Homosexual marriage: the new Roe v. Wade?
by Carder
In the aftermath of homosexual U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s (pictured right) ruling that found CA’s referendum on gay marriage, Prop. 8, unconstitutional, the comparison to Roe v. Wade made its way into the political conversation.
R.S. McCain at The Other McCain makes this observation:
As with Roe v. Wade, once the elite make up their minds about a subject, they go to court to impose their will on the rest of us, and then subject us to lectures about how benighted and backward we are for not sharing their enthusiasm for Progress.
Even Rush Limbaugh commented on the glaring similarities:
As with abortion, liberals are lying about the Constitution. They dress up their opinions as if they are law and legitimate, then they impose them. The issue is who gets to make these decisions. The Constitution lays out the process, but the Constitution more and more is becoming irrelevant to the people who are running this country.
Logan Penza of The Moderate Voice gives an amen:
It is worth remembering that in 1973 there was a clear trend among the states in favor of abortion rights. The main accomplishment of Roe may have been to make abortion formally legal, but the decades-long firestorm of controversy has made actual exercise of those rights difficult in many areas of the country. Using the courts is a way to an emotionally satisfying quick “win” on issues where the legal elite runs ahead of broader social attitudes, but that emotional rush often leads to a big crash in the longer term. Temporary success can lead to long-term failure that is even more firmly entrenched than it was before.
Exactly, according to a recent email update from the Family Research Council:
As with abortion, the Supreme Court’s involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It’s time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box….
[T]he Left might want to think twice about its victory lap. Instead of aiding their cause, this decision is feeding the unrest across America that our government has become tyrannical. Voters want assurance that their voices are being heard, not discarded in a heap of judicial fanaticism.
The war against Roe has taken up the better part of 4 decades, with no signs of abating. Remarkably, the pro-choice camp senses its back to the wall, which begs the question: would it be better to just permit the social winds of change blow as they may in order to legitimize gay marriage, or should its acceptance be legislated from the bench?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t understand what one has to do with the other. One is killing babies and hurting women, the other is just the legalization of a union between two people who love each other and aren’t hurting anyone.
I would typically agree with this – but the right taught me this year that things like Citizen’s United – which pushed aside legal precedent and legislation – was NOT activist judging.
I personally think anytime that judges overrule the will of the people, it is activist. Not always a bad thing – but they are asserting their view of the law over the view of the people – but unfortunately, we’re only been using activist when it comes to decisions we don’t agree with.
This ruling will be forgotten once the Supreme take it up.
One follow-up – what is Lambaugh’s thoughts that this ruling is a constitutional lie? I think you could make a constitutional basis for either same-sex marriage or against it – thus the need to have judges make a ruling on the conflicting values of the constitution on this one.
I’m kind of back and forth here. Gay marriage isn’t a political issue I have a lot of myself invested in, so I don’t really like to see things legislated by the judiciary.
On the other hand (and it’s a biggie), you can not always respect the Majority of the People. Sometimes the Majority is wrong. And that is a point that we, as pro-lifers, make all the time. It is irrelevant that most people were pro-abortion (if they were) in 1973, because they would have all been wrong. At one point in time we had–in the United States–majority support for slavery, and for segregation. When the majority’s position on an issue undermines a basic human right, then the majority position ought to be disregarded as irrelevant.
So, obviously, as pro-lifers, we’re all capable of recognizing that situations do exist where the majority opinion should be ignored by judges in favor of upholding basic rights. That shouldn’t even be a strategy we question, really. The question ought to be, “Does this issue justify that strategy?”
Commence debate. :)
Personally, I am ambivalent about gay marriage. I just wish that prolifers would leave this issue alone and concentrate on saving babies and helping moms.
The constitution certainly does NOT legitimize gay ‘marriage.’ This IS judicial activism. The gay body politic does not care about democracy, that is why they are using the court system to dismantle democracy and push their agendas. Everytime gay ‘marriage’ has been up for a democratic vote, it has lost.
Now while gay people are partying and celebrating, they do not realize that trampling on democracy today may suit them, but tomorrow it may not be to their liking. The current congress and administration are the sorest winners I have ever seen in my life!
I don’t think that gay people should face job discrimination or any kind of harrassment, but I do believe in the value of traditional marriage. That doesn’t make me a homophobe, but God forbid I say this in a room of mixed people because I will be shouted down and called a homophobe. Years ago, gay people swore that the union/marriage issue was only about two people loving each other (the big lie) but that is NOT what is being taught in our schools and workplaces where people have to go through politically correct sensitivity training. Our children are not being told that it’s ok to love, they are being told that if you don’t like same-sex relations, you are a crazy homophobe. There is no middle ground allowed on this. I wouldn’t have work for legalized gay marriage because, despite loving my gay friends, it doesn’t solve the world’s problems. For example, does fighting for gay marriage put food in the mouths of starving children? No, it does not. But try and reason this out and you will come right up against the pro-choice philosophy that if we would only abort more, there would be no starving children. This convergence of events is no coincidence. Humans are sick with a disease. It manifests as a desire to stop procreating and as a desire to self destruct. Our world needs healing, real healing on physical, emotional, and spiritual levels. Becoming a bunch of wild, lawless libertines is NOT the solution to our problems. Thank God that God really exists despite the protests of atheists. With God, all things are possible, even in a world that needs healing so much.
Here is my take: If the life of the innocent person, even in the womb, is sacred, then how can we say that the formal relationship, marriage between one man and one woman in which this life is created, is not also sacred? My answer is that, of course it is sacred.
Hm. I just tried to fix a mispelling and this page won’t let me.
For your viewing pleasure: Two gay Tea partiers discuss their perspective on gay marriage. From Founding blogers.com via Big Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEo4JEaBSgo&feature=player_embedded
Dave, I dont think we can say that because, unfortunately, that is not how most babies are conceived anymore. I dont think that people can say that marriage between one man and one woman is better than a gay marriage simply because the hetero couples arent treating it as sacred. Perhaps if the divorce rate wasnt so high that argument might have some merit.
i think that the government should avoid the whole issue and get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. I don’t support homosexuality or gay marriage — I just think that the government has too many tendrils into our private lives.
Stuff like tax law shouldn’t depend on marital status. If you want to give benefits to people who are living together, then maybe we should rewrite the tax laws to say that, instead of making it depend on an unrelated issue. Tax law needs some serious revisions, anyway; I’d scrap it and start anew.
Chris – I agree with your first point 100%. In regards to the government, just name somebody (anybody) that can make legal decisions. The church can then focus on marriage like they do baptisms now – a sacred event done by the church without government involvement.
God help us.
The voting public of California made themselves quite clear. But a judge can impose his will and pass judgment as he sees fit ignoring the will of the people??? I believe it is called tyranny.
Only 2-3% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.
PS Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I must be some sort of homophobe.
I’m sorry, but gay marriage and abortion are two separate issues. There are loving, committed gay couples who have a right to be legally married. Abortion is the killing of a human being. I sincerely ask all of you to STOP EQUATING THE TWO. I cannot change your mind about gay marriage, but at the very least, stop lumping them together. They are disparate issues. Frankly, if you support life, then you SHOULD support gay marriage. If you believe people have a right to live, then you should understand that they also have a right to love and be married.
Sara, I see your point. But just because the system has broken down does not mean that there is no higher goal. You can make the same argument for almost every issue. If you go far enough past the ideal, the ideal should be scrapped. I do not buy that – can’t. If true then we are lost.
MaryLee, this blog post was about the courts doing the same thing with gay marriage as they did with abortion. This was not about a direct comparison between gay marriage and abortion.
What segamom said.
MaryLee, I totally understand where you’re coming from. I dearly love my gay friends and don’t want them to be unhappy. But they already are. Every single gay person I know is in long term therapy and some of them are taking ‘anti-depressants’ or other meds. I do not have a single gender-confused friend who is not also fighting mental illness. Not one. If I had one, I would tell you. I’m not scientist, but I can tell you that gay is not normal. it is not normal for humans to despise the opposite sex. Now, why each person is gay is slightly different for each person. I liken it to alcoholism. We shouldn’t discriminate against alcoholics, but we also shouldn’t encourage them when they’re self destructive. I have known gay men who wanted to raise a family. One for example, did marry a nice girl who also wanted a family. He faced an unimaginable amount of ridicule and disrespect from his gay male friends. To this day, they still talk about him negatively. Not a single one said, “Wow, it must be hard for him to live that way. Wow, he must have really wanted kids bad to have given up the fun and clubbing and weekends with his lovers.” Not one, MaryLee. They all despised him for it. That is not healthy. And don’t blame it all on intolerance. In other countries where same sex unions have been legal for a long time, gay people still have a higher statistical incidence of mental illness, domestic abuse, depression, and suicide. I believe that it is part of a larger pathology. If we turn away from that and bury our heads and say oh but we should just all be tolerant, then we may as well give all alcoholics a case of booze. Homosexuality and barren sex between heterosexuals IS related. Connect the dots. If we don’t, we could actually lose our own species. I love my gay friends and if they want to democratically win the ability to join themselves together financially, etc., then they are welcome to try. But I don’t appreciate judicial activism and forced social indoctrination in schools and workplaces. I am not a homophobe. I’m an ordinary person trying to get through this life just like everyone else.
They can call it “same-sex marriage” all they want, there is no such thing. You cannot have the “marriage” of the same-sex. MARRIAGE is the union (becoming one flesh, covenant relationship) anatomically, physiologically, hormonally, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, spiritually and reproductively of two distinctly different human sexual organs, (the male penis and the female vagina) and two distinctly different persons, which fit together to (possibly) REPRODUCE another distinctly different human being. (No I do not believe married people should ONLY have sex when they can create a baby). That is why the categories are the MALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM and the FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. Let’s do aN anatomy and physiology lesson. Human beings have a Circulatory, Respiratory, Digestive, Excretory, Endocrine, and a REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM (as well as others). No amount of twists, turns, use other body parts, contortions, implements, sex toys, anatomical stretching, appendages, fisting, dildos or anything else you can come up with will change the intended design and purpose of the of the male penis and the female vagina the organs of the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. We have laws to protect the unique institution of marriage because it is the bedrock of civilization and the family. In our country you cannot “marry” your brother, sister, mother, father, adult son, adult daughter, aunt, uncle or more than one person at a time (although there are people who don’t agree with the laws regulating this and as consenting adults they may have sex with these people anyway) but marriage is a unique institution which needs to be protected. This is not about hatred, this is not about homophobia, nor tolerance, civil rights, human rights, constitutional rights but about “transforming America”. People can do what they want but their are consequences. Read The Health Risks of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs (over 30 page research article) with 15 pages of works cited. If someone is really interested I can post the link.
People in California and other cities or states have been able to enter into legal contracts with their partners for years, if they wished to have adult same sex exclusive relationships. For those of you with spiritual discernment, I want you to answer these questions. “Why was it so important when “gays” could have civil unions that they must have “same-sex marriage”? Why is it so important to homosexuals to redefine and dismantle “marriage”? Why is ”marriage” under such attack’? Why is there (usually) such a strong alliance between pro-abortion proponents and same sex marriage proponents? Do you understand the health implications for the entire nation of the legally sanctioning of this dangerous, unhealthy lifestyle? Do you understand the spiritual implications of “it is my body, I can do whatever I chose to do with my body”? Do you understand the “homosexual agenda” has been plotting to bring this entire nation to it’s ‘side” (really to our knees) or else for over 20 years? If you ever get a chance read “The Homosexual Agenda” by Alan Sears, excellent documentation. God loves homosexuals and I do too. May God help our nation and homosexuals.
Conservative pundit and unlikely gay ally Ann Coulter is set to headline the first annual Homocon, “a party to celebrate gay conservatives” put on by GOProud, the “only national organization representing gay conservatives.” The festivities are scheduled to take place in New York City on September 25.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/ann-coulter-to-headline-a_n_673313.html
———————————————————————————————
The convocation will be held at the McDonalds located on Long Island.
Muslims for Jesus will be holding their first annual convention that same weekend.
No need to make reservations. There will be plenty of good seats available.
Prolifer L
August 6th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
In answer to your ‘why’ questions:
Pre-natal homicide and homosexuality are step children of a common father.
Thanks Ken I know that is true and no amount of political correctness will change “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (you cannot join together 2 negatives and 2 positives ask any electrician or join together 2 female fittings and 2 male fittings ask any plumber). and God’s word also says “Choose LIFE that you and your seed may LIVE.” These topics are spiritually connected.
Thanks Ninek for your posts. I have counseled teens who tried the homo, lesbian and bi-sexual route because they thought it would make them happy or “gay”, everyone of them were depressed some of them had even been suicidal. It does not work. One teen girl told me ‘ i thought if I fell in love with a woman I wouldn’t get hurt or at least it wouldn’t hurt so much if we broke up, I was totally wrong, the pain was even worse.I ended up wanting to kill myself.” Tragic stuff.
“I don’t understand what one has to do with the other. One is killing babies and hurting women, the other is just the legalization of a union between two people who love each other and aren’t hurting anyone.”
I think there are alot of people who would take issue with this sentiment. The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy one. And children raised by homosexuals do not fare better than their counterparts in normal relationships. And that’s not hurting anyone?
I agree with everyone who has said that abortion and gay marriage are two completely different issues. After all, a gay marriage never killed anyone!
Jill’s position on gay marriage is well known, and opposed to mine. But I still think this was a good post. Her point was not that gay marriage is abortion-level evil; she’s just pointing out the similarities in the court’s role. Even among gay rights advocates, there is concern about exactly this. Strategically, is it better to go to the courts and possibly face a backlash? Or should LGBT groups keep educating people and wait for public opinion to be more strongly in their favor?
It’s an interesting question, and I don’t have the answer.
Um, Segamon, yes, this is the same question. I read the article. Don’t be condescending. Obviously, people have a problem with accepting gay marriage because they don’t approve of the gay community. And Ninek, I know a lot of heterosexual people in loveless marriages and on anti-depressants too. Why this insistence that gay people are inherently unhappy? Maybe they’re unhappy because they’re not accepted and they’re told they don’t deserve rights and that they should be ashamed of themselves. That would put ME into therapy too. Have you no compassion? YES, this is the SAME issue. The pro-abortion community dehumanizes and demeans the unborn, treats them as worthless, as the enemy, and denies them the right to live. The pro-life community dehumanizes and demeans the gay community, and treats them as sub-human and denies them their rights as well. It’s like none of you gay-haters are even listening to yourselves. No wonder the pro-abortion community won’t listen to you. This is an issue that makes me ashamed of the pro-life community. It is hateful, it is bigoted, it is nasty, and it is hypocritical.
I agree with everyone who has said that abortion and gay marriage are two completely different issues. After all, a gay marriage never killed anyone!
Kelsey @ August 7th, 2010 at 12:19 am
I know you were making a joke – but you really don’t understand the level of violence in the homosexual/lesbian community – at all.
Although they may talk about gay pride – there’s skeletons in their closets they don’t want to let out.
I think you and I already had this discussion – however civil marriage law is not about affection, insofar as recognized relationships: it is about effect. Given polls, adultery is considered a great moral wrong, but it still happening all over the place. That’s an effect.
The side effects of adulterous relationships do end in murder and violence. However, in those places “gay marriage” and civil unions already exists there is a permissible adultery. Where’s the covenant bond? What about liability if one partner contracts AIDS and gives it to the other? (True of heterosexual marriages as well.)
Marriage is as much about being responsibly committed to society as it is to each other, but this is completely overlooked. And the relationship between gay marriage and pro-creation is also critical. You simply can’t call a sterile union beneficial to society. And no, I don’t want to hear about accidental infertile couples compared to known infertile couples. Again the simple test is – can a society be built upon homosexual unions? It doesn’t pro-create/reproduce.
So at the very least, the homosexual population relies upon heterosexual marriage to fulfill a basic responsibility (raising children) for the greater good of all. If you want to tell me homosexuals/lesbians (why do we need two words to describe this?) are reproducing without either a) violating their sexual orientation or b) involving a 3rd party in their union (where’d the sperm/oocyte come from?) then you need to explain why this is not disingenuous regarding sexual orientation immutability or why it’s equal to a heterosexual marriage when a 3rd party is in bed between the two on a matter so critical to society as children.
So, here’s a theory – by diminishing the importance of children in society (and abortion helps achieve that goal) homosexuality becomes normalized.
So lastly – you need to do some research – there is a very strong relationship between the homosexual lobby and the abortion industry, including homosexuals running abortion clinics for profit and political power purposes.
People can discuss personal happiness all they want – but when it come to issues of governance, decisions must be based on sound principles derived from facts. The pursuit of happiness doesn’t include letting people get reckless with themselves, others, or society.
The greater majority of people in the US understand there’s a difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage, and they are saying they are not equal. And if someone like Vaughn Walker (who I see as having a conflict of interest in this issue, because he is favoring a special interest group of which he is a part of, and is not in the majority) thinks he can impose his will upon that majority – then we have every right to prosecute the usurper. In such contests, when reasoning and rationale is gone, it will eventually come down to force.
That’s the relationship with Roe vs Wade.
I think it’s crazy to say that ALL gay people are mentally unbalanced and/or on antidepressants or whatever. I have a gay brother in law, and he’s been with his partner longer than I’ve been with my husband. They dont cheat on each other, their only problem is that society sees their relationship as less valid. Some hetero couples are childless by choice, not because they are infertile, so should they not be allowed to marry?
We are here because we’re a pro-life group. Pro-aborts are always saying that we dont adopt all the unwanted children. Some gay and lesbian couples (not all, as not all want children, just like not all straight couples want children) would be very happy to adopt if they had the same rights as straight couples. There are many studies showing that what’s best for children are 2 loving parents, and it doesnt seem to matter if these parents are gay or straight.
Our society is a democracy, not a theocracy, and we shouldnt be trying to impose our religious views on everyone else.
Carla – I’d be careful with this one: “The voting public of California made themselves quite clear. But a judge can impose his will and pass judgment as he sees fit ignoring the will of the people??? I believe it is called tyranny.”
The voting public in South Dakota and Colorado were clear in voting down abortion bans – so if a judge made abortion illegal all of the sudden, would you call it “tyranny”?
On gay marriage – the more I read, the more I hold that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
Thanks for the warning.
When the people get a vote have they not had their say??? Of the people, by the people and for the people. When the majority vote that is the will of the people, whether I agree or not. Now an activist judge can say Um. Nope, all of you are wrong.
Comparing gay marriage with incest,bestiality, sex with children etc is just plain ridiculous.No one who is for gay marriage wants to have these other things legalized. And to assume that allowing gay people to marry will automatically lead to these other bad things is ludicrous.
Let’s face it; homoophobia is rampant in America,or at least some degree of hostility toward gay people.
Conservatives have beem fanning the flames of intolerance and bigotry by spreading all manner of disinformation about homosexualkity and gay people.
They claim that gays are a threat to children,despite the fact that far more children are molested by heterosexuals that gays. And that gay people are out to “recruit” children and teengagers in school,which is absolutely false.
Conservatives claim that homosexuality is a “choice”. Why would any one choose to be gay,given the fact that being gay puts you in constant risk of being rejected by your parents,family and friends, taunting,harassment and even violence, discrimination, and all that?
And that being gay makes you “unhappy”. No it’s not homosexuality per se that makes you unhappy, but the terrible way you are often treated by others,including family.
Lower life expectancy? Only for those gays who are promiscuous,and by no means all of them are. Heterosexual promiscuity is just as dangerous.
There are far more older gay people in good health than most conservatives realize.
Having gay people speak in schools will not “make” children or teenagers gay,because no one can either make you gay if you are not,and no one can keep you from being gay if you are.
Kids in school are routinely harassed and even beaten for being gay,or even suspected of it.
Some have committed suicide.
Recently, two men were convicted in New York city of murdering an Ecuadorian man who was heterosexual because he was inebriated and being supported by his brother on the street. These two bigoted idiots killed him brutally for no reason just because they thought he was gay. The man left a wife and two small children.
This is why we must never allow the rights of gay people to be infringed,and propopsition 8 does this.
By the way,I’m heterosexual., I just don’t like bigotry on any kind.
And to compare homophobia with abortion is absolutely false.
Saying “all the gay people I know are unhappy” is an illegitimate argument. Someone else could say “all the Hispanic people I know are huge jerks,” but that says nothing about Hispanic people as a whole. And I would think it would be obvious that if you face hatred and condemnation for who you are, it would make you unhappy.
Chris: You don’t “need” two separate words. Lesbians are also homosexuals, so not only is just saying “homosexuals” fine, but “homosexuals and lesbians” is as redundant as “Asians and Japanese”.
Prolifer L: Of course “trying” to be gay won’t make someone happy if they’re not actually gay. You either have romantic/sexual feelings for the opposite sex or you don’t, and if you don’t you can’t force yourself to feel something because for some reason you think it would be easier that way.
“People in California and other cities or states have been able to enter into legal contracts with their partners for years, if they wished to have adult same sex exclusive relationships. For those of you with spiritual discernment, I want you to answer these questions. “Why was it so important when “gays” could have civil unions that they must have “same-sex marriage”?”
Because civil unions are not equal to marriage. If two straight people get married in Wisconsin and move to Montana, they’re still married. If two gay people get a civil union in Vermont and move to Florida, the civil union is worthless there because of the Defense of Marriage Act. If married straight people from Nevada go on vacation to New York and one of them dies there, the surviving spouse will inherit even if the deceased one died intestate (without a will). If married gay people from Massachusetts go on vacation to Colorado and one of them dies there, the surviving spouse will get nothing if the deceased one died intestate. If the deceased spouse made a will leaving everything to the other, the surviving one will inherit the estate but have to surrender a lot of it to inheritance tax. Straight people who inherit from their deceased spouse don’t have to pay inheritance taxes. Married straight people are married no matter where they go. Married gay people or gay people in civil unions are not.
I have mixed feelings about whether it’s a good idea to institute gay marriage through court rulings. The minute it happens, someone wants to fight it, and it takes a lot of time, money, and legal resources. On the other hand, as Keli Hu says, sometimes the will of the majority of the people is wrong.
Although law and religious belief go together a lot of the time – it’s illegal to murder someone, it’s a sin to murder someone – it doesn’t work to have a law against gay marriage because homosexuality is sinful according to some people’s religious beliefs. Separation of church and state gets wrongfully applied a lot these days, but here it’s a legitimate concern. There are convincing secular reasons for why polygamy is illegal, but I haven’t heard any for why gay marriage should be illegal.
Robert,
As long as its a law handed down that you agree with you are fine with judicial activism. Got it.
When President Bush proposed enacting a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman he was roundly criticized. After all, many of his critics answered, Bill Clinton had already signed the Defense of Marriage Act which reads in part:
Section 3. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[5]
Now we see a single federal judge claim that denying “marriage” between two people of the same sex is unconstitutional. Does his ruling trump the above language written and passed by Congress and signed into law, and if so should a single judge carry such sweeping powers? A note of caution to those who think a single judge should have such powers–be careful what you wish for. Times change and your preferences may not be viewed in the same way by the next judge and could in fact be even more sweeping.
Section 3. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[5]
This is a stupid issue. I cannot see how it could even be possible for gay marriage to hurt anyone? How could gay marriage affect anyone who is not gay? Also I completely believe that Gay marriage IS covered under the constitution… Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Unless being gay is made illegal “like polygamy or bestiality” then getting married and pursuing happiness is covered by the constitution
Carla, how do you feel about Brown v. the Board of Education?
I’m with Sara and Marauder on this one. I can’t understand why the rest of you refuse to listen. You’re as bad as the pro-aborts.
Biggz wrote:
This is a stupid issue. I cannot see how it could even be possible for gay marriage to hurt anyone?
This is one key reason why we can’t be careless, and simply throw around terms like “hurt” and “harm” without defining them; sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, which never leads to good (save by complete accident).
For example: those who don’t view unborn children as “persons” (and who are also ignorant–willfully or otherwise–of the psychological and physical damage abortion does to the mothers) don’t view abortion as “harm”; they view it as a “freely-chosen medical procedure”, just like getting a root canal: irksome and distasteful, perhaps, but necessary for overall “well-being” (whatever that might mean to them).
Those who are ignorant–willfully or otherwise–of the destructive effects of pornography consider it “harmless”, and completely within the province of “personal privacy and choice”. Many consider it so, even if child pornography is included in the mix.
As uncomfortable as it sounds, to libertarian ears: a coherent definition of “harm” requires a coherent and objective (i.e. not merely personal view-based) moral law. Take those three cases, one at a time:
1) “Direct and willed abortion” violently kills an unborn human child through the willful actions of one or more other people–and by means which would not be permitted for an instant if they were being done to a kitten, puppy, or baby seal. (Think about that, for a moment: the few attempts by abortion-tolerant people to show abortion have been met mostly with thoughtful nods, an occasionally muttered, “Hm… that’s interesting, and thought-provoking!”, or even applause! (See http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21311 for a reference) Imagine a kitten submerged in water, and then ripped limb from limb in front of a studio audience; I have doubts that the “performers” would leave the TV studio alive! Quite a contrast, no?) Combine this with greatly increased risk of suicide, drug abuse, depression, breast cancer (yes, the link that many have tried, with increasing lack of success, to bury), death by homicide, etc., and I personally find no problem with slapping the whole mess with the label of “harm”.
2) Pornography, whose effects–if I may wax poetic, for a moment–can be measured as easily as can the burning swath cut through the marriages of our country (Google the terms “divorce” and “pornography”, and perhaps “addiction”, and you may see what I mean). Something which can train young boys to objectify women (among other possible permutations of porn–not going there, sorry!), to train their sexual desires to revolve around a “perfectly behaved and scripted” fantasy in their head (or on screen, or both), and the like will train them to be utterly selfish, sex-obsessed (nothing like a steady diet of a drug to get someone acclimated to it, and to cultivate an appetite/addiction for/to it), and perpetually disillusioned when real women don’t behave or look like the porn images he’s used to using to get his “high”. The antiquated idea of “self-sacrifice” (a sine qua non of stable and healthy marriage) is eliminated rather quickly. I’d also be very free in labelling that with the title “harm”. (Google the terms “divorce”, “children”, “dysfunction” and “pain” to get a taste of what I mean… that is, if your own experience hasn’t already taught you about it. And that’s abstracting completely from prostitution–another “victimless crime” in the eyes of some blitheringly ignorant people, and the like.)
3) So-called “gay marriage” is buried under a mountain of red herrings, misleading titles, and political B.S. No one (so far as I know) is talking about criminalizing same-sex behavior, at this point (is anyone?); those who are “of age” are legally free to “play house” with a person of the same sex, just as others are legally free to “shack up” with a person of the opposite sex. So-called “gay marriage” is, ultimately, an attempt to replace the definition of true marriage with a false one–albeit one which is dearly cherished by a vocal minority (many of whom, to be fair, didn’t ask for their same-sex attraction). But when you try to redefine a fundamental part of humanity, it would be insane not to expect dramatic things to happen. More on that, below.
How could gay marriage affect anyone who is not gay?
Let me count the ways:
1) being fined or imprisoned for refusing to officiate at, to speak against, or even to refuse to take pictures of, a “gay marriage”. (Google it.) Ever hear of pastors being arrested for “hate speech” when speaking out against gay marriage? If some deranged homosexual were to stand up and denounce heterosexual marriage as “wrong” and “destructive” (perhaps because it “perpetuated the bigotry”, in his mind), he would be written off as a crank… but arrested for “hate speech?” Not likely, I’d wager. The current “homosexual rights” movement has no problem with taking away the rights of all who oppose their “message”.
2) undercutting any possible cultural and relational value of a father, in the eyes of everyone who’s born into the “gay-normalized” culture. If Heather only needs two mommies (and I’m sure scientists will get past that “need for sperm” thing, through bio-med research!), then why have a daddy–especially if, as the TV sitcoms say, they’re nothing more than drunken, incompetent idiots who can’t compete with their cynical, quick-witted, smirking wife, and whose only true place is in a drunken stupor in front of the TV, at the bar, or ogling women at the strip joint? Forgive me, but–the stupidities of cultural portrayals of fathers aside–I really don’t think anyone in the “let’s normalize homosexuality” camp has though through (or has any conception of HOW to think through) the implications of father-removal on an individual family… to say nothing of a nation, or of the world at large.
3) sexualizing the future generations even more than they’ve been, already. So-called “gay marriage” is about public approval for a sexual arrangement: not about children, and not about “building up the community”. Case in point: if two men were to move in together as roommates, without having sex (gee, didn’t that happen lots of times, in past years? Where do these things go?), do you honestly think that any Church would denounce them? Do you honestly think that, if one wanted to give the other person the power-of-attorney, that the other would be barred from the first person’s hospital bed, or kept out of his will? No… “gay marriage” is about desiring a cultural “stamp of approval” for a sexual arrangement.
(That, by the way, is a reason why those who referenced polygamy, bestiality, etc., were not wrong at all; if marriage can be ripped from its definition of “place for a [sexually complementary, by design] man and woman to unite physically and spiritually in mutual self-sacrifice, and as a secure and loving place to raise children born of that same loving union”, and replaced with a pseudo-definition of “socially-permitted arrangement of sex- and emotion- and other pleasure-partners”, then nothing else which is a “pleasure-seeking” basis for so-called “marriage” is off the table.
Also I completely believe that Gay marriage IS covered under the constitution… Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Surely you realize that the same founding fathers who wrote the constitution disagreed with you, on that point? Don’t their views count?
Unless being gay is made illegal “like polygamy or bestiality” then getting married and pursuing happiness is covered by the constitution.
Er… the errors in Constitutional law aside (the laws against polygamy and bestiality are not in the Constitution, either), surely you know that any civil law is only as secure as the body who crafts and upholds it? If the government grants a right, the government can take it away. If the government forbids something solely because the people vote against it (or if the representatives–or judges–*ahem*–defy the will of the people), then the government can repeal the law and make it legal. Don’t you see? Bestiality, in legal terms, is only a few votes away from reality. You might consider that unthinkable; you have a right to that opinion; but you’d be mistaken. Ask those who considered “gay marriage” unthinkable, 100 years ago…
(Side note to Jill and mods: the editing feature doesn’t seem to work, and there’s no option to “preview.” Is this only an issue with my Firefox browser, or is it more global?)
Paladin –
Nice to see a well thought out breakdown of this. There are things I agree with – things that I don’t – but I wanted to make two other points:
– I think the slippery slope argument is the strongest for me. The same hurdles that exist with gay marriage exist for polygamy. If one is allowed, where do we draw the line – and then the next line, and the line after that.
– With that being said, I don’t see much of a constitutional/rational reason (beyond my Bible) to say yes to man-woman but no to woman-woman or man-man. So I wonder, once again, why not just get rid of marriage as a legal, government institution (declare with the government somebody to make decisions – and league marriage to something like baptism – outside of the government). I think the sanctity of a Christian marriage would mean a lot more if there was that separation.
My only other thought on some of the other quotes. I know a heck of a lot of devious people – people with mental health issues – people with sexual issues – folks that are in heterosexual relationships. I think it is absolutely absurd and reckless that some folks just paint a massively wide brush against a group of people and then deny them something because of that. Be against gay marriage – that is fine – but to say some of the things that were said above is a little disappointing.
ex-RINO, R. Berger,
WELCOME! The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was formed in 1978. It was inspired by the success of a campaign based in Boston’s
gay community
to defend against a local witchhunt.
http://www.nambla.org/welcome.htm
NAMBLA’s goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:
Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.
We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.
Marriage is an enormous part of family law, and I don’t think it would work to get rid of marriage as a legal institution. I don’t think most people would find that desirable, either – marriage provides a lot of legal protection and has been a legal institution for so long that making marriage solely religious would disrupt the entire family court system. Also, marriage is seen socially as an ultimate committment, and I get the feeling a lot of atheists wouldn’t want their relationship thought of as less than a committed and permanent one than the relationships of people who got married in a church. Making marriage purely a religious institution would take away previously existing legal rights.
I don’t think polygamy really is part of a slippery slope if gay marriage is legalized in the US, because polygamy has legal and social problems that marriages between two people don’t have. If A marries B, they adopt two children, and A dies, it’s feasible for that situation to be legally handled the same way regardless of whether A and B are opposite genders or the same gender. With polygamy, however, the possible complications are so vast that I need a new paragraph.
Man 1 marries Woman 1, Woman 2, and Woman 3. Woman 2 is already married to Man 2, with whom she has Child 1. Woman 3, after marrying Man 1, marries both Man 3 and Man 4. Then Woman 3 gets pregnant with Child 2. Who is the biological father? If it’s Man 3, do Man 1 and Man 4 get equal parental rights because they’re married to Woman 3? What about Woman 1 and Woman 2? What is the legal relationship between Child 1 and Child 2? Are they siblings? Unrelated?
Man 4 moves to another state, but does not divorce Woman 3. He wants Child 2, not his biological child, to come and live with him, Forget it, says Woman 3, Man 1, and Man 3. Child 2 is happy here and no one made you move to a different state. What determines where Child 2 lives? A majority vote? Biological paternity? Where the mother lives? Whether Child 2 can attend a nicer school if s/he lives with Man 4?
Man 1 dies. Women 1, 2, and 3 dispute his inheritance. You didn’t even live with him, Woman 1 says to Woman 2. You and Child 1 spent more time at Man 2’s house. At the time of Man 1’s death, Woman 3 is pregnant with Child 3, and thinks Child 3 should get more inheritance because Child 3 is the biological child of Man 1. I could go on and on with this, but you get the idea.
There is a secular compelling reason to keep polygamy illegal. It would cause major-league headaches, uproot the family court system, and cause society to come up with new terms for family members that did not previously exist (how are Child 1 and Child 2 related?). Legalizing gay marriage would be like Loving v. Virginia in that it would recognize that people should have a right to choose who their spouse is. It does not follow automatically that someone would be entitled to more than one spouse, anymore than the fact that you can choose who to vote for entitles you to more than one vote.
Ken: Yeah, and the FLDS claims to be based on Biblical teachings. What’s your point?
Marauder – I think Ken is advertising for NAMBLA – which I think is disgusting and wrong.
The courts already deal with a growing number of children with established married parents. And while you did a great job presenting an odd and twisted relationship, with IVF, multiple divorces and remarriages, gay relationships – that is pretty close to the reality without involving an extra spouse!
I don’t know – I see marriage as between me, my wife, and God. No reason the government needs to stay in – nothing at least that can’t be easily figured out with a little paperwork.
Ex-RINO,
Why don’t we just do away with the dictionary if the definition of certain words are to be constantly modified to accomodate a constantly changing culture?
Would it NOT be more reasonable to coin new terms to identify new concepts than to destroy language in the interest of satisfying the ever morphing demands of political correctness?
If the intent of the authors of the constitution concerning the ‘words’ they used in the document that was ratified by the original 13 states have no control or even influence in how we understand those ‘words’ today, then the document itself is becoming powerless.
“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”…
Though I agree with you on this one point, Marriage is the not the creation of the state, it is a contract and as such it comes under the purview of the state when the contract has been violated or the parties seek to cancel it.
Therefore ‘marriage’ must be defined in the law. Historically, where it has been defined, it has been limited to a union between two people of the opposite sex.
If interested people wish the ‘state’ to create a contract for two people of the same sex then they should choose a term other than ‘marriage’, because the term ‘marriage’ in the United States of America was never used to include two or more homosexuals.
The Constitution is silent on marriage and on homosexuality. The power to define and regulate the ‘marriage contract’ was left up to the individual states as defined by their elected representatives. I belive this would fall under ‘due process of law’.
In Califorinia, the elected representatives created a political process whereby the citizens could ammend their state constitution by a vote by ‘proposition/petition/referendum. The Californians who supported Prop 8 expressed their will in an unambiguous way. It was a ‘due process of law’. It is a continuing due process will which probably be determined by the United States Supreme Court.
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”…
Article IV – The States
Section 4 – Republican governmentThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; [Seems like the feds have failed on this one and are even working against Arizona.]
and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
[A ‘republican’ form of government is one that has a constitution that protects the people from the state and the state from the people and is limited by the powers granted and/or withheld from the state as communicated by the people through their elected representatives. (see difference between republic and a democracy)]
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. NoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Marauder,
My point, some of which is still in moderation, is that Robert Berger was simply bloviating hot gas when he asserted:
2. No one who is for gay marriage wants to have these other things [incest,bestiality, sex with children] legalized.
It is not just homosexuals who are advocating for same sex marriage. The same ’rentamob leftists’ who promote elective abortion are advancing an agenda to mainstream these other deviant practices.
Politics does make strange bedfellows and it make bedfellows strange.
HOMOcon aside, you will not find many conservatives or even republicans in represented in this constituency.
Conservative pundit and unlikely gay ally Ann Coulter is set to headline the first annual Homocon, “a party to celebrate gay conservatives” put on by GOProud, the “only national organization representing gay conservatives.” The festivities are scheduled to take place in New York City on September 25.
huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/ann-coulter-to-headline-a_n_673313.html
Paladin – Well that was a very long winded and seriously twisted answer you gave me. It’s like the Judge said, If marriage is legal and homosexuality is legal I don’t see the problem. There is NO difference between a gay marriage and a strait marriage except that your religion says it’s not ok. Lucky for the rest of us logical thinking people there is no state religion. So with religion and your perceived morality taken out of the discussion “as it should be” it is discriminatory to say one part of our population can get married but the other part cannot. This debate is not about the right of gay people to marry; it’s about the rights of ALL Americans to get married regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion. Being gay is not a crime and no one should be punished for it at any level.
So, if a gay adult can be denied the right to marry the person who they love, would you deny a gay kid their right to a public education, would you deny a gay woman the right to vote, would you deny a gay murderer the right to a fair trial?
You cannot say something is ok for some us but not the rest… that’s the real traditions this country was actually founded on… Freedom to pursue happiness!
Biggz August 7th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“You cannot say something is ok for some us but not the rest… that’s the real traditions this country was actually founded on… Freedom to pursue happiness!”
Homosexuals are as free to marry as heterosexuals. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are free to marry someone of the same sex.
Proposition 8 consisted of only two short sections. Its full text was:
There is no constitutional requirement that the ‘law’ be logical or rational or even reaonable. There is a requirement that it not be ‘un-reasonable’.
My response to Vaughn’s decision:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/08/05/marriage-whats-in-a-name/
Phillymiss,
I understand your point, but gay/lesbian couples make great use of IVF, artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood in order to correct the deficits inherent in their non-complementarity. The right use of human sex and sexuality seems to be the valve on the faucet. Pro-lifers need to ultimately look to that valve or we’ll forever be mopping up the flood from a faucet that’s stuck wide open.
Paladin – Well that was a very long winded and seriously twisted answer you gave me.
You’re welcome to your opinion, of course.
It’s like the Judge said, If marriage is legal and homosexuality is legal I don’t see the problem.
Oh, come, now! Surely you see the fallacy in that? (Look up “fallacy of the undistributed middle”, if you want to get technical.) I like chocolate ice cream, and I like steak sauce, so I must therefore like steak sauce on my chocolate ice cream? Or, closer to your example: marriage is legal, and goat-owning is legal, therefore…?
There is NO difference between a gay marriage and a strait marriage except that your religion says it’s not ok.
You are completely and utterly wrong. You seriously don’t see the “plumbing differences” inherent in trying to consummate a marriage and a so-called “gay marriage”? You don’t see the inherent difference in the potential to procreate children by means of that marital (sexual) act? And this abstracts completely from the soul-deep differences in the male psyche vs. the female psyche… as anyone with even 10 seconds’ experience with the opposite sex can tell you, quite readily.
Lucky for the rest of us logical thinking people there is no state religion.
I’m afraid your type of thought is called “prejudice”, friend; logic requires sound principles and valid deductions, leading to right conclusions. You haven’t done that, yet.
So with religion and your perceived morality taken out of the discussion “as it should be” it is discriminatory to say one part of our population can get married but the other part cannot.
Ah. So you’re saying, in response to Christianity, that it’s “as it SHOULDN’T be?”, and that moral relativism is “as it should be?” And this is less “discriminatory”… how? If you condemn something, it helps your case if you don’t do the very same sort of thing, yes?
This debate is not about the right of gay people to marry; it’s about the rights of ALL Americans to get married regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion.
Ken addressed this one, already… and you knew, of course, that there are ALREADY limits on such marriages? The secular United States makes it a crime (horribilis dictu!) for you to marry your mother (or your father)! How’s THAT for unjust discrimination? Your parents are certainly part of “all Americans”, are they not? Will you champion their right to marry you? Will you champion your legal right (though you may decline it for reasons of personal preference) to marry your sister, brother, sin, daughter, etc.? You really don’t seem to have thought this issue out, at all.
Being gay is not a crime and no one should be punished for it at any level.
Who says that it’s a crime, and who says that anyone is being–or should be–punished for it? I didn’t…
So, if a gay adult can be denied the right to marry the person who they love, would you deny a gay kid their right to a public education, would you deny a gay woman the right to vote, would you deny a gay murderer the right to a fair trial?
No, no and no… because the definitions, right functioning, and stability of schooling, voting, or defending oneself in court have nothing, whatsoever, to do with whether one is suffering from same-sex attraction, or not. Marriage, on the other hand, has everything to do with one’s sexual behaviour.
You cannot say something is ok for some us but not the rest…
Ah. So marriage (complete with sexual intercourse) is quite all right for 2-year-olds? It’s all right for anyone–not merely doctors with proper training and certificates–to perform brain surgery? It’s all right for men to use the ladies’ shower room when they’re using it? You’re talking nonsense! The world is FULL of such “discriminations”, but–contrary to your hyper-liberal view of them–they were not “conjured up simply by religious folk, in order to spread unfairness and oppression!” (We Christians only do that on alternate Wednesdays, anyhow.) They were developed out of real needs, and real recognition of–well–reality. Some things simply are not permissible, if a just society is to be maintained at all… and the subtle dangers are just as impermissible as are the flambuoyand and obvious ones, just as slow poisons are just as forbidden as are quick-acting ones.
that’s the real traditions this country was actually founded on… Freedom to pursue happiness!
Ah. So if I gain delirious happiness from burning down the houses of others, I’m entitled to pursue it? That’s the problem with arguing and thinking in “bumper stickers”, friend: you leave out so very much context which proves your particular point quite false. You might at least follow your own principles, and allow me to pursue my “happy goal” (if you must call it that) of defeating the attempts to “normalize” homosexual “marriage”.
Paladin, all of your arguments–or your responses–are absurd and unsubstantiated. Nobody is saying 2 year olds should marry. We are talking about adult human beings who happen to be gay. And the pursuit of happiness doesn’t include the right to burn someone’s house down, obviously, but how is gay marriage tantamount to burning down someone’s house? You have no good reason to deny gay people the right to marry, no matter what language you want to use to defend your shibboleth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay people being married. It is not hurting you. It is hurting NO ONE. In fact, it most likely would help a LOT of people. Yes, I am pro-life, and I am pro-gay marriage, because they are one and the same. We cannot deny the unborn their right to live. We also cannot deny the gay community their right to be married. There is nothing dangerous, nothing evil, nothing sinister about two gay people wanting to be married. This prejudice is rather ugly, and is a blemish on the face of the pro-life movement.
Marauder wrote:
I don’t think polygamy really is part of a slippery slope if gay marriage is legalized in the US, because polygamy has legal and social problems that marriages between two people don’t have.
You’re not factoring in the fact that all “gay marriage” children must be procreated either by IVF or by another couple (who then surrender the child for adoption). Suppose you have sperm donor [a], whose sperm is implanted into surrogate mother [b], who then releases the child for adoption by lesbian couple [c,d], both members of which are (for this case) infertile. You don’t see potential quadrilateral legal fireworks, here? Unless you’re waiting on some “breakthrough” in human oogenesis, the legal problems with homosexual “marriages” will always involve more than just the “couple”. At any rate: the main point was that a redefinition of marriage in terms of mere sexual/emotional desire will open the doors to any other combination of “wants” (including those which are not yet un-taboo).
Paladin, marriage has been redefined constantly through the ages. It used to be a business transaction, and the wife was property. At one point, interracial marriage was illegal. Seriously, if any of you have any arguments against gay marriage that are not Bible quotes, or just simply articulations of fear and bigotry, then by all means, I’d love to hear them. No? Yes, I didn’t think they exist. We heterosexuals have already made a mess of the “institution” of “marriage.” I don’t understand this idea that allowing gay couples to marry is a sign of the apocalypse. You know, pro-aborts think that pro-lifers want to keep women down, and that we are anti-feminist. I know that true pro-lifers are far more feminist than the “femisogynists” (tm Lori Ziganto) could ever be. Along the same lines, pro-lifers who oppose gay marriage are making the same mistake with the gay community. There is this idea that gay people are somehow less than we are, they are the enemy, they are corrupt, they will corrupt us. I don’t know how you can live like that, with that kind of hate. It’s a damn shame.
Who hates gays?? Please point out who has stated they hate gays.
This blog post was about the similarities between the handing down of Roe V Wade by the 9 Black Robed Ones and an activist judge spitting on the votes of 7 million Californians against same sex marriage.
Shall we try to get back on track?
PS A lesbian has the same marital rights that I do. The right to marry a man.
Carla, we are not even off track. I know what the blog post was about. That begs the question, doesn’t it? It will automatically beg the question–whether or not gays SHOULD marry. If this was a question of an “activist judge” overturning “spitting on the votes” of a bunch of libtards who want to kill babies, then none of you would have a problem with it. You would even applaud it. It’s what the “activist judge” is overturning that you all seem to have a problem with. And all the arguments against gay marriage and WHY you are against the judge’s decision shows bigotry against the gay community. There is a LOT of hate towards the gay community in these messages. Of course you’re not going to come out and say “I hate gays!” just like pro-aborts claim they “love children.” I’m really shocked that some of you, who are so intelligent and so thoughtful about so many things, are so myopic and ignorant where gay rights are concerned. It will ALWAYS go back to this question…..Do you believe they have a right to marry? The pro-life community sullies its image when it screams “ABSOLUTELY NOT!” ….As if that image weren’t sullied already. To be sure, I don’t even know why this article is included on a pro-life blog anyway. They are not the same issue. At all. Not even close.
Yes, I have a problem with redefining traditional marriage. No, I do not believe gays should have the right to marry. No, I do not hate my lesbian cousins.
Not screaming. Stating my opinion which is just as valid as yours, MaryLee.
Another thing that people are forgetting is that a lot of homosexual relationships are not exclusive. Marriage is a contract to remain mutually exclusive with one another. Why else would one get married? Just to have someone at your bedside? If that were the case, then foster children would not be allowed to visit their foster parents in the hospital.
Promiscuity is seen as a staple of gay culture, and, therefore, homosexual relationships. Yes, they have someone they are with, but then they introduce other partners into that “union”. They claim that monogamy is oppressive, and say that it isn’t a part of their culture.
Gareth Kirby, editor of Xtra West, characterizes gay culture as a spectrum of love in which gays and lesbians tend to “divvy out emotional ties between different people – lover(s), roomies, f…buddies, best friends, ‘sister(s)’ and ex-lovers who become key members of our support network.” He goes on to say: “Valuing honesty and honouring lust, we almost always open up our relationship to sex with other people after a few years. A federally-funded health study of Vancouver gay men found that only two per cent were in long-term relationships.”
William N. Eskridge Jr. wrote in The Case For Same-Sex Marriage: From
Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment: “Whether because of the biology of
masculinity or the furtiveness of illegality, gay men have been known for their promiscuous subcultures. Promiscuity has encouraged a cult of youth worship and has contributed to the stereotype of homosexuals as people who lack a serious approach to life. It is time for gay America to mature, and there can be no more effective path to maturity than marriage.”
However, Robert Williams, the first openly gay Episcopal priest to be ordained, declared in Newsweek: “If people want to try, OK. But the fact is, people are not monogamous. It is crazy to hold up this ideal…”
In her book Sex & Germs (Montreal:Black Rose Books, 1986), author Cindy Patton wrote: “Two recent studies from San Francisco and Chicago, however, indicate that coupling [gay monogamy] does not necessarily produce more discussion or safer sexual practices. These studies asked gay men why they had not changed a range of sexual practices, most of which the respondents agreed would decrease the risk of AIDS. In the San Francisco study, men in monogamous couples, in primary relationships with some sexual activity outside the relationship, and with no primary relationships but multiple partners, nearly all agreed that they hadn’t implemented desired [safe-sex] changes because they perceived their partner(s) to be unwilling to make that change. The second and third most common reasons were ‘I like it too much to stop’ and ‘It just seems like what is expected’ – a more diffuse articulation of the notion that certain practices, or a constellation of practices, are what makes someone gay. The Chicago study had similar results.”
So, therefore, why call it “marriage”, when they’re not going to conform to what a marriage relationship is? It’s simple: To break down the societal norms of heterosexuality, and normalize sex with someone of the same gender.
These arguments, and more, can be found in a wonderfully researched article, complete with footnotes, here: http://www.marriagereality.org/PDF.7.non-religiousreasons.pdf
For those who claim that those of us who aren’t for gay “marriage” are like pro-aborts, we’re not. In fact, those who are FOR gay “marriage” are more like it. They’re all for promiscuity, they think that anything but an open relationship is “sexual repression”. They use the slogan “my body, my choice”, which is a blatant warping of Christ’s sacrifice when He says, “This is My Body, given to the world for the forgiveness of sins.” They think that it’s okay to hide having an STD from someone they have sex with. They bring disorder into something that God, or nature, however you see it, has created, by making it okay to shape relationships, sex, and family life into whatever they think is okay. They’re very violent against those who would oppose them. They insist on making it an act of terrorism to oppose them, even when they are the ones who were violent. They insist that the law must be in their favor, opposing what the majority believes and has voted on. They skew what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other founding documents and laws of this country. They insist that religion should have no place in the government and that religious people should have no say in anything, when this country was founded on the rights of the religious (each original state had their own official religion, and the founding fathers often said that religion and belief are an integral part of government and keeping a unified, happy, and healthy country (see the Library of Congress’s exhibit on “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, George Washington’s Farewell Address, and the Federalist Papers)).
As for whether this might lead to more strange marriages, it already has. If marriage is changeable according to the times and to the wants of a minority, then there is no clear definition of marriage, and the breakdown of family and our system of government is imminent. There are already people saying that if gays get to be married, then they should have pedophilia (as Ken pointed out), polygamy, bestiality, and even be allowed to marry robots (google the man who married his Nintendo DS “girlfriend”)!
Oh, and I don’t hate gay people. I have LOTS of gay friends. I love them dearly. I just don’t agree with their lifestyle, I don’t like it when people skew my religion, and I don’t like being persecuted and having people threaten me and my religion, as has been done to MANY people who are against gay marriage (see the Question 1 debacle in Washington State), or even those who just donated a small amount to the Prop 8/Question 1 fund for business reasons (google Hollywood Coyote Lounge and Prop 8).
“I can’t understand why the rest of you refuse to listen. You’re as bad as the pro-aborts.” Mary Lee
If I typed the same sentences in opposition to gay marriage, I would be labeled a hater.
Mary Lee, I believe aborting/supporting the abortion of a child is wrong. I believe acting on homosexual tendencies is wrong. Some of the reasons many prolifers believe homosexual behaviors are wrong have been listed here. Otherwise, there are many other places you can research why there is opposition to gay marriage.
If I know abortion and homosexual behavior to both be sinful behavior, why would you expect me to change my mind about one but not the other?
If anything, marriage equality and the right to life should be supported by the same constituencies. Both entail providing equality under the law. Pro-lifers and Judge Vaughn Walker agree that these respective rights are found under the 14th Amendment in the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Legally we’re affirming the same thing.
Unfortunately, many religious people erroneously believe their rights are endangered by loving gay couples and families. It would be wise for Christian pro-life activists to avoid the marriage issue in order to welcome more people into the fold. Gays like myself would be more willing to fight for unborn human life if their allies weren’t also condemning them to hell.
Any comparison of Roe vs. Wade to the overturning of Prop 8 does a grave disservice to the 52 million unborn children who have lost their lives since 1973. Let’s keep things in perspective. Roe took away children’s rights while overturning Prop 8 grants rights.
Abe,
‘Marriage equality’?
a+b does not = a+a nor b+b.
It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it does.
Let me restate your premise:
“Gays like myself would be more willing to fight for unborn human life if their allies weren’t also condemning them to hell.”
‘Proifers like myself would be more willing to fight for same sex unions if homosexuals were not resisting the struggle to protect innocent and helpless prenatal humans.’
Both statement are equally false and equally insincere.
The only way homosexuals can succeed in perverting language to incorporate same sex unions into the historical definiton of marriage is through judicial activism.
It is false to suggest that pro-lifers and/or religious people are the only reason Prop 8 was overwhelmingly approved by the voters or the left coast state of California.
Even with the aid of progressive/liberal/humanist/ heterosexual fellow travelers homosexuals simply do not have the numbers or the dollars to get the job done through the legislative process.
“Gays like myself would be more willing to fight for unborn human life if their allies weren’t also condemning them to hell.”
Unrepentant and unforgiven ‘sin’ condemns us to hell, not the ‘words’ of other people.
If the ‘words’ of other people could condemn us, then the vile sewage that pours from the mouths of homosexual activist towards any who oppose their agenda would have condemned just about all of ‘christendom’ to hell by now.
It is not the ‘words’ of others that may condemn us to hell, but our own.
I would give you chapter and verse, but with knowledge comes responsibility and accountability.
For now it will be better for you to continue in your ignorance.
When the ONE who gives you breath and life is ready HE will reveal the TRUTH to you HIMSELF.
Amy
August 7th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
…”I don’t like being persecuted and having people threaten me and my religion, as has been done to MANY people who are against gay marriage (see the Question 1 debacle in Washington State),”
Amy,
What is the ‘debacle’ in Washington State to which you are referring?
MaryLee wrote:
Paladin, all of your arguments–or your responses–are absurd and unsubstantiated. Nobody is saying 2 year olds should marry.
I think you misunderstood my point. Biggz claimed that “You cannot say something is ok for some us but not the rest…” He added no qualifiers. In other words: he was denying that anyone could ever be denied something they ever wanted, if even one other person were granted that “something”. I was showing the absurdity of his claim, by counter-example. He was trying to imply that it’s “unfair” to give person [x] something, but deny it to person [y]; I pointed out that there are very good reasons to “discriminate” between certain cases, and certain people–and that we do it all the time, and rightly so.
Keep in mind… in debates like this, there are at four main parts: my position, his position, my arguments for my position, and his arguments for his position. I was showing that one of his arguments for his position was faulty–that it didn’t support his position at all–since his own principles would forbid him from “discriminating” against those who wanted to marry (and have sexual intercourse with) 2-year-olds, or marry their sister, or some other perversion.
We are talking about adult human beings who happen to be gay.
You are, at any rate. But even then: why do you restrict your “fairness” to adults (and I assume you mean 18+ years)? Why not 17-year-olds? 13-year-olds? I’m quite serious: why deny them the “goodies” that you claim for yourself? Can you supply any “non-religious” (since you seem to hold religion in such distaste) reasons to exclude them? Can you give any non-religious reason why the government should not be compelled to recognize the “marriage” of a man and a goat? You find it disgusting? Fine… but “how is it hurting you”? I have no right to have brussel sprouts declared illegal for everyone, simply because *I* find them disgusting. See my point?
And the pursuit of happiness doesn’t include the right to burn someone’s house down, obviously,
I agree. But why do YOU think so? I think so because I believe we all have a God-given right to a fair portion of the world’s goods (i.e. private property), so long as we use them in accordance with His Will. You, with your apparent disdain for Christianity (or any religion that makes objective moral demands), apparently don’t use that reason, or anything like it. So… I’ll bite: why do YOU think that pursuit of happiness doesn’t include arson, if the arsonists would truly be made happy? Why is your happiness in preserving your house so much more important than the happiness of the arsonist? What if his happiness at burning your house down were (through some quirk of psychology) ten times the pleasure you’d have at preventing him? Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to let him have his quest for happiness? If not, then WHY NOT? (A logical answer would be appreciated, here, rather than emotional appeals or dismissive slurs.)
but how is gay marriage tantamount to burning down someone’s house?
It isn’t. Again, I was refuting a specific argument of Biggz, and illustrating how the “right to happiness” has limits–good, sensible limits, which are not dependent on the wishes of this-or-that special interest group. Neither he nor you can wave the “right to pursuit of happiness” and claim that it authorizes whatever anyone happens to pursue (in the name of happiness), such as a violation of the definition of marriage itself; it does not. See above, re: showing that an opponents argument is flawed.
You have no good reason to deny gay people the right to marry, no matter what language you want to use to defend your shibboleth.
(*sigh*) Why is it the irreligious who always pull out religious references…?
You seem to be accusing me of rejecting a so-called “right” to gay “marriage” simply because I don’t like it, or because “my religion told me not to like it”. Balderdash, madam. Where, exactly, is your proof that I reject homosexual “marriage” out of some crass and ground-level religious bigotry? Can you show me one quote–here, or anywhere–in which I referenced religion at all, on this issue (of “gay marriage”)? Biggz made the bizarre claim (out of thin air, I might add) that I was merely being a religious bigot, and you followed him. Would you so kind as to prove it, or else retract your accusation (and perhaps apologize for your rash judgment of me)?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay people being married.
Your statement is, with all due respect, meaningless without some sort of objective standard to which you could appeal. Homosexual activity is associated with vastly greater risks of depression, physical illness, rectal cancer, STD’s, and a greatly shortened life-span. I find that “wrong”… and I find the mindless indoctrination into that dangerous lifestyle to be wrong, as well; and I find it utterly wrong for supporters of that movement to punish those who refuse to accept it with social coercion, fines, and jail time.
It is not hurting you.
No? If I speak out against homosexual “marriage” in England, Canada, etc., I’d be facing a fine and jail time for “hate speech”. If I refuse to photograph a “gay marriage” ceremony, I’d be facing thousands of dollars in fines in the United States. If I refuse to be *proactive* (as a public school teacher, which I used to be) in indoctrinating young children (as young as 5-6 years old) into the idea that “gay is another type of normal”, then I’d be facing the loss of my job, and probably a lawsuit. It’s not “hurting me”, hm?
It is hurting NO ONE.
You are flat-out wrong. See above.
In fact, it most likely would help a LOT of people.
I can only wonder at your reasons for saying that.
Yes, I am pro-life, and I am pro-gay marriage, because they are one and the same.
This makes absolutely no sense at all, ma’am. If you’re going to defend your case, you need to be just a wee bit more logical than that.
We cannot deny the unborn their right to live. We also cannot deny the gay community their right to be married.
We don’t. Every man (whether homosexual or not) has the right to marry a woman, within reasonable boundaries (e.g. not his mother, etc.); and every woman has the legal right to marry a man, with similar restrictions. Every “gay couple” has the right to name the other as beneficiary of their wills and insurance plans, to hold the power of attorney for each other, to legally change their last names to coincide, and so on. You really haven’t proven why the state has any compelling interest in recognizing “gay marriage”, as such, when all the “civil benefits” if such marriage can be found elsewhere, by other means.
There is nothing dangerous, nothing evil, nothing sinister about two gay people wanting to be married.
Ah. And you’d think, in your largesse, that there’s nothing dangerous, nothing evil, nothing sinister about a mother wanting to be married to her son? That there’s nothing dangerous, nothing evil, nothing sinister about a man wanting to be married to his gerbil? How would either of those hurt YOU, except to “offend your bigoted and closed-minded personal tastes”?
This prejudice is rather ugly, and is a blemish on the face of the pro-life movement.
You’re certainly free to hold that opinion. The trick, now, would be to prove it, rather than leaving it as mere emotional fireworks.
I heart Paladin.
“Gays like myself would be more willing to fight for unborn human life if their allies weren’t also condemning them to hell.” AbeLincoln
In other words, “I’ll do what I know to be right and true only if you support my doing what you know is not right and true.”
Sounds like too many of our current politicians.
Paladin, Have you ever thought of running for an office?
Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason the Lord makes so many of them.
Abraham Lincoln
If Abe Lincoln’s observation is correct, then how do we account for the LORD making so few homosexuals?
The ‘truth’ is Abe was just indulging in some self deprecating humor.
The other ‘truth’ is the LORD does NOT make homosexuals.
The other ‘truth’ is the LORD takes little or no account of our socio/economic status and does not look at our outward appearances, but at our heart.
And HE does not do so not to find faut in order that HE may punish us, but HE is constantly referring back to the ‘blueprint’ HE had in HIS mind, before we were ever conceived, so that HE might conform and transform us into what HE originally intended us to be.
The LORD does ‘form humans’ [Psalm 139], but the wounds of an imperfect world, for which we were not designed, causes humans to turn to other things to mask the pain of our injuries.
We all have our issues.
There are some things that we cannot repent of or from.
There are some things that must be worked out of us in order that other things may be worked into us.
These are the things we cannot repent of or from.
It is not about ‘sin’, it is about character.
God is working the ‘world’ [Egypt] out of us and working the character/likeness/image of the SON into us.
Though we were all once vessels of wrath, suitable only for the chard heap outside the camp, the POTTER is saying, “I did not make you so.”
We are now the vessels of HIS mercy.
HE rescues us from the scap heap and begins the work of restoration to that which HE intended us to be from BEFORE the foundations of the earth were laid.
When we were suitable for nothing more than chamber pots, HE has made us vessels of honor, containng this treasure, some of which is the surpassing greatness of HIS power in us and towards us.
We are called according to HIS choosing and HIS purposes, not ours.
That is why HE is working all things together for good for those who love HIM [and we are only able to love HIM because HE first loved us] and who are ‘called’ [ekklesia in the Greek] according to HIS purpose.
What is HIS purpose, HIS good for us?
That we all be conformed to the image/likeness/representation of HIS first born SON and our elder brother JESUS.
If you have mistakenly believed that GOD is turning our disasters into successes and our defeats into victory so that we may have a more comfortable life, then you should read just a little further in Romans 8, 2 Cor 4:7-12 and it will explain the sufferrings of the body of Chirst around the world since Jesus’ death and resurection.
If you have traded not going to hell for going to ‘church’, then you have settled for less than the best GOD has intended for you and your family.
“But, on the contrary, as the Scripture says, What eye has not seen and ear has not heard and has not entered into the heart of man, [all that] God has prepared (made and keeps ready) for those who love Him [who hold Him in affectionate reverence, promptly obeying Him and gratefully recognizing the benefits He has bestowed].”
It’s in the ‘book’.
Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not liberal judges who are guilty of activism on the whole but concservative ones. It they who want to take certain American’s rights away,not liberal ones.
It’s conservative judges who want the government in our bedrooms,not liberal ones.
Allowing the government in our bedrooms is juducual activism. Look who’s talking.
It’s also judicual activism for judges to say that all women who are pregnant must bear those children or else,even if they are too poor to take care of those as yet unborn children or any they may already have,or if a pregnancy would ruin their health or kill them.
If that isn’t juducual activism,I don’t know what it is.
It’s judicial activism for judges to allow government censorship of books,magazines and websites we read and films and television programs we view, or to make contraceptives illegal, something which the government has absolutely no right to do.
That should read “it is they” not it they. My mistake.
Berger,
Judicial activism is NOT peculiar to ‘liberal judges’, but an objective look at the record will show that liberals have more often used the ‘judiciary’ to advance an agenda they have not been able to achieve through the legislative process.
Brown v Board of Education is an example light weght intellectual liberals like to cite where they say judicial activism righted a long standing wrong.
I would argue that Brown was not activism at all, but a well founded judicial decision based on the original inetent of the authors of the constitution.
Only the bigots who desired to perpetuate segregation and racial discrimination would have viewed Brown as ‘judicial activism’.
Judges, be they liberal or conservative, can reach good judicial decisions if they base them on the original intent of the constitution.
When they go beyond that, either liberal or conservative, to adavance their own sociological, ideological or political agenda, then they have crossed line from juris prudence into juris impudence.
The weakest link in our constitutional republic is the United States Supreme Court.
Five people, appointed for life, decide what the constitution means for the rest of us. They have and will turned the constitution on it’s head to serve their own sociological, ideological and political ends.
American history is repleat with examples of their malfeaseance and misfeasance.
You are alarmed at what you view as conservative judges indulging in judicial activism, but you are perfectly content when liberal judges do the same if you agree with the results.
That is shortisighted folly of the worst kind.
MaryLee wrote:
Paladin, marriage has been redefined constantly through the ages.
The details surrounding it, and the implementation of it, and even the understanding of it, have changed, yes; but the core definition–as the durable and self-sacrificing union of one man with one woman for the purpose of procreating children (and providing a nurturing and stable environment for them) and for uniting the spouses–has never changed.
If you’re going to talk about “definitions”, you really need to be careful and precise in what you mean. A “definition” is a “sine qua non”–without which [the thing in question] could not exist. The definition of a “circle”, for example, involves a collection of all points (on a Euclidian plane) equidistant from a [center] point. The circle can be blue, red, striped, or red-hot, and still be a circle; those are all “accidental” to the definition, without changing it. But if you make a break in the collection of points, or if you start adding line segments and/or angles, you no longer have a circle; the definition has been violated. You might think it’s “close enough”–but that’s only an opinion, and not a change in the definition itself.
Has marriage been abused? Certainly… but that’s no reason for saying that “the definition has changed”. Think about what you’re saying: if the definition had truly changed, then the idea of “abusing” marriage would be very hard to sustain! If a man marries a squirrel, and you try to object that “the definition of marriage doesn’t allow that!”, would you be satisfied if he said, “Tut, tut! I’m merely redefining marriage! Once we accept my definition–‘any union of two objects which causes pleasure to at least one of the partners’–then I won’t be violating the definition of marriage, anymore! Neat, huh?”
It used to be a business transaction, and the wife was property.
Ignoring your overly broad generalization, for a moment, I’ll grant that marriage was treated thusly, in the past. Do you like that fact? If not, WHY not? Is it not that, at some level, you recognize that marriage is meant to be more than that–that the very definition of marriage requires more than merely treating a wife (or husband) as an object to be used? If the very definition of “marriage” were truly redefined, as you say, then you’d have no basis (aside from prejudice and personal tastes) for objecting to the “chattel version” of marriage. If the definition of marriage is fluid and relative, and if it means only what any given group of people wish it to mean at any given moment, then you have no basis, AT ALL, of (for example) objecting to a 55-year-old man marrying (and having sex with) a 10-year-old girl… especially if she “consents”.
At one point, interracial marriage was illegal.
In this country, that’s true… but do you regard that as an injustice? I do… but why do YOU? Is it not that you knew, perhaps unconsciously, that the definition of marriage is not violated by the union of a man and a woman with merely cosmetic differences in body (e.g. skin colour, slant of eyes, etc.)?
Seriously, if any of you have any arguments against gay marriage that are not Bible quotes, or just simply articulations of fear and bigotry, then by all means, I’d love to hear them.
Hm. I’ve used no Biblical quotes at all, but you were still outraged by my comments! That must mean that you found them to be “simply articulations of fear and bigotry”? I don’t suppose you’d believe me if I said that I didn’t fear homosexuals in the least (any more than I fear diabetics, or cancer survivors), nor do I hate them in the least? I assure you, I feel/do nothing of the sort. But I think your own prejudice will lead you to “define” all opposing arguments as “fear” and “bigotry”:
“Anyone? [reason #1] Yep… another case of bigotry! Care to try again? [reason #2] More bigotry! I knew it!”
Surely you see how shallow and self-serving your position is? What’s to prevent you from labelling any and all rebuttals to your position as “bigotry”, whether they’re valid or not? You’re going on raw feelings, not on sane reason.
No? Yes, I didn’t think they exist.
That, friend, was nothing but silly, self-congratulatory drama. You didn’t truly expect us to get a word in edgewise, in the middle of your comment, did you? Even in a live chat, you’d need to wait more than a split-second for responses, before declaring victory, I think.
We heterosexuals have already made a mess of the “institution” of “marriage.”
Ma’am, I’ll thank you not to lump me (and other unwilling heterosexuals) in with your “collective guilt party”; you’re quite mistaken, and–again–you’re letting your heart run away with your head, here. I do not doubt your sincerity in the least; but I seriously question your judgment, especially in this matter.
I don’t understand this idea that allowing gay couples to marry is a sign of the apocalypse.
Something need not be a “sign of the Apocalypse” in order to be wrong. (Having a sign of the Apocalypse is not only not sinful, but it’d actually be a GOOD thing, IMHO… but I digress.) But any attempt to redefine marriage in terms of self-serving physical/emotional gratification is disastrous, and it will leave broken lives in its wake. Some of us care about that fact, and we want (in whatever small way available to us) to try to stop it. Look at the mess that the current *heterosexual* “hook-up, no commitment, cheap divorce, try-it-before-you-buy-it” approach has caused; and YOU want to follow that lead, and make matters WORSE?
You know, pro-aborts think that pro-lifers want to keep women down, and that we are anti-feminist.
Yes… and they’re just as mistaken as you are, in your opinion that we are “anti-gay” and “trying to keep gays down”. Can’t you see this?
I know that true pro-lifers are far more feminist than the “femisogynists” (tm Lori Ziganto) could ever be.
Good! Then you might be able to see how true defenders of marriage are far more supportive of human rights than are the “gay-haters” (i.e. hating someone because they have a sexual disorder), right?
Along the same lines, pro-lifers who oppose gay marriage are making the same mistake with the gay community. There is this idea that gay people are somehow less than we are, they are the enemy, they are corrupt, they will corrupt us. I don’t know how you can live like that, with that kind of hate. It’s a damn shame.
(??) I don’t know how you can type such NONSENSE, friend! Whom are you describing? You’re certainly not describing me, nor are you describing anyone on this board (of whom I’m aware); you have some sort of nightmarish, composite “hate-beast” in your mind when you attack us… and for the life of me, I can’t see why. Have you actually READ anything of what we’ve written? Or did you just skim enough to confirm that we were against “gay marriage”, and “launch” with your pre-written litany of maledictions against us “evil fiends”? Nothing you’ve written, in attack of us, suggests that you’ve done anything of more depth.
Carla:
:) :) :)
Praxedes wrote:
Paladin, Have you ever thought of running for an office?
Aack! About as often as I’ve considered giving my face a tan in the microwave! (I.e. no, but thanks for the compliment! I’m just not called to that; I’ll keep plugging away in the high school math classroom, and trying to teach logic and objective truth to our future politicians!)
I figured you all would be in great support of gay marriage. I mean, it is highly unlikely that those who are married and are gay are likely to have an abortion.
Thank you Amy for the article “Marriage Reality” by Carman Bradley it is excellent, non-religious, non-political and very well documented. This article reminds me of the article by Dr. John Diggs on The Health Risks of Gay Sex which is well documented as well. Ms. Bradley gives the research regarding countries that have embraced same-sex “marriage” seeing very few “same-sex marriages” after it’s legalization and I have also seen in another article that the numbers of heterosexual marriages plummeted in these countries as “marriage” became meaningless, and trivialized, meanwhile the cohabitation and unwed preganancy rates in these countries have skyrocketed with couples no longer seeing any need to make a life-long commitment to each other. Children in the US are already detrimentally impacted by the increase in single parent homes caused by ’no-fault” divorce, cohabitation, and unwed pregnancies, we do not need to make the situation worse than it already is.
Dr. Diggs states in his article “An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychicatric illness among gays and lesbians…The Dutch study published in the Archives of Gen. Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease assodciated with same-sex sex. Compared with controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior..MSM who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with homosexual contact were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia and alcohol dependence…those with a history of homoseual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study”. And this is confirmed in a country where homosexuality has been not just normalized but embraced for years.
For those interested http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf
also look at the FDA policy of refusing to accept blood donation from MSM even if they practice “safe sex” or are in a monogamous relationship
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm
I do not hate, condone hate or condone discrimination against homosexuals or anyone else but the redefining of marriage is not the answer. Although so-called “same-sex marriage” is an insult and an affront to Bibile believing Christians like myself it is more important that changing the definition of marriage is going to change the entire climate, landscape and be detrimental to families in this country. It will mean that all of us including our children and grandchildren must be “indoctrinated” to accept what we spiritually and morally disagree with and cannot accept. I know there are those who disagree with me but race and color are NOT the same as sexual behavior. May God help our nation and help us to protect our freedom to believe in the Bible and teach it’s precepts.
Jake wrote:
I figured you all would be in great support of gay marriage. I mean, it is highly unlikely that those who are married and are gay are likely to have an abortion.
Are you just being your normal, snarky self, Jake, or are you serious? The destruction of the human race would go you one better: it would completely *guarantee* an elimination of abortion–forget about this measly “highly unlikely” nonsense! Don’t think small! </sarcasm>
Again: are you serious?
I noticed a few people posted this issue and I want to add my own story.
I have had homosexual friends and bisexual friends. I have cared for them in terms of their humanity. I have not, however, encouraged their homosexual activities. I have been told I was not a true friend to these people, even though at least one of them always acted like I was a true friend to him.
One homosexual friend I had even talked to me about when he was rejected by a guy he liked. Even though he knew I disagreed with acting upon homosexual orientation I felt bad that he was hurting. I comforted him in the sense that I tried to encourage him as a person. I told him I was sorry he was hurting and that if he needed to talk I’d listen, but that I was against homosexuality. He said, “I know. I just need someone to talk to.” and I said, “Okay.”
Today’s society you’re a homophobe if you don’t completely and absolutely support the homosexual lifestyle. If you say you care about a person as a person but don’t support their homosexuality, you’re not a real friend.
It truly bothers me how people in the homosexual community can taut the line of being open minded, but the moment I tell them I’m against homosexuality (without cussing or yelling or ranting) almost every time they yell at me.
I have been yelled at, curst at and told I wasn’t ever a true friend to the homosexual friends I had simply because I don’t approve and support the homosexual lifestyle.
One time I actually said to a homosexual who ranted at me: “I did NOT cuss at you or yell at you. So why are you cussing and yelling at me?” He calmed down and said, “You’re right, I’m sorry.” I explained to him my position and he stopped ranting.
If people stop ranting about how great the homosexual lifestyle is and listen to people like me, they might see that just because I don’t support homosexual activity or “marriage” doesn’t mean I don’t care about a person’s humanity.
I care about a person’s humanity, but it doesn’t mean I have to support or encourage everything a person does or anything a person does.
I don’t think people who are against gay marriage necessarily hate anyone. Some do and some don’t, and I agree that it’s unfair to characterize everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage as some sort of rabid bigot.
The problem with research about gay couples and monogamy is that a couple would have to have a certain degree of connectedness to the issue in order to come to the attention of the people doing the research. As in, while Bill and Bob the gay activists in San Francisco are easy to find for research, no one’s going to find Jerry and Jim, who live in Oklahoma and aren’t activists.
“You’re not factoring in the fact that all “gay marriage” children must be procreated either by IVF or by another couple (who then surrender the child for adoption). Suppose you have sperm donor [a], whose sperm is implanted into surrogate mother [b], who then releases the child for adoption by lesbian couple [c,d], both members of which are (for this case) infertile. You don’t see potential quadrilateral legal fireworks, here?”
First of all, you’re wrong about how the children of gay marriages “must” be procreated. A lot of people in gay relationships, especially older people, were married before they came out of the closet and have children from those marriages. Also, artificial insemination and IVF are not the same thing. A lot of gay couples who want children who are biologically related to at least one of them go with artificial insemination.
I’m a third-year law student. In legal terms, a sperm donor and a surrogate mother giving up their child for adoption isn’t necessarily any different than two teenagers giving up their child for adoption. The child is conceived, the biological parents are aware of their rights, they surrender them, the adoptive parents legally adopt the child. Adoption complications can happen regardless of who the adoptive parents are or how the child was conceived. You may have moral objections, but there aren’t any special legal problems inherent in the fact that the adoptive parents are a gay couple.
Marauder wrote:
The problem with research about gay couples and monogamy is that a couple would have to have a certain degree of connectedness to the issue in order to come to the attention of the people doing the research. As in, while Bill and Bob the gay activists in San Francisco are easy to find for research, no one’s going to find Jerry and Jim, who live in Oklahoma and aren’t activists.
So… you’re assuming that gay activists are… more likely to be monogamous? Less likely? I’ll need to know your take on that, before I comment further.
[Paladin]
“You’re not factoring in the fact that all “gay marriage” children must be procreated either by IVF or by another couple (who then surrender the child for adoption). Suppose you have sperm donor [a], whose sperm is implanted into surrogate mother [b], who then releases the child for adoption by lesbian couple [c,d], both members of which are (for this case) infertile. You don’t see potential quadrilateral legal fireworks, here?”
First of all, you’re wrong about how the children of gay marriages “must” be procreated. A lot of people in gay relationships, especially older people, were married before they came out of the closet and have children from those marriages. Also, artificial insemination and IVF are not the same thing. A lot of gay couples who want children who are biologically related to at least one of them go with artificial insemination.
All right; fair enough. (Quick and careless summary, on my part; correction noted.) But you’ll note that I could correct my statement to say, “…must be procreated by some means external to the original biological mother and father (i.e. involving at least three people)”, without affecting my main point at all, yes? My comment was in reply to your suggestion that the complications of polygamy were utterly different from those of “gay couples” who wanted to adopt, use IVF, inseminate artificially, or what-have-you; I assert that you’re mistaken… for at least two reasons:
a) once marriage is “redefined” to mean “any sexually pleasing arrangement of biological organisms”, then no other sexual perversion of the “presumed consent” type (e.g. a 10-year-old girl who doesn’t apparently object to marrying the 50-year old lech, or the mother and son who consent to marry) has any solid ground for being forbidden… and those who desire polygamy probably won’t work out a “cost-benefit risk analysis”, beforehand.
b) “gay couples” already have, as I mentioned above, a “built-in” level of complexity, in cases of custody battles. A 10-second Google search for “gay surrogate mother custody” came up with this, for starters.
I’m a third-year law student.
Best wishes in your studies!
In legal terms, a sperm donor and a surrogate mother giving up their child for adoption isn’t necessarily any different than two teenagers giving up their child for adoption.
I’m afraid that looks good on paper, but it doesn’t work out “on the ground”. Try the Google search suggested above.
The child is conceived, the biological parents are aware of their rights, they surrender them, the adoptive parents legally adopt the child.
And then any number of people change their minds, and the fireworks begin.
Adoption complications can happen regardless of who the adoptive parents are or how the child was conceived.
Of course. But surely you agree that, the more people involved (and in more convoluted ways), the more difficult the situation is to untangle? And that’s abstracting completely from the possibility of a nutty, activist judge…
You may have moral objections, but there aren’t any special legal problems inherent in the fact that the adoptive parents are a gay couple.
That was never my point (though that says nothing about the sanity of the law). I mentioned “gay marriage adoption complications” as a contrast to your erroneous suggestion that “polygamy wasn’t on the slippery slope”. It is, I think.
Whoops… forgot the link that I intended to give you in the “10-second Google search” reference:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/31/custody-battle-pits-gay-couple-against-surrogate/
Thanks Paladin for sharing this story. Like I said “same sex marriage” is part of the “Homosexual Agenda” to “transform America” and will change the entire climate, landscape and be detrimental to families (especially children) in our country. We do not live in a vacuum and the effects of this redefinition of “marriage” will put Bible believing Christians at odds with our goverment and will force the indoctrination of children to promote them embracing this mindset so they won’t be “homophobic bigots’. The same mindset that Obama is using, ‘If you are against my agenda you are a “racist bigot”. They get someone to play the race card (they don’t usually do it themselves) when you won’t drink the kool-aid.
“So… you’re assuming that gay activists are… more likely to be monogamous? Less likely? I’ll need to know your take on that, before I comment further.”
No, I’m saying there are a lot of gay couples who aren’t highly visible, and unless research data has a good cross-section of the entire gay population, it has inherent flaws when it comes to how many gay couples stay monogamous.
I never said there aren’t potential legal issues with gay adoptions, and you’re right that there are more likely to be complications when more people are involved. I still don’t see why that means gay marriage should be illegal.
Prolifer L, being gay isn’t an ideology. You might as well start talking about “the Asian agenda” or “the male agenda”. It’s an orientation, not a belief system; you don’t have to subscribe to a set of beliefs before you’re “allowed” to be gay. Gay people are romantically/sexually attracted to people who are the same sex they are. End of definition.
What about the alcoholic agenda? I am orientated to be an alcoholic. It is an orientation, not a belief system. Alcoholics don’t subscribe to this set of beliefs before becaming alcoholics. This orientation does however become the belief system of many alcoholics. Alcoholics are emotionally/mentally/physically attracted to alcohol. End of definition.
Just because this is so doesn’t mean I should condone alcoholics drinking alcohol.
Marauder wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
So… you’re assuming that gay activists are… more likely to be monogamous? Less likely?
[Marauder]
No, I’m saying there are a lot of gay couples who aren’t highly visible, and unless research data has a good cross-section of the entire gay population, it has inherent flaws when it comes to how many gay couples stay monogamous.
Well… unless you’re suggesting that gay activists have a statistically significant higher or lower rate of practicing monogamy, the distinction is irrelevant. In your argument’s case, the distinction would only be useful to you if gay activists (who would, by your reckoning, be more prone to be included in such surveys/studies) had a *lower* rate of monogamy, right? Are you suggesting that?
I never said there aren’t potential legal issues with gay adoptions, and you’re right that there are more likely to be complications when more people are involved. I still don’t see why that means gay marriage should be illegal.
Do remember that I brought up the “homosexual adoption complications” issue to refute a very narrow point of yours; it wasn’t meant to “prove” (in general) that attempts to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual “couplings” should not be given legal recognition. That’s a distinct issue, whose reasons I covered (to some extent) earlier, in other comments.
Prolifer L, being gay isn’t an ideology.
No… being “gay” is a disease. But the idea that homosexuality should be “normalized” and accepted as an “alternate type of normal/good” (e.g. like a different skin tone or hair colour) is most certainly an ideology… complete with a highly-vocal and well-funded political movement to try to advance it.