot make ourselves whole without looking at Jesus and His pain that came from our insecurities and hurts.Jesus said come on to me, the little children, give me your pain and sorrow. Jesus died so we might live. That is love, un-selfish and giving, the heart of a man, a brother, the bond of family.Let's look at our pain in a different light, a light that leads to healing and blessings. For we do not make it better when we bury it deep inside and acknowledge it Not. When we keep it inside, it is an enemy waiting to strike. It is a tormenting force that kills the heart and soul. And does not allow love to take flight and grow. Ask Jesus, Take Courage, For He has overcome the world. Jesus stayed true to love, How about you?
WITH ALL THE WARS THAT ARE RAGING
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU
SOLDIERS
FOR ALL YOUR SELFLESS SACRIFICES
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU
FOR THE FREEDOMS YOU HAVE GIVEN
TOO THIS COUNTRY
SO WE MAY REMAIN
THE HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE
IT TAKES REAL GUTS AND COURAGE
AND THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
I AM PRAYING FOR PEACE
I AM PRAYING FOR YOU
AND YOUR FAMILIES
I AM PRAYING THAT GOD
WILL BRING PEACE INTO A WORLD
FULL OF HATE AND VIOLENCE
SO ON THIS DAY
I GIVE A SPECIAL PRAYER
THAT ALL OF HUMANITY WILL SEEK
GOD'S PEACE, GOD'S LOVE
AND THE HEALING OF THE LAND
A SONG IN THE HEART AND SOUL
THAT BRINGS ALL MEN TOGETHER
IN THE POWER OF HIS LOVE
GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS
IN THE HOLY NAME OF JESUS
AMEN!!!
There Will Come A Day
It's not easy trying to understand
How the World can be so cold, stealing the souls of man
Cloudy skies rain down on all your dreams
You wrestle with the fears and doubt
Sometimes it's hard but you gotta believe
There's a better place, where our Father waits
And every tear He'll wipe away
The darkness will be gone, the weak shall be strong
Hold on to your Faith
There will come a day, there will come a day
Wars are raging, lives are scattered
Innocence is lost, and hopes are shattered
The old are forgotten, the children are forsaken
In this world we're living in
Is there anything sacred?
There will come a day, There will come a day
The song will ring out , down those golden streets
The voices of earth with the angles will sing
Every knee will bow, sin will have no trace
In the glory of His Amazing Grace
There will come a day, there will come a day
Oooh there will come a day
I know there's come a day
coming a day
@faithful:One more example, extremely demonic. Goggle oxfordschooljanitor.Are you going to tell me this isn’t going to give children nightmares and their parents??????????????????????????????????
OK, I googled it. The first link took me to a local TV news story where they interviewed parents about her (a school janitor who's changed her sex from male to female).
They asked one parent if she minded, and the mother said, "Not at all."
A second parent, off-camera, said that she didn't even think this was worth reporting, and that they should focus on real news.
A third admitted that while she wasn't sure how she's explain it to her son, she also didn't feel the school should discriminate, and that she figured her son probably wouldn't notice anyway.
Watch it: http://wbztv.com/local/transgender.janitor.Brian.2.798505.html
You have a such a big heart, but you're wounding it by spending all your time searching through ultra-conservative websites for people to hate and condemn for the ills in the world. That's the true tragedy here: watching such a beautiful flower stabbing itself to pieces
And who do you think is encouraging that anger in you? Who do you think wants you to condemn, blame, curse, and demean people? Who do do think tempts people to play God themselves, as if WE can tell who is and isn't "worthy" in God's eyes?
Marie, Many people have many feelings and beliefs, but the simple truth is a child can fear their parents may change and make that choice as they call it, children are smart and if they are raised by a man and woman that respect and protect children, the children aren't tuned in to deviancy and demonic practices. Children should not have to focus on these demonic practices of change one's bodies as it is not natural nor normal. May God give guidance for all whom are confused, twisted or torn.
Marie, You should go back to massresistance.org and see the kid's that are having their breasts removed and the young men that have body mutilations. These are very serious problems and children should not be told they may have been born the wrong sex.
Marie, Do you really believe God would approve of children being treated like this. Responsible and loving parents want their children to have normal and natural childhoods, free from serious concerns about ill adults. Ill adults are whom foist their demonic behaviors on innocent children. This is the highest priority of loving and intelligent parents to protect them from harm and danger. Get real and grow up.
To all concerned parents, goggle Boston Children's Hospital Sex Change Clinic, then on the search box enter Dr. Money, a really horrific story of a boy, raised as a girl with a tragic reality.
For the first time I watched these shows about people with obsessions, drug and alcohol addictions and very serious problems that make their families life miserable and intolerable. And I prayed to God, and it made me realize even more that marriage must stay the union of one man and one woman, as it is the only institution that has a safe and sound foundation for the best beginning to the end if a father and mother are serious relationship that has elements designed for that purpose. These families that have the out of control children, search for the right program that is right for their problems, the right institution. Normal people such as a man and a woman have and institution that serves their unique pairing and mating practices, that make two, a whole and spring forth the life that is crucial for humanity's survival. Now I here plenty of homosexuals expressing their right to marry, at the same breathe they are saying children don't have to be a part of that package, but as man and woman, know most times it does, and they like it that way,. because it is nature. Now I believe that people have many of these problems and they have not the empathy and compassion to see the truth that would set them free to enjoy the pursuit of happiness, which for as marriage is concerned is a man and woman, the elements and foundation that make it what it is. Other types of sexual practice and characteristics of their relationships are quite different from marriage as they will always have to involve others if they desire the fruits of a typical and natural marriage. That in it self should explain why we find it a pretty sick joke to foist others upon our most precious institution. Because it itself is what it was designed for,. the protections of man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, producing children, from generation to generation.
Without that foundation and elemental process, marriage is lessened and cheapened. It really changes it characteristics and purpose. So leave marriage intact or it become noting, and that is not the best hope for man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. and so on.
Also if one has this foundation of marriage, if we took notice the kid's always faired best when they could count on their parents, Dad and mom, brother and sisters, because that is what a family does, when we tear family apart and give it so many different characteristics then everyones confused, as we see in the schools, program after program to try to explain what should be a normal process of love, marriage and the fruits of that union. This is why they are confusing children, they are lying by way of deceiving children making them believe it is healthy to have many choices, in the end they confuse and torment them. Kid's need the foundation of the natural family and that is only fair, as the marriage institution is designed for that reality of nature on it's own accord. That is nature and that is life- Tell the children the truth- That will set them free. Don't Lie to the Children, God said anyone whom hurts a child, better for them if they put an anchor around their neck and cast themselves into the ocean. Tell the Children the truth, it is healthy and good and sane.
What tears a soul apart- is a lie, deception, that gets so out of control. that one's own heart feels that it is torn, mutilated and broken.This is the dangerous practice we are foisting on innocent children, With the practices and deception of this age all are at risk of sickness and war, as the truth is lost in the false hope of unity, because souls will always strive to learn truth, hope and faith, it is the natural foundation of the human soul, the very heart of what make one tick, for a healthy and sound, mind, body and soul. Stop running with the devil. Do what is right and good. Stop tormenting our children as it only tears all apart.
Hail Mary, full of Grace
The Lord is with Thee
Blessed art thou amongst women
And Blessed is the Fruit of thy Womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death
Amen
Jon, I said it before and I'll say it again, marriage has it core meaning, Mr. and Mrs. Husband and wife, father and mother, bride and groom. That's the Facts, That is not religious fanaticism, it is just the nature of marriage. People, a man and a woman, marry so that their children will have a family history of it name sake and rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and the birthing of their blood related family, that is typical of marriage, that is the core foundation and essential elements that bond the two together in marriage. and life that they produce, as they become as one, and that makes them whole, with nature and the course of it's destiny. Homosexuals do not qualify for that role of marriage. Accept Unions or some other form of a man and man, woman and woman, as it's characteristics are quite different from tradition of the founding fathers and what the intent of marriage and it's purpose dictates. For nature is responsible for life and what it's process allows, for the sake of marriage and family, from generation to generation. That is what life is all about and marriage.
Faithful, say & believe whatever you want about gays. This is a free country, but when you start passing laws limiting other people's freedom that's where most civilized people draw the line.
"We don’t want to change marriage and it essential core of man and woman."
Faithful, there are other religions and civilizations that don't view marriage this way. No one is forcing you to marry the same sex. Orthodox Jews eat Kosher because God told them too. Am I infringing on their rights because the government doesn't force me to eat Kosher?
"Now we have tried to reason with logic and the true facts of life"
Your argument is the antithesis of reason and logic. Try again.
"But still the homosexuals want to force their way into our home, marriage the home of the man and woman."
Really, homosexuals are beating down your door trying to marry you? Somehow I doubt that.
"They believe they have the right to indoctrinate our children into very unhealthy and un-natural sexual practices and information, changing the hearts and minds of our precious children."
The racists said the same thing when we allowed blacks and whites to go to school together and allowed interracial marriage. You and your church are allowed to teach your children whatever you want, but our government, including public schools, must not be allowed to promote bigotry.
Chairm, you say, "The SSM campaign is wrong to make this into a clash between religion and government."
Then why is NOM using religion as it's argument against gay marriage?
"Government is not secular."
When did I say religious or philosophical beliefs don't influence government? My concern is any one religious belief becoming law. Since there are numerous religions practiced in America that allow gays to marry, I suggest that in order to protect religious freedom we recognize gay marriage by law.
Faithful, you say, "it has always worked for marriage, because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be born." Humans are born outside of marriage everyday. You don't need to be married in order to get pregnant. You don't need to be married to have a lasting relationship. My best friend has been living with her boyfriend for years and they just decided to have a child together.
Faithful, I think it's funny you talk about indoctrination. You indoctrinated your children to think it's gross by calling gays weeds in the garden and making them out to be evil. My parents never said such a thing and when I see two gay people kissing I see two people who love eachother.
Jim Smith, you don't know the first thing about science. Correlation is not causation.
Faithful, you say, "I can’t understand why adults would not want to see the purity of an innocent child’s heart"
Why do you put so much emphasis on children being innocent when your God says we are all born of original sin? Doesn't that make all children sinners and not innocent?
To Faithful, Chairm, On Lawn, you say there are just two sexes, but you forget that nature is very strange indeed. There are hermaphrodites and other genetic variables. I'm not saying that every child who claims he/she was born the wrong sex should go out and get a sex change, but I weird things happen in nature.
I've read a book once about children who were born with both sex organs and how doctors would choose to cut off or sew up one or the other sex organ and then give the child hormones to try to make it all ok. However, there is more to sexuality than that and these children grew up knowing something wasn't right and found out that their parents lied to them about the operations.
Do you really think the world and nature is so black and white?
Faithful, you say, "Children should not have to focus on these demonic practices of change one’s bodies as it is not natural nor normal."
Do you feel the same way about nose jobs and boob jobs? Was Carrie Prejean engaging in the demonic practice of changing one's body to something that wasn't natural?
Stefanie, The simple fact is you wouldn't be here if not for your father and mother, they're unique D.N.A. is the combination that created you, That you cannot argue.
For the Spirit of God Created man and nature, and that is how we are born spiritually and physically, that is what makes us human and whole, rejecting that puts the body and soul in torment. That will be the extinction of humanity. For man to live in a healthy and sane manner, we survive by our nature or instincts to procreate and flourish. That is marriage and the home of that safeness and soundness.
FaithfulChildren should not have to focus on these demonic practices of change one’s bodies as it is not natural nor normal.
Can you explain what you mean when you say "demonic?" Do you think demons possess the children and make them do these things?
Marie, The human process of mating and procreating is the result of one man and one woman, coming together as one in mind and body, spirit and soul. This is the instinctive nature of humans. It is as natural as a child suckling of it's mothers breasts. It is the nurturing and bonding of intelligent life form. When one deviates from this process, one is practicing in deviant behavior, not a natural nor normal process of human love and marriage. One must deny the instincts of the life giving and life bearing process that flourishes and produces new life, birth. This is the process of life from generation to generation, assuring the blood line of the family, to remain in a process that is healthy and clean. A nurturing process that is common and good for society and humanity. It is the foundation of life, love and family. It is not only confusing and disruptive but puts children in a position of emotional turmoil. Marriage is hard enough to survive in the best circumstances, because of selfishness, false pride and sexism, because of the politics of the politically correct, Man and woman marriage is of equality and inclusiveness, homosexuality is of exclusion and in-equality., This does not bode well for children as they need the one man, one woman, father and mother, husband and wife, then they learn to live with the likeness and difference of the two sexes. In bonding and emotional welfare and physical and spiritual honesty. Faith that the purpose of father and mother is protecting, respecting, decent and honest. Caring and sharing of all the normal and natural goodness of those two unique links that to them and their destiny, Praise Jesus!!!
Amen!!!!
Seriously now, I know a man whom was raped by an older man, when he was a young child, when he became a teenager he had sex with other boys. Then he started dating girls and he told me he said to heck with boys, he learned that having sex with girls felt much better. He married and had two children He really didn't feel free being tied down and began drinking and doing drugs. He got divorced and began having girlfriend after girlfriend, still drinking and doing drugs. Then he found a girl that was like him, molested when she was a girl, he said they began a relationship together and he bought himself a big rig and started his own business. They got married and he stopped drinking and they are still married today, after many years. For him he said after finding the right person and having much wild sex with her, they are at the normal, even keel of life and love, they are happy now and living a natural life in health and love.
Marriage is about honor, honoring God's Creation and His Commandments. Then the two, become as one in body, mind, heart and soul. They become spiritually connected and honor each other and the offspring that they have created as God Creates life, so too does a man and a woman, husband and wife, bride and groom, father and mother. Humanity's Destiny. Soon Jesus will return and straighten out the mess that man has made out of his Creation. For man will always seek to be redeemed by the truth and the hope that grows into faith. Look to October for a Change is Coming and that is all I know.
Listen to your inner voice, the voice of truth and faith.
Do you know what would Honor God?
Just think If You Picked UP Your Cross
God is calling You!
When You Pick Up Your Cross
You Lessen the Burden of Jesus
Because You Stand Tall
And You Stand With Jesus
Pick Up YOUR CROSS
This is what God Has CALLED YOU FOR
This is your DESTINY
THIS HONORS FAITH
AND HIS PROMISE
PRAISE JESUS!!!
AMEN!!!
Think of President Obama's champaign vow, to bring hope and change, soon well be hoping that we have some change, (cents) Think of Arnold Schwarzenegger, even the great terminator, he can't even save California. Let's not put our hope and faith in the flaws of humans, Lets put our hope and faith in Almighty God, Our Lord and Savior and the Power of His Love.Yield to Him, Trust in Him and Put all of your hope, your trust in Him. Faithful and Just. He will lead you to your hearts desire.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Homosexuals often speak of and believe in tolerance-that is untill one disagrees with them then tolerance goes out the window and turns into hate,which is complete nonsense!.
Stephanie:
If you will look back in the history books, the reason that the pilgrims came over to America on the Mayflower was that they wanted the freedom to worship God.
Like I've said before God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. That's the way God made it, & no matter what the Constitution says, God is the only one I think I want to believe. God can take us farther than the world can take us.
Faithful, "The simple fact is you wouldn’t be here if not for your father and mother, they’re unique D.N.A. is the combination that created you, That you cannot argue."
I never tried to argue that. Gays have been around since the dawn of man. Heterosexuals haven't quit having children yet. You just proved my point. Gays don't harm your or my marriage one bit.
Just because they can't procreate with eachother doesn't make a bit of difference. There is no fertility requirement to get a marriage license. There's also no religious requirement either. We let atheists and agnostics marry all the time. Millions of people are married who don't believe in your God. Are you suggesting their marriages are invalid?
People like Mary want to ruin our country and our religious freedoms! "That’s the way God made it, & no matter what the Constitution says, God is the only one I think I want to believe."
They don't care about our constitution and they will do whatever it takes to institute a theocracy. Be very wary of these people. If we let them win this fight, what other freedoms will they take away in the name of "their" God?
StefanieThey don’t care about our constitution and they will do whatever it takes to institute a theocracy. Be very wary of these people. If we let them win this fight, what other freedoms will they take away in the name of “their” God?
What surprises me is that they don't seem to realize that their religious "utopia" wouldn't be a very fun place, especially as a woman.
Unless of course they enjoy being mere property to be bartered and traded, have no rights, no vote, no voice... nothing.
Mary, I believe these same sex people and their supporters are dense, like their light bulb is out. If one has common sense and knows that God Created life and the man and woman, and he created the groom and bride, the husband and wife, the father and mother, and those two come together as one, to create life, then they are so lost, they can't see the trees in the forest. They are hopelessly caught in the web of lies, that tangle and mangle their minds, bodies and souls. They are quite used to looking at life through darkness and light obviously hurts they eyes, but we shall try to be that light, if it takes a little at a time, or a very bright light. For He is Light and Truth and Life, The Truth will set us Free!!!
Praise Jesus!!!
Amen!!!
In the Name of God every knee will bend, every heart will heal and a new song will fill our heart. Praise Jesus, In the Power of His Love we Win.
Amen!!!
What politics has done to people. When we grew up in a large family, we did not live under political correctness, our parents, our father and mother were our leaders, our caregivers our guidance. They taught us empathy and compassion for our brothers and sisters and others.We felt so rich, full of life and love.
I feel sad for the new age kid's, as they don't know that kind of human love, the kid that comes from family. The days we spent with mother, baking, cooking and cleaning. At meal time we would share the days events, our parents knew us and what we did and learned . We talked as a family and understood each other and truly cared about one another.We felt loved and never would trade one moment. We as children learned about taking responsibility for each other, the older children watching out for the younger ones. We didn't concern ourselves with the woman was better or the man. Each had their role and lived it truly well. Today the male seems to be cut off by the ever powerful woman, what a loss for the children. As the woman has turned into a beast type creature that man should reject. She isn't fit to be called woman, wife nor mother, she lacks the compassion and empathy that makes her whole, loving and highly needed. She isn't a true woman at all, not that God would call her, nor man. Man should fear her and what she stands for, as it is of a greedy and thoughtless nature. She is by all appearances a vulture,. No wonder the male is a metro sexual in this age of deception. It truly is an unforgiving and unloving world for the children. Maybe that is why children are not truly considered unless an adult makes a decision that they may have a need for one, on their terms. Sad and dangerous for the children of this age. The schools of today are more like training camps to learn devious ways of hate, no compassion for each other, no empathy, just sexual aggressiveness and superiority. This is just the beginning of what is in store for humankind. Today another 8 yr. old boy is for sure he is a girl, he attends a catholic school and wishes to attend dress as a girl, my heart is broken into zillions of pieces, my soul feels ill, See what this nightmare is doing to real women and the knowledge that our humanity is dieing. Death come from the pansexual tree, every sexual practice known to mankind, sick and deviant, lustful and demonic. May God help us all.
GOGGLE BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL SEX CHANGE CLINIC. IN THE SEARCH BOX ENTER DR. MONEY. A REAL TRAGIC VIDEO OF A BOY THAT LOST HIS PENIS, BURNT OFF DURING CIMCUMSION. AND THE DOCTOR THAT USED THE BOY TO BECOME FAMOUS AND RICH.
faithful: When we grew up in a large family, we did not live under political correctness, our parents, our father and mother were our leaders, our caregivers our guidance. They taught us empathy and compassion for our brothers and sisters and others.We felt so rich, full of life and love.
I wish
That sounds very nice.
My parents were nice enough, but I only had one brother (much older) who lived to torment me the few occasions he was actually even around, and who hasn't spoken to me in 15 years. I basically grew up on my own, and had to learn to fend for myself. No real family bonding at all. Just ME and my wits.
Which leads to...
Today the male seems to be cut off by the ever powerful woman, what a loss for the children... She isn’t fit to be called woman, wife nor mother
That really hurts to hear, Faithful. I don't think being independent means I can't also be caring, and a good wife and mother, given the chance. I realize there are "traditional" roles for both genders, but sometimes it's not so easy to stay within the guidelines when you're the one trying to earn a living.
Although I'll admit, the reason your "isn’t fit to be called woman, wife nor mother" words keep stinging me is because I fear they're true. But we do what we can given our circumstances, ya know?
Marie- I was speaking of the homosexuals that foist their practices on innocent children and their families. We must keep morals and values, principals and faith at the forefront of their emotional nurturing. I was speaking of the responsibilities of a father and mother, or father or mother, the parental role that adds respect and protection of the innocents. I have a lot of compassion for all, but I draw the line when it comes to my children's welfare. I pray that you will find Jesus, He can give you the desires of your heart.
God Bless You!!!
Check out this and watch the video's
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/
Learn what is really happening in society.
558 my lucky nummber lets see if you have the courage to publish me this time!
1. G-d loves all his children and did so long before jesus came along;
2. G-d provided in creation for all types of relationships otherwise they would not be an option even if G-d had given us the option, instead being gay is genetic;
3. The Bible only refers to gay men and not lesbians, and that said when it does the context for admonishing homosecuality is when it occurs as a concommitant of war and rape - nowhere else.
4. Now where in rhe bible willl you find a reference to a loving relationship between men and men or women and women with any kind of negativity or at all.
5. I am a lesbian - I have two beautiful daughters one adopted from an overseas orhphanage and another by birth through an anonymous donor and insemination;
6.My wife and I won a victory with PROP 8 because our marriage is valid. There is nothing any of you can do to change that - so we exist as a married couple under the law and our family will ensure that our group of 18000 strong will not allow our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to go unmarried. As you old fuddy duddys die off we will win in the end. Shalom!
7. The only hell I know of is the torment you suffer at your inability to control the world the way ypou would like to.Well my fellow citizens of this great USA - hell hath no fury like a community of millions scorned.
The news just reported that a few hours ago Dr, Tiller, the baby killer, was gunned down in his own church, shot dead, I was reading some threads and people were extremely sadden. I find that to be a bit over played, as I do feel compassion for his family and their loss, at the same time I am going to sleep much sounder knowing that tomorrow he will not have an appointment to murder another baby. In God's eyes life is just a blink of an eye, in the years that we live. It is more important how we live in His Law, than how many years we live, as we know that this life is not the end, eternity has it's course to play out. An eye for an eye, we are all subjected to the happenings of this world and our choices do have consequences. While I don't like murder, I feel more for the innocent and the young and the old that are murdered than a man that makes a practice out of killing babies. I say God will be the judge, because we couldn't stop him, Tiller from murdering babies, we couldn't stop the one that killed Dr. Tiller. It is in God's Hands, It is His judgment.