This article from today’s Washington Post highlights the religious liberty threats (including two mentioned in our Gathering Storm ad) that religious organizations and individuals are facing in jurisdictions mandating recognition of same-sex unions.
. . . The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:
– A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.
– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
– A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
“It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. “The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles.”
269 Comments
It seems to me that if you are providing a service in the secular marketplace, you must abide by the rules, just like everybody else. What’s so strange about that?
Live and let live, all the way around. You don’t want to film my wedding? Then don’t. (But don’t take my deposit and then inform me at the least minute that you’re backing out.) You don’t want your child to know about what is new and happening in the world? Sequester that child. (But don’t complain if s/he isn’t fully engaged with the world a few years later.) You want to pick and choose your patients based on sexual orientation? Go ahead. (But don’t then complain when you are reimbursed or contracted or promoted differently than someone who complies with the laws of your state.) In the way you want to be exclusive, remember, the most inclusive person who ever lived was Jesus Christ. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Act otherwise, be a jerk, exclude people–you get left behind.
These anti-discrimination laws do seem sharply curtail one’s… ability–I can’t call it a right–to discriminate against others.
Imagine that, people are punished for not treating other people with respect and equality.
Imagine that, doctors are fired for picking and choosing who they can and will not treat.
Imagine that, the law is offering legal punishments for those who discriminate against another person based on their personal physical attributes rather than their personal merits.
~Celeste~
I know my post wont make it in, but I am saving screenshots of all the posts I write to NOM’s blog and posting them on my own blog as evidence of coverup.
These comments sadden me but they are to be expected. Jesus said we would be reviled when we stand for what is righteous and true. The next thing I expect down the road are lawsuits against churches who won’t marry gay couples or let them work for the church. Very sad indeed but here I stand and I will not be moved.
Oh right, so people aren’t allowed to discriminate anymore? That must really suck for you.
It’s exactly the same as what happened for the blacks.
It even sounds the same:-
– A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a black couple’s commitment ceremony.
– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a black about her relationship.
– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a black patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
When will people grow up?
I don’t revile anyone that loves Jesus. I do revile anyone who would attempt to force their religious beliefs onto others.
Gays are now going through the same struggles that african-anericans and women went through to secure equal rights in this country. Denying people rights because os some trait that they were born with. YES, PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY, ITS NOT A CHOICE ONE MAKES LIKE SAY…RELIGION. MArriage is already faltering in the country and has done so lone before any talk of gay marriage. If groups like these truely wanted to protect marriage, they would focus on eliminating divorce. Adultery and spousal abuse should be federal crimes and punishable by mandentory jail terms. Then all divorces should be illegal except in the case where one party been found guilt of adultry or abuse. THAT SAVES THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Any that has gotten a divorce for anything less has broken their promise to God and will be punished. But I’m sure that those who are against equal rights would say that banning divorce would infringe on thier rights, well then they would know how it feels to have the government deny rights.
You know, this message is probably going to get blocked by moderators again because they know that if same sex marriage protectors say their opinion, they are going to fail their goal. I tried posting a comment explaining my reasons same sex should be allowed. Instantly shot down by a mod. So let me speak directly to a mod right now. Yes you. The person saying wither or not I’m allowed to speak. Whoever is reading this for verification or something, don’t be a wuss. Let my word be heard. You didn’t rip the whole Freedom of Speech off the Earth okay? Have some common sense, and let my word be heard here.
You people talk like gay marriage is the end of the world if it won’t stop. Seriously people. Drop the Christian bullcrap and listen with your own mindset. Let loose and put some serious thought into it. Why is same sex marriage bad? Do the homosexuals have nukes? Do they have control over the sun? Why are you guys trying to take over their marriage rights? Because you’re all a little too selfish, or you’re too sunk into your religion. I said it before in my last comment that was shot down. “Life is given to all, and all who have it should have it’s privileges.” I find it ironic. You’re trying to take away something that god gave to these people. Am I the only one seeing the hilarious error there? Gay marriage won’t affect anyone but the two getting married, and their friends. Your freedom won’t be taken away because “Oh no! Two men got married! Earthquakes around the world! Lava covering the land! Lighting, thunder, striking us all down!”.
And schools teach gay marriage as okay because it is. If you don’t like it, move your kid from the school. Home school them, or put them down for a talk. Just don’t take it all out on same sex marriage.
Face it people. The only reason you want same sex marriage banned is because if your religion, and your own wants. There is nothing bad that can come out of this. Once again to the mod. Let this be heard. I’m assuming that if you shoot this comment down, you’re agreeing with me,but you don’t want to face it. It’s your call.
These examples all pertain to the principle of nondiscrimination against gay people (or nondiscrimination more broadly) not gay marriage. NOM’s posting them suggests that NOM’s agenda relates to the nondiscrimination principle generally, rather than gay marriage specifically.
Speaking of forcing their beliefs on others - the advocates of gay marriage are forcing their beliefs on others by bypassing a legal and fair vote on the issue and using courts and sympathetic legislators to get their way. The only fair way to settle this issue is to give everybody a say in it, but these advocates have no interest in that. I’m grateful that I live in a state where the gay marriage issue was settled in a fair and equitable vote, and was summarily banned. I hope Iowans and other states whose citizens are being denied their inalienable right to vote on this matter will soon be allowed to do so. “Fair” isn’t a term only applicable to gays. It’s for ALL Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.
Can you imagine if a Jewish photographer refused to take a picture of a Christian couple? I wonder what this organization would be saying then?
Then, Vast, you should oppose the use of “sexual orientation” as a trump card against religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
Live and let live.
* * *
Can you clearly define “sexual orientation” such that it specifically applies to infertility treatment?
The lack of the other sex is not infertility.
Or to photographing a wedding?
A civil lunion is not a wedding.
Or to providing providing counselling services?
Seeking affirmative advice on same-sex sexual behavior from someone whose principles do not provide the basis for affirmation seems remarkably self-defeating on the part of the consumer.
Or to policies based on unwed sexual behavior?
That one is self-explanatory, I think.
Or to distinguishing wedding ceremnoies from “civil union commitment ceremonies”?
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the man-woman criterion of marital status was constitutional. The civil union statute is restricted to one-sexed arrangements.
* * *
If, in respnse to each of these, you would emphasize sexual attraction or sexual behavior, then, you would point at the contradiction in your own remarks.
To impose the extraordinary restrictions that you propose, you would need an extraordinary reason to justify it.
People with a same sex attraction need to become more tolerant of Christian beliefs about sexuality.
Same sex attraction is a disorder. These people need help in dealing with the problem rather than laws which encourage it and promote it. These sexual orientation laws force others to encourage it and promote it as well.
Once again, Chairm, “religious liberty and freedom of conscience” is not worth much in the secular marketplace. It is not an “avoid the laws for free” card.
If my “principles do not provide the basis for affirmation” of interracial marriage, for example, I can’t refuse to counsel an interracial couple.
And you say “The lack of the other sex is not infertility.” That’s an interesting distinction you’ve just made up there, but it’s ONLY something you’ve made up. But that’s irrelevant, because your insistence that the litmus test for marriage eligibility involves the ability for the partners to have children is also a fabrication…like you said, “To impose the extraordinary restrictions that you propose, you would need an extraordinary reason to justify it.”
Finally, what’s all this about sexual attraction and sexual behaviour? Why the need to reduce this to sex? Attraction isn’t just about sex, it is also about love and commitment and security.
“But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live. I will have no choice.”
This statement is based on several articles discussing religious liberty issues in the same-sex marriage context. See Jonathan Rauch & David Blankenhorn, A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, NY Times, Feb. 22, 2009, at WK 11 (“Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed.”); Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three Act Story, supra, (“As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.”); Peter Steinfels, Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide with Religious Liberty? NY Times, June 10, 2006 (“Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.”); and Maggie Gallgher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, The Weekly Standard, May 16, 2006 (“‘The coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage [will] affect every aspect of church-state relations.’” (quoting Anthony Picarello, General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)).
Have you not had a class on American history….any of you? The Union’s legal stances of where an individual’s rights stand against a religious organizations are deeply rooted in American history. The pilgrams settled here because of religious persecution. Because of that, American laws have, and should, uphold that the individual’s rights will trump the rights of the religious organization’s. One might even argue that the NOW’s stance against an individual’s right to marry whom they wish is not only unpatriotic but treasonous. NOW does not stand for religious freedom, rather for forcing one’s religion on other individuals. A marriage is a legal document not a religious one.
The cases referenced in the ad have very specific reasoning behind them. The New Jersey group, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association had been determined NOT as a religious operation, rather as one operating for profit. Then they were judged as acting against anti-discrimination laws for businesses not religious groups.
The same goes in the Massachusetts case of what a child was taught in school. One parent does not have the right to determine a whole educational curriculum for thousands of other children. This groups and the individuals who support it keep forgetting the legal determination of separation of church and state. Your religious morals cannot have an impact on the state approved educational system. If you do not approval, you can always home school your child, which, again, is your right.
Finally, what part of “do no harm” does NOW not understand of the Hippocratic oath and legal obligations of a medical professional? This includes the emotional and mental well-being of potential patients and is well covered in medical school. The doctor in the case mentioned in the “background facts” was well aware of what his stance could cause him legally when he choose not to treat a patient. When operation a for profit business, any business is then subject to the anti-discrimination laws of our country, including doctors offices and for profit business operated by religious organizations because then the legal determinations are not about the religion, they are about the business.
The “background facts” have forgotten to include the statements of the Judges involved in these cases that give the legal reasoning behind the decisions. Instead, NOW has played an emotional card of “they’re attacking my religion”, which is false. The government has made a very clear stance on the right a religious group has to be involved in political affairs before no longer being given the privileges of a religious organization.
Basically, what this really comes down to is that religious organizations cannot have their political pie and eat their financial cake too. I wish that NOW could find and fully publish the findings of entire legally viable arguments against same-sex marriage. Currently, NOW is overtly calling for the government and Americans to commit acts of treason against the American population by demanding that the American Constitution be violated in favor of religious persecution.
Bernard: … “religious liberty and freedom of conscience” is not worth much in the secular marketplace.
WOW! Such a frank admission! Just so you know, freedom of conscience and religion are the foundation of this country. That you would see that squashed in the name of identity politics exposes much.
Vast: I do revile anyone who would attempt to force their religious beliefs onto others.
You mean like the example of the “gay couple” forcing the photographer, or the fertility doctor as mentioned in the post?
This site does a great job of framing their argument, but it fails to see that this is being narrow minded. The teachings are to love one another, but the pedestal religious people put themselves upon would I am sure be frowned on by those they worship.
I apologize. I repeatedly used the wrong acronym in my post. Any reference to “NOW” was meant for “NOM”. Again, I’d like to see NOM use legally sound arguments rather than what amounts to emotional blackmail.
Chairm,
You repeatedly state “live and let live” and yet your stance against same-sex marriages is contradicting your statement there, as you decidedly wish to not allow other individuals to live as they choose to live…within the legal protections of marriage.
And before you go on about “love” and “procreation” please research the many reasons in history that individuals were married, procreation was not the first, rather societal, financial, and political gain were the reasons individuals entered into a legal contract. Humans have procreated, not in unique situations, without the need to get married. The act of sex and the legal contract of marriage have no direct historical correlation. Marriage was around well before western religion.
Whereas, religious attitudes toward marriage have changed repeatedly in just the Christian religion over the last millennium.
To suggest that there is nothing special or unique about the union of two of the halves of humanity to create another life is absurd. We are born from man and woman. We are genetically part of man and woman. We have the genetic disposition to be raised by man and woman. To not protect and to place that union in an entirely different category, is to deny any religious or even Darwinian logic.
If two people want to get together and pay taxes, or write up a will, or visit each other in a hospital, I don’t think that is the issue. But to simply state that man-man or woman-woman is not fundamentally different, is devoid of any grasp of the species.
For Same Sex supporters to attempt to defame and bring down institutions which serve to support and protect the foundation of life, is the most selfish, arrogant and ignorant things I have ever heard of.
What I find interesting is that you chose to live in a society that holds separation of church and state as one of the founding principals, but then are surprised when the law actually upholds a secular view. I actually agree that people should be able to refrain from participating in activities that their religious beliefs preclude them from, however, please have the same respect for me and my beliefs.
Open your eyes, people, this country is in a morality war. The whole of the homosexual movement and focus is to change the moral values of this country and to destroy the family. Same sex “marriage” is just another assault tactic. I pray that governments across this great country see the homosexual movement for what it is, and not cave in to their gorilla tactics.
Jacob, the thing is that you are NOT representing what is “righteous and true” any more than the Ku Klux Klan is. You can wrap the Bible around you to rationalize your bigotry the same way bigots have for centuries (the Jews killed Christ, blacks are the decendants of Cain or the people or Nod or whatever spew needed to justify hate). Christians are INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. Jesus led his flock without condemnation and ALL were invited. It was, in fact ONLY those who claimed to be “righteous and true” that Jesus DID condemn.
What makes me sick is bigotry disguised as Christianity. This hatespew may be a lot of things, but it certainly is NOT Christian.
Muffy, it’s ALL and ONLY about sex. All their “talking points” boil down marriage existing only to enforce religiously-sanctioned sex. Human pair-bonding exists only for sex and sex exists only for procreation. There is no agape in their definition of marriage, only eros–and a crude, narrow definition of eros at that.
These are damaged people who insist on transferring their grotesque beliefs on others. They believe that marriage is nothing but sex so that’s what it must be for everyone else. Therefore, if it ain’t about procreation, it can’t be marriage.
Muffy and faboofour, your responses failed to clearly define “sexual orientation” such that it specifically applies to infertility treatment, photographing a wedding, providing counselling services, or policies based on unwed sexual behavior.
You did not address the fact that the man-woman criterion of marriage is constitutional in New Jersey and that civil union stipulates a same-sex criterion.
It would appear that you now also claim that, yes, SSM arugmentation removes the sexual aspect from SSM — and proposes to do the same for marriage.
* * *
The marketplace is not owned by the Government. Perhaps you would like it to be otherwise, I dunno, but you have provided nothing but your axiomatic assertion that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not worth much in the marketplace.
The marketplace is a huge part of civil society. Civil society is pluralistic, not sectarian as you propose with your peculair viewpoint.
Now, if you would cleary define “sexual orientation” such that it applied to the five points above, then, you might begin to show how you’d balance liberty against the extraordinary imposition of sectarianism that you wish the Government to implement.
* * *
faboofour, I have to ask the obvious question that always gets asked when right wingers go on about the procreation aspect. Are you also opposed to allowing infertile couples to marry? How about older couples, where the woman has already gone through menopause?
And no, this is not about sex - sex happens easily enough without marriage - its about equal rights. You have the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, claim exemptions on taxes, transfer your Social Security survivor’s benefits, or get insurance for your spouse without being taxed for it as additional income. LGBT people are just asking for the same thing.
I live in CA. Here allowing same sex marriages would have put homosexuals in a protected class (Class 1 along with race/ gender). That means I can no longer voice that marriage should be between a man and woman. If the civil laws wouldn’t infringe on personal beliefs and religious views, then we could cohabitant without reserve. I’m not stating being against homosexuals, but the ability to keep my and my fellow peers traditions and values safe and not have society force a moral on everyone. They should make civil marriages for all but let people have their personal values in businesses, schools, private organizations and (huge one) Religion. People have their own personal beliefs but most values are not forced upon you. I want to keep the ability to CHOSE and not have ideas forced for all. But then will homosexuals be happy with not wanting to marry in a church that doesn’t allow it, passed over by a heterosexual couple when adopting, paying child support for a child that is not theirs biologically, not being a “protected class” but have the same rules as everyone else. Please tell me why individuals should have their free agency taken away?
Here is a video everyone should check out. It specifically addresses all the items in the NOM video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20&feature=player_embedded
While I appreciate your efforts there are few ideas here that seem a little hypocritical to me. I oppose same sex marriage because I don’t believe that it should be taught in schools or that gyness is correct sexual behavior.
That said just as you don’t want them to impose their believes on you, I don’t want you to impose your religious believes on me. Trust me they are different.
I believe in each individual rights of freedom to choose. If you choose a profssion that deals with other people you have to deal with their individual rights and not impose your believes. Otherwise there are going to be a lot of taxi drivers without customers because they don’t dress peoperly or they have a bottle of alcohol or their face isn’t covered.
If you are a medical profession you do have to choose to practice medicine equally towards all or choose a different field. We can’t have people deciding who to save or not save. That is your believe being imposed on another’s right to choose.
The USA is about freedom for individuals and no one gets to take away someone’s else’s freedom.
In self defense, one has to chose between their believe in the 10 Commandments and breaking it. Is it better for me to kill you first or let you kill me? Only I can make that choice. There is no law telling me what to do. God’s law is to not kill. Human law is to chose which to do. And that is why the USA is great because it allows each one to make a choice.
The question is, What kind of America are you looking to have, a Christian Communist nation where one group tells another how to live? The Catholics already have that process. Are you joining forces with them?
Jesus didn’t heal everyone — only those that came and asked for healing. Are you willing to follow his example?
Sincerely,
“Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights”
To that, I say: GOOD!
Muffy asked: “Why the need to reduce this to sex?”
You tell me.
What is the sexual basis for demanding that SSM be merged with marital status? I see you can offer none.
But you do offer vague stuff that applies to all kinds of living arrangements and types of relationshps that are nonmarital. We draw lines around the core meaning of marriage.
What is the core meaning of SSM if it is not centrally something to do with sexual orienation — even though your demand lacks a sexual basis?
Muffy said: “your insistence that the litmus test for marriage eligibility involves the ability for the partners”
I did not say it was a litmus test.
I pointed to the marital presumption of paternity. Consent to all that marriage entails is a legal requirement. The marital presumption is that the husband is the father of the children born to his wife. That is based on a public aspect of a sexual relationship that is opposite-sexed.
Now, there is nothing comparable that would make SSM a type of public sexual relationship.
Marriage unites fatherhood and motherhood. SSM, where children are involved, segregates fatherhood and motherhood.
fabfoor said: “They believe that marriage is nothing but sex so that’s what it must be for everyone else.”
Well, to hear the advocates of SSM, with their hyped emphasis on sexual orientation, your description fits them, not marriage defenders.
But given your objection to the sexual basis for marriage, then, I suppose your view is that there should be NO boundaries based on a sexual aspect. Adult siblings, for example, would be eligible in your view, right?
And all unions of husband and wife would be treated like they were all-male or all-female — so abolish the marital presumption of paternity, is that right?
If not, in either question, why? You have rejected the sexual basis of marriage in your recent comments. You say equal rights like there are no legitimate limits on eligibility, but maybe you can be more substantive in your response.
Religion has no place in society. You have no right to tell people who to love or what to do.
Where is this website being run? Is it the United States? I just tried to post a comment and it appeared as being posted 1:34 pm on April 17. Currently, I am writing at around 9:34 am, eastern daylight savings time on April 17. The timing being given to this post makes it appear like this site is being run by someone outside of the United States. Please reveal where this is being run, and why the time stamp is the way it is. This is my second effort at getting this information from the moderator. The failure to reveal this information is disturbing and leaves the impression that this sight is being run from outside the United States in an effort to sow dissension in the United States.
These posters who are against Maggie Gallagher’s position are consistently proving Gallagher’s point. If the laws of marriage are changed, then those who disagree with same sex marriage will be forced to violate their own moral codes if they are in business or are adoption agencies. These critics of Maggies argue that those whose conscience is being violated ‘must obey the law if they want to do business in these states’. Precisely Maggie’s point. People who might wish homosexuals well, but DO NOT want to photograph their weddings or place adoptive children with them, will be either FORCED to do these things, or must shut down and leave the state. You all proved that what Maggie is arguing is absolutely true. And gays do not really want ‘live and let live’, they want those of us who believe their life style is wrong to be forced to accommodate and support it. What hypocrites.
Would you have an issue if a gay photographer decided to deny photographing a heterosexual marriage? Would you support the heterosexual couple suing that photographer?
Civil marriage should not be allowed to discriminate as it is a legal government supported contract. Religion has no place in being legislated.
Chairm,
You talk about the “core meaning of marriage” that “we” draw lines around. So tell me, succinctly, with both history and current law on your side: what is the “core meaning of marriage?”
Then you say “Marriage unites fatherhood and motherhood. SSM, where children are involved, segregates fatherhood and motherhood.”
Again — and we’ve been here before — how does this square with heterosexual marriages where no children are involved?
Your argument seems to be that marriage MUST consist of a couple CAPABLE of having children with each other. Okay…says who? Is that a law someplace? When people get married, do you REALLY think that that is ALWAYS the PRIMARY consideration?
If it isn’t then it is hardly the ironclad requirement you make it out to be. And even if it WERE, it’s totally arbitrary, as we know that families with adopted children and artificially inseminated children get along just dandy.
Muffy,
The core meaning of marriage is 1) sex integration, 2) contingency for responsible procreaton, and 3) these aspecs combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution).
These are expressed in the secular language of the laws of our pluralistic society.
The man-woman criterion is a legal requirement that is vigorously enforced. It stands for integrating the sexes both on the deepest private level and on the deepest public level. This is far more than merely a sexual romp in the hay. Sex differentiation is an objective truth; the nature of humankind is two-sexed. Marriage is not neutral about that.
The marital presumption of paternity is intrinsic to marital status and to the social institution as evidenced in our customs, traditions, and civic values. The consent to marry entails all of marraige, including this binding and vigorously enforced legal presumption that the husband is the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. This signifies that the union of husband and wife is a public sexual relationship. It stands for one of the universal features of marriage as a social institution throughout recored human history: the contingency for responsible procreation.
This is not any and all kinds of procreation. It is not a government mandate that each and every marriage create children. But it consent to this is entailed in the “I do” exchange for it provides the institutinalization of the first princple of responsible procreation: that each of us as part of a procreative duo is responsible for the children we create and bring into this world, barring dire circumstances or tragedy.
The marital presumption of paternity is one of the strongest aspects of our family law system even today, after decades of marriage being beaten-up.
And the third point from the short list above is that marriage is first and foremost a social institution of civil society. It is not created nor is it owned by Government. Society delegates a role to government — the role of regulating the protocols and parameter of the core meaning of this universal social institution.
Marriage is the foundational social institution — the most pro-child we have — and its core meaning is recognized and esteemed through a special status. Marital status is special — it flows from the societal preference for integrating the sexes, for responsible procretion, and for the unity of fatherhood and motherhood.
That preferential status is more than the protective status that SSMers demand when the talk of legal protections. Families which are outside of marraige are indeed vulnerable. That has lots more to do with the lack of the core meaning of marriage in such scenarios than it has with government and laws. So society does not encourage nonmarital trends through social policy. Instead, society may be obliged, and I think we are, to respond to certain vulnerabilities by extending protections on that basis. But this is not to merger nonmarriage with marriage.
When you suggest that the centrality of procreation must mean that Government intrude on all marriages and force people to procreate, you reveal a totalitarian impulse.
Likewise, when you suggest that if procreaton was central, then, Government would require positive proof of fertility before issuing a marital license.
Fertility is demonstrated through conception and childbearing. For Government to presume that all unions of husband and wife are nonfertile, like all one-sex-short arrangements, is absurd. Almost all marriages do have children. Most married people who experience infertility resolve their problems through changes in behavior — or through treatments that are not so intrusive. To screen out the people who try but do not procreate, or to screen out those who intend not to procreate but mayu actually procreate anyway, well, you’d have to imagine some kind of all-knowing and omnipresent Government Fertility Squad roaming the countryside.
Peering into the marital bedroom the way such a scheme would require, just would not serve the marriage idea of “in sickness and in health” nor would it serve responsible procreation. It would, however, impose premarital sexual relations and premarital childbearing just to demonstrate fertility.
The absurdity of your question is thus another example of how SSM argumentation includes the totalitarian impulse which would not flinch at suppressing freedom of conscience and religious liberty.
Chairm, you say:
“The core meaning of marriage is 1) sex integration, 2) contingency for responsible procreaton, and 3) these aspecs combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution).
“These are expressed in the secular language of the laws of our pluralistic society.”
Examples? Like I said, if you’re going to boil marriage down to a set of immutable core principles — so as to exclude those who do not meet the criteria — you need to get beyond these vague statements.
My point is that the marriage commitment IS vague. It encompasses all sorts of principles, and none of them are so “core” that they have not been excluded in heterosexual marriages during the past. And let’s not even start on marriages based on political or financial considerations, or those where mistresses have been openly taken in order to conceive an heir.
“The marital presumption of paternity is one of the strongest aspects of our family law system even today, after decades of marriage being beaten-up.”
Evidence, please. Again, it’s you who believes you can distill marriage to its core, so support your conclusion.
“When you suggest that the centrality of procreation must mean that Government intrude on all marriages and force people to procreate, you reveal a totalitarian impulse.”
Wha…wha…HUH? When did I suggest anything even APPROACHING that? You are the one insisting on the importance of procreation, not me.
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you misread my comments. Otherwise, please provide quotations.
Great news!
In Sweden it is considered a “hate crime” to speak against homosexuality in the public forum or a church. Just imagine if YOUR bigotry were prosecuted as a crime. Free speech is protected in our country, but we could face a future without bigotry, such as you promote, if we could take Sweden’s enlightened approach. I would imagine Swedish children don’t grow up to be bigoted against gays and lesbians. They GET it….!
Chairm:
Hate to tell you this, but “totalitarian impulse which would not flinch at suppressing freedom of conscience and religious liberty.”
And yet a few blog posts below, there is desire to override people’s choices in vermont, court’s decision in Iowa(Court is appointed, by those who are elected, BY THE PEOPLE).
Many churches also believe in, and perform Marriage, so even if people are not married by the state, they are married before the eyes of God, which is a far higher power than the state and your twisted beliefs.
Would you say to a church that performs Marriages that “You are wrong and are destroying my religious liberties by existing!” or would you actually admit that you are destroying their religious liberties by encouraging the state to override the rule of God?
Rules are Rules and Laws are Laws…. stop whining you bigots … what if the photographer was a White Supremist instead of a Straight Supremist… and refused to photograph a couple and told them it was because one of them was black?
Or how about a Doctor who refused to help a white woman get preggers with a black man’s sperm?
You know the White Supremists use the bible, god and religion to justify their bigotry as well.
Gay and Bi Adults are EQUAL and as good as these straight bigots at NOM.
Muffy, I did list the most obvious examples in my previous comment.
If you deny the marital presumption of paternity, then, read marriage statutes and read the case law. Your lack of knowledge on this point should really caution against trying to dismiss the core meaning of marriage as you have here.
Your latest comment strongly suggests that you deny there is a public meaning of marriage. It is all privatized, right?
If so, then, what is the point of marital status? How would you propose that society distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage? What are the definitive legal requirements that would survive the rules of the pro-SSM side’s arguments?
Not love. Not romance. Not even sexual behavior or sexual attraction. No legal requirements for SSM on those points — not anyplace where it has been imposed.
I have not suggested that government force people to procreate.
The pro-SSM anti-procreation argument would insist that for procreation to be central, it must be mandated by a legal requirement that makes it compulsory for each and every marriage.
The importance of provision for responsible procreation is at issue. You act like you are deaf, blind, and dumb to it.
Except to deny the core meaning of marriage. And to leave it hollow and empty through a merger with nonmarriage.
Yeh, you might emphasize the gay version of nonmarital arrangements, but you haven’t distinguished that version from the rest of the nonmarital category.
Joey, why do you call my beliefs “twisted”? I bet you can’t even restated my stated beliefs.
Please give it a shot and I’ll either confirm, correct, or elaborate.
Meanwhile, Vermont’s public opinion remains in favor of the man-woman criterion of marriage.
And, the Iowa Court’s recent pro-SSM opinion (its reasoning) is an abuse of judiciala review. It is detatched from the state constitution, the statutes, the common sense of marriage case law, and far removed from public opinion in that state.
If someone chooses a one-sexed arrangement, that’s a liberty exercised and not a right denied. People can make private arrangements for private relationships.
If people want to have ceremonies and call such arrangements a special thing on par with marriage, that’s up to them. As SSMers keep insisting, religious claims don’t decide public policy.
If your remark is meant to claim that the only good religious sectarianism is the kind that is pro-SSM, then, you concede the point I’ve made about the SSM campaign being about a peculair sectarianism. It is just about imposing identity politics and not really about liberty.
If you are going to talk about protections, then, you don’t need marital status which is a preferential status; you need a protective status, perhaps. Provision for designated beneficiaries has long existed across the country.
But. given your comments above, can you at least try to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage? Can you at least distinguish the particular type of one-sexed arrangement that you have in mind — from the rest of the nonmarital category?
I expect you cannot — not if you depend on the pro-SSM claims of the Vermont Legislators or the nonjudicial reasoning of the Iowa court opinion.
But you might do better than they and plainly state the core of this one-sexed arrangement such that it can be recognized and not confused with other nonmarital arrangements.
Remember, given the pro-SSM arugment you just tried to make, you cannot depend on the arbitary use of governmental power and authority. So who would you excude, if any, as nonmarriageable? And please justify the denial of “marriage equality” where you’d exclude some people but not all people.
Chairm, your right to an extent. Civil marriage is meant mainly to promote an organized society and create a system of inheritance. This system would be strengthened by allowing Same Sex Marriage. The only reason anyone can give for denying same sex marriage is religion, and religion has no business being involved in dictating politics.
The Iowa Court verdict does not step outside of our state constitution. It upholds the equality clause of the constitution that was violated by teh statute banning same-sex marriage.
Vast, what is the basis of the Iowa Court’s decision if NOT “romantic and sexual attraction”?
When you refer to “Same Sex Marriage”, how do you expect the law to distinguish it from nonmarriage? What is its core meaning and what are the legal requirements that define that meaning for society?
Lacking this, the Iowa Court opinion (its reasoning) skipped right past staututory law and brushed the state constitution aside.
I’m still waiting for answers to my questions from Charim. But, in the meantime I have another question. Since you are concerned that a CA doctor would face consequences for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman, and I have a question regarding this situation. Let’s say a Jewish doctor decided they could not artificially inseminate an infertile Mormon woman, because this doctor did not agree with the Mormon “lifestyle” and refused to particpate in expanding the Mormon population? Would you support this Jewish doctor, who is acting out of their religious faith? Isn’t this the very same scenario you are describing in your NOM commercial? It seems logical that you would defend the Jewish doctor, who is acting out of their personal religious freedom…
To Mike, I’d like to say that, although I respect his opinion, I have to disagree about the future of marriage for gay men. I feel that one of the reasons gay men have a reputation for going from one relationship to another is the fact that our relationships have never been taken seriously by society. When there is no societal recognition or expectation for stability, why would we then act responsibly and try to work out our relationships when conflict issues arise? It is too easy to move on to another partner. And, every gay person knows people who have been forced to “hide” their partners in the interest of fitting in with society. I’ve done it myself just to protect my privacy. Those days are over for me, now that I’m legally married in California. WHEN we finally get full federal rights equal in every respect to straight marriages, I have a strong feeling that things will change, and we will start to get the respect we deserve as human beings, and people might take our relationships seriously, including us. I think the CA Supreme Court recognized this in their ruling last May when they said that “nomenclature” mattered, and that nobody in society would treat “domestic partners” with the same respect as “married couples.” I totally agree, and this is the reason I decided to marry my partner in Oct; we didn’t bother to register as domestic partners before that, even though we could have. We both considered it a “waste of time” with no real benefit to us… We also personally know gay male couples who are adopting children because they are now legally married, and have the option to raise a family with the legal benefits associated with that. I hope someday Mike will meet that special someone, and be afforded the thrill and lifechanging milestone that occurred to me last May. He may change his tune. (I also hope he changes his tune about guns. I couldn’t disagree more on that issue).
Everyone should know that NOM is a front organization for the Mormon Church. I first noticed it when I saw that this website was clearly designed by the same people that designed the Protect Marriage site during the California Prop 8 battle. They didn’t even disguise it…
This site tells the full story: http://www.mormongate.com
Dan, I haven’t seen questions from you addressed to me.
But I see you asked about another scenario that is not closely analogous with the doctor whose beliefs are against segregating fatherhood and motherhood. It is not because the unwed woman is “lesbian” but that she is an unwed woman and a child would have no father — deliberately through IVF.
This is not a medical treatment for saving a life or treating an illness, unless in your view lesbianism is an illness or a life-threatening condition that a “donor’s” sperm might cure … ?
Now you can try to analogize membership in a religion with gay identity politics, but again that demonstrates the peculiar sectarianism being asserted by SSMers.
* * *
Wherever gay union has been imposed or enacted — including the localized versions in some US states and in a handful of countries — the participation rate is very low and decreasing.
Maybe participation rates are irrelevant to the complaint made by the SSM campaign. If so, please explain why.
Chairm, you use the word “imposed” regarding gay marriage. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
…but then again, when have opponents of gay marriage/civil unions ever bothered with logic?
The scientific facts show how many people are incapable of even the most basic discussion of homosexuality. They refer to it as a “sexual preference” or a “lifestyle,” though both these terms are as nonsensical as saying that a person has a “handedness preference” or that someone is leading the “left-handed lifestyle.” If you can’t comprehend the difference between a “lifestyle” and a sexual orientation, you’ll never come out with the correct solution to the question of gay rights. And for those people who can’t comprehend sexual orientation, who think sexual orientation is somehow weirdly “chosen,” who are terrified of the empirical, clinical fact that homosexuals and left-handed people simply have biological givens, the impact of this research is, unfortunately, terrifying. It renders ideologues on both sides of the political aisle apoplectic and irrational. The socially conservative far Right is so terrified of gay rights that it clings desperately to a demonstrable falsehood. This comes from this article:
http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html
Chairm, here’s a question for you: If it is someday PROVEN scientifically that nobody chooses their sexual orientation (I think it already HAS been proven, but the conservative religious folks don’t agree), would you change your mind, and support gay rights? Or, would you still cling to the false belief that gay people can change at any point, and “choose” a heterosexual lifestyle?
Dan, your presume far more than the scientific evidence can support. You are over-reaching.
In your remarks you display a devotion identity politics through and through.
More liberals and moderates, combined, have voted for state marriage initiatives than have conservatives, in absolute numbers.
Likewise, more Democrats and Independents, than Republicans, have cast votes for marriage initiatives.
The support for marriage cuts across religious lines, irreligious lines, and ideological and partisan lines. Yet you’d herd people into just two factions — those you love, based on group identity, and those you detest, based on your assumption of group identity.
In your responses to my comments you have avoided discussion of the principles involved. That’s another sign that you overly depend on emotivism rather than the use of reason. You seem to rationalize without a rational basis for your opinion.
I support human rights and constitutional rights. There is no such thing as “gay” rights — some set of rights assigned to a group.
When it comes to marriage, the cloying claim of discrimination (just or unjust) based on gayness has no merit. There is no gay requirement where gay union has been imposed on the legal system. There is nothing like that in the marriage laws, either.
It is not about choosing a lifestyle, Dan, but about choosing marriage or a nonmarital alternative.
Gay union lacks the core meaning of marriage. Indeed. its proponents make no secret that they oppose the core meaning of marriage and seek to gut it.
What is the core meaning of gay union, Dan, such that you could distinguish gay union from other kinds of nonmarital living arrangements or other types of nonmarital relationships?
And the legal requirements that would define that core, Dan? And your justification, if any, for excluding some people but not all people?
The marriage issue is NOT gay vs straight, NOT homo- vs hetero-sexual orientatoin, and is NOT about your various assertions regarding this or that scientific evidence.
I will point out that homosexual people have entered marriage (union of husband and wife) and this proves that the marriage law — the man-woman criterion — does NOT bar people based on gayness.
And at the same time, most children, by far, living in same-sex households migrated from the opposite-sex relationships of one or the other parent. These children have moms and dads, even if one or the other is nonresident. The legal marital presumption of paternity applies regardless of sexual orientation. Again, this is proof that the core meaning marriage does NOT discriminate on the basis of gayness or sexual orientation.
Maybe you would prefer to denounce all such marriages for no better reason that stereotypes and your continued insistence on herding people based on identity politics. That would be unjustly discriminatory on your part.
Roger, what does “impose” mean to you in regard to “gay marriage”?
Please use logic to explain your meaning.
Go Chairm! Excellently said!
‘– A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.
‘
It doesn’t become right to screw someone over because that person was gay
‘– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.’
She didn’t do her job so she got fired!!! ho crap!! The unfairness of it all!!!
‘– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.’
Yet again, discriminated and failed to do their job so they got fired, wow how surprising…
‘– A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.’
who really wants to recognize a group of neo nazis anyway?’
There is a word to describe all of this: Discrimination
Here in the states, If you discriminate you get your just desserts…… for the most part….sometimes..
Everyone has freedom of religion and to believe what they want but in a country were church is separate from state you have no right to take away rights of any other group of people.
It sucks that Black people, Women, and now Gays have to fight for liberties that everyone else has. People like you are making everything worse. I’m not talking about Christians in general. I know that despite this stereo type that this group is feeding, there are tolerant, decent Christians. I’m talk about all the groups of people out there who think the world revolves around them, and their ideas.
This is the 21st century for petes sake, I wasn’t expecting a utopia, but at least that everyone could just get along!
By the way, you know who else hated gays! Hitler! But I’m sure you knew that. I’ll bet money you have a shrine of him in your closet or something…
Dan,
Please do not suggest that this country should impose hate speech laws such as the ones currently in effect in Canada and much of Western Europe. They would be an unforgivable evisceration of the First Amendment, protector of one of our most sacred rights.
And also one of the few guaranteed protections that really sets us apart as a nation. I certainly don’t agree with message of the types who run this website, but, to paraphrase Voltaire (or his biographer), “I’d defend to the death their right to say it.”
The practical implications of allowing such laws to pass run much deeper than most realize. Sure, right now it sounds like it would be great to silence the NOMmers, but political and social winds can change pretty quickly. The line between “hate speech” and legitimate dissent can, when framed in certain ways, be quite blurry.
Also, from a strategic point of view, it’s never done anyone any good to silence their critics through censorship. It does, however, give voice and bluster to many who would defend your critics, but who would otherwise remain silent.
In conclusion: NOM and its anti-marriage cohorts should be entirely free to say what they wish about the issue. We, in return, should be entirely free to expose their arguments as foolish and baseless.
Charim, You are so out of touch with reality as to make your arguments simply laughable. Gay people simply want the right that you take for granted to marry the person they love, that’s it. Gay people could care less about “imposing” anything on anyone. Your argument about taking away religious freedoms is so completely out in left field as to again be incoherent. How does any gay marriage intere with the rights of anyone to worship as they please? PLEASE explain this, since it is one of your core arguments. It simply holds no water. As has been stated over and over, EVERY state that has legalized gay marriage as said the same thing: NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO MARRY ANY SAME SEX COUPLES, period. What is it about this that is so difficult to understand, or in any way unclear? NO CHURCH WILL BE FORCED TO MARRY GAY PEOPLE. So, where is the infrigement or imposition on the religious freedoms of others? Please explain this. It seems logical to me that YOU are trying to impose YOUR beliefs on gay people by preventing them from marrying based on YOUR personal OUTDATED, BIBLICAL beliefs….
And, I could care less about what that poltical affiliations are of people who agree with your opinion. In fact, I’ll go even further and say that it doesn’t matter to me what the “majority” of Americans think about this issue. Civil rights shouldn’t be a popularity contest. This should be decided by courts and/or legislatures and should never have been put to a vote to begin with. This is where California went off the mark, and will also be the reason gay marriage will remain the law in Iowa. The voters of Iowa will not have the final word on this issue, and they SHOULDN’T….
I hope you will be comfortable being branded a “bigot” in about ten years, when gay marriage IS the law of the land, because that’s what you are…
Isn’t it ironic that NOM has chosen a black couple to represent them, when the Mormon Church officially practiced racist policies against blacks until the US government threatened to cut off their tax exempt status? They church leadership had a sudden “ephipany” from god that blacks were OK and should be allowed to participate in the church. Now, blacks have become their poster children… Ironic, isn’t it? Do you think gay married couples will eventually share the same status once gay marraige becomes the law?
This is from Chairm:
Likewise, more Democrats and Independents, than Republicans, have cast votes for marriage initiatives.
So, you’re saying that more Democrats than Republicans have voted for pro-marriage equality intitiatives? DUH! Doesn’t seem obvious, that more Democrats would support marriage rights for all citizens? Brian, your points are pointless…..
This was my favorite bumper sticker during the Prop 8 fight in CA. Unfortunately, it wasn’t mass produced, at least I only saw it once:
“PROTECT MARRIAGE, VOTE NO ON PROP 8!”
Kind of sums it up. If Prop 8 had been defeated, marriage would have been protected… Now, fewer Californians will be able to enjoy the thrill, and joy of devoting one’s self to another through marriage (I took those vows in October, and have every expectation that the Supreme Court will affirm and uphold our marriage)….
I didn’t realize that NOM supported censorship. I wrote a civil, thoughtful post that address Maggie Gallagher’s misrepresentation of the cases in the “gathering storm” ad, as well as highlighting the fact that the “impositions on religious liberty” that Maggie claims marriage equality will impose, already exist in the context of differing faiths etc.
For an organization that is constantly whining about not being able to have an open and civil discussion on these issue, it is extremely hypocritical to censor comments in this manner. Shame on you.
Here’s a quote from Chairm:
I will point out that homosexual people have entered marriage (union of husband and wife) and this proves that the marriage law — the man-woman criterion — does NOT bar people based on gayness.
So, it is clear that NOM is an organization that promotes dishonesty and lying to people rather than telling the truth.
This quote from this article http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.htmlsums up Chairm’s approach to gays who want to marry:
A closeted gay man who, hiding from the world, marries a woman and secretly has sex with men isn’t “bisexual”; he’s homosexual and closeted and living in a society that pressures him into lying to this woman, to his co-workers, and to his family to camouflage his true nature. He’s engaging in heterosexual behavior in order to fool the outside, but he’s not heterosexual in any way.
So, Chairm, is this how you have hidden YOUR true nature? As I said in another post, the real issue the NOM folks have is not gay marriage, it’s homosexuality. They would prefer that homosexuals accept their Mormon teachings, and “change” their sexual orientation to agree with their religious views. So, where is the religious freedom for those who don’t agree that homosexuality is a sin, or don’t believe in ANY religion, and therefore have no problem with homosexuality? It seems to me that YOU are imposing on THEM, not vice versa. You will always be free to be in a heterosexual marriage (even if you are gay yourself and choose a “fake” heterosexual marriage). Nothing is being imposed or forced on you. The imposition is on those who live their lives as openly gay or lesbian, and do not have the freedom to marry their same sex partner. Stop trying to accuse the wrong side for lying, it is YOU people that are lying… This is a sin, and your god will be the ultimate judge…
Sorry, that link didn’t work. Here it is again:
http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html
The Catholic church, for all its failings, has had a more enlightened approach towards homosexuality than most religious groups. They view sexual orientation, gay and straight, as innate and unchangeable. Where they go off the mark is that they advise gay people to live a celibate life, with no relationships of ANY kind. At least they are more sensible in this regard, because, unlike the Mormons, they see that it is harmful to the potential heterosexual spouses and their children for the gay person to pretend to be straight. The psychological damage caused by these sorts of “false” relationships are all encompassing, and affect not only the gay person, who is pretending to be straight, but can cause life-long irreparable damage to the children and spouses of these individuals if the gay spouse decides to terminate the marriage. For the Mormon church to promote this kind of “false” lifestyle, is reprehensible, and they ought to be ashamed.
I think the NOM is confusing freedom of religion with freedom of bigotry. What the constitution protects is religious expression. I think in a case like the New Mexico case with the photographer for instance, all the court is saying is that your religious convictions may forbid you from serving some kinds of people as clients, but that’s not a form of religious expression that’s protected. Refusing to serve someone is just not religious expression. Or, on the other hand, if it is, then it’s not a form of expression that’s protected. In that case one right, the right to religious expression, gives way to another right, the right to be free from discrimination in a business setting.
I guess what I’m saying is that these kinds of things either are not religious expression (show me a prayer book that says that not photographing gay people is an important ritual), or even if you take a really liberal interpretation of what religious expression is, this is not a form of religious expression that’s so compelling that it should trump other people’s rights.
So wait, you’re saying that freedom of religion is not absolute? You’re saying that freedom of religion gives way to other freedoms in some cases? You’re saying that the gay rights movement actually is chipping away at our religious freedom? Well yes, if you want to say that discriminating against gay people is a religious freedom. But religious freedom is not an absolute right. There are lots of cases where people’s religious freedoms give way to other interests. What if peyote is a part of your religion? What if your religion requires to perform human sacrifice? The Christian right doesn’t want to hear it, but there are limits even to religious freedom.
I see my comment pointing out Chairm’s circular logic and other severe logical flaws (logical fallacies, nonsensical leaps, etc.) did not make cut and get posted. BIG surprise.
I love it when people who haven’t got a clue about other peoples religious beliefs want to denigrate them! If you want to be gay, have at it but don’t tell me about how Jesus would think because if you ever read the Bible, the whole Bible, you would know why Christians are against the gay lifestyle,yes I said lifestyle, let me illustrate…. Romans Chapter.26-32 is a fine example. Don’t use religion or the Bible as a crutch for your argument if you know nothing about it! This is my opinion and I’m sure I’ll be trashed just like Miss California because you say Christians are Intolerant but, it is the Left Wingers who really can’t stand a differing opinion. You label everyone whom you disagree with as racist or bigoted when you are loosing the argument! You can’t force me to believe in something I don’t !
Here are a few of the cases NOM cites in their ad.
- Benitez v. The North Coast Women’s Care Med Group of San Diego
- Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association v. NJ Div of Civil Rights
- David Parker parent at Joseph Estabrook Elem School in Lexington, Massachusetts
The sanctity of marriage? Why do we never see groups such as NOM protesting the Drive Thru Wedding Chapels in Vegas. Where is the uproar at the Liz Taylor’s and Britney Spear’s who get married as casually as buying a new bathing suit?
Please don’t blindly believe this 60 second ad of the “dark gay storm clouds”. It is just a fear tactic. Please research the actual cases.
Dan, there is no love requirement and there is no right to marry based on “love”.
But you assert there is. Okay, now, what kind of love? Is it mandatory? If love wanes, does the government revoke the special status that, you say, is based on “love”?
You probably will return to the emphasis on sexual attraction and romance. Again, no legal requirement.
You say, “Gay people could care less about “imposing” anything on anyone.”
And yet here you are repeatedly arguing for branding people and on and on.
As for cluelessness, you just propped up your strawman again: “intere with the rights of anyone to worship”.
None of the examples are about that. You seem unclear about this. So much so that your remarks belie a willful obtuseness rather than simple incompetence.
You have now said: tht you “could care less about what that poltical affiliations are of people who agree with your opinion.”
Yet you have been harping about political affiliation throughout your comments on this blogsite.
For example, just a couple of comments earlier you did just that.
Identity politics is on display in your overheated reactions.
Your anti-Mormon ranting and your puffed-up fantasy of a sectarian clash has illustrated where you begin and that signals the end of the conversation.
The absolutist impulse of the pro-SSM campaign’s gay identity politics repeated shows just how much it has in common with racist identity politics that unjustly used marriage as cover for a nonmarraige purpose.
Two words: HIPPOCRATIC. OATH.
Yes, you have freedom of religion. But here’s the catch - you can enjoy all the freedoms you want, as long as you aren’t infringing upon someone else’s rights in the process.
Rights aren’t a finite resource, people. Just because one group is gaining some rights doesn’t mean another group is losing them.
Chairm,
What scares me about your comments is that you really believe the nonsense you are spewing. You claim marriage isn’t about love. Is that so? Then, what is it about? As far as I can tell, I married my partner because we love each other and want to spend our lives together, and have all the rights and governmental benefits that come from this legal union. And, it meant something to have a ceremony to proclaim our love to one another in front of friends and family. If you can’t understand that, then I feel sorry for you. If you are married, does your wife know that you didn’t marry out of love, but rather for a some other societal and or religious reasons? Granted, there are cultures where marriage IS about the union of families, and for financial reasons, and where love doesn’t matter, but in our culture I assume people marry because they love each other and want to build a family together. I view my spouse and I as a family, and if we were to decide to expand our family by adopting children, then I would hope that the government would recognize our family and provide us with all the legal recognitions and benefits we deserve. You are so obsessed with something other than the fact that marriage is a union of two adults who love one another that you simply can’t look past your religious and cultural prejudices. And, I stand by my anti-Mormon rants. Do you know why? This group of people has done their best to try to oppress gays and deny us rights. The reality is that they would as soon exterminate us rather than give us marriage rights. What are they afraid of? Do they honestly think that they will lose their right to wear their magic underwear, have their celestial marriages, and force dead people to be Mormons? They will always have these rights, it is protected. They also will have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples. So, what is their fear? PLEASE answer me. What religious freedom with they lose when gay couples are married in city hall, or in a church that allows same sex marriage? Their notion that they will lose relgiious freedoms is simply preposterous and without ANY merit whatsoever. Absurdly paranoid… And, to think that school children might learn that gay people get married. i have news for you, school children already know this. Is there ANY child ANYWHERE that has not heard about gay marriage yet? If so, where? Are they buried under a rock, or living on a Mormon compound with no television and no communication with the outside world? I have always found it ironic that the Mormon church wants to control the lives of others, and yet they escaped to Utah and set up their compound just for that very reason. They, of all groups, should understand the meaning of “freedom.” Gays want the freedom to marry, and that’s all. We could care less what your kids learn in school, and we could care less if we can’t marry in a Mormon temple, or Catholic church. And, if we had hired a homophobic person to photograph our wedding, I would have been more than happy to get another photographer. Who wants a bigot present on the most meaningful day in their lives? . So, stop trying to change the argument with your smoke screen of “religious freedoms” being taken away. You will lose NOTHING. Get over your fears. Did allowing interracial marriage in any way prevent you from marrying a person of the same race? No, of course not, and you will lose nothing by allowing same sex couples to marry either. It affects MY life, and NOT your life, so stop promoting this false concept that it affects your life. It doesn’t…. Fearmongering is all it is, and it isn’t even factual at that. You leave out important details, like the fact the New Jersey case was about discrimination based on sexual orientation NOT same sex marriage. If you don’t like the fact that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against in certain states, then go after those laws, but you will lose on that account for sure…
Nope, Dan, it is the special rule of the pro-SSM side that if something is NOT a legal requirement, then, it is NOT essential to marriage.
You are among the SSMers who have repeatedy invoked such a rule when you discuss procreation.
Now, if you were honest, you would test yur own claims with the same rule.
There is no love requirement. You admit that, right?
So according to your own argument: “marriage isn’t about love.”
You ask me what it is about. I have pinted to the core meaning of marriage, which you reject because you don’t favor marriage but you do favor some other thing.
YOu reject sex integration and responsible procreation. Yet there are legal requirements for both.
Your latest comment reveals, again, that you are unserious about legal requirements.
It is nonsense to point to the government benefits that flow from the core of marriage if you reject that core. So, no, marital status is NOT defined by what flows from it; it is defined by its core — and that you openly reject.
First and foremost, marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society. Government does not own marriage nor does it own civil society. You’d claim the opposite. But gay union is a government creation and it is NOT a foundational social institution of civil society.
Indeed, gay union lacks coherency. You have yet to distinguish it from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Claiming that is a kind of marriage is to claim a falsehood for you have not shown how you distinguish marriage from nonmarriage; nor how that distinction applies to gay union.
We are discussing a public sexual relationship. You cannot point any legal requirement that makes gay union a public sexual relationship and yet you keep returnign to sexual orientation. There is no public sexual aspect to gay union.
So you depend entirely on identity politics of the gay variety. Maybe you think that is benign, but it is proving to be totalitarian.
I realize that this totalitarian impulse of yours arises from some deep-seated fear of being unaccepted by the wider society. Your hatred of Mormons is an example of a fear that is irrational, at base, but to which you cling and attempt to transform into a club with which to bash people.
Your attempted analogy with “interracial” marriage fails because there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Marriage arises from this. Pressing racist identity politics into marriage law was unjust — there was no flaw in marriage but rather in the nonmarriage purpose of white supremacy.
Now you insist on pressing a different kind of identity politic sinto the marriage law but for much the same reason: to innoculate your gay identity politics from opposition and dissent.
It is your pro-SSM campaign which has broaden the conflict into one of religious liberty versus “live and let live”. And, by the way, freedom of conscience is not an exclusively religious liberty. There are fine substantive reasons to support the man-woman basis of marriage that are not dependant on religious doctrines.
You are promoting a peculair sectarianism in the name of what … precisely?
You equated civil union and marriage, when discussing the New Jersey case, as did other SSMers in this blogsite’s comment sections. That made the case about a false equivalence.
The tax exemption at issue was based on a program for conservation and recreation uses of private property.
Civil union ceremonies are not such a use. Sexual orientation is irrelevant because in NJ marriages are two-sexed, as per the high court’s recent ruling that the marriage law is constitutinoal. ON the other hand, according to the statutory law of NJ, civil union is one-sexed.
So if you want nto claim this was about sexual orientation, you need to show the public sexual aspect of the use of the private property. You can’t. You won’t. You’ll dodge and pretend that civil union is the equivalent of marriage, right?
If the church pavilion was used for a wedding, then the wedding falls under recreation, I am assuming, since it is not conservation. If wedding falls under recreation, then so would civil unions. What is so hard to understand about that, chairm? The hairs you are trying to split are rather irrelevant due to prior use and the nature of prior use. Not even sure what you are actually trying to drive at anymore. Doesn’t really hold water, and he Jersey courts agreed with me.
This quote comes from a BYU (Mormon school) professor in support of gay marriage. The full article can be read at:
http://www.affirmation.org/news/2006_46.shtml
To say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.
Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence. In our pluralistic democracy, attempting to restrict an individual’s rights and privileges based upon a religious claim is a dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers’ wise insight, and it should be unacceptable to all Americans.
I think this organization needs a new Chairm. Your arguments are so off the wall, and are not expressed in plain English. You continue to use over and over the same phrases that are nearly incomprehensible, and sound as if you are reciting something that you were “trained” to say, rather than expressing a lucid point of view. You use this phrase over and over and over and over: identity politics , can you please explain what the hell that means?
It seems that YOU are the one that is labelling everyone and sterotyping everyone. As I said on another of your blogs, my legal California marriage license says “Party A” and “Party B,” and nobody could identify our gender without reading our names, and please tell me if Chris and Chris is a same sex or opposite sex couple. Stop trying to pigeon-hole everyone into a category. We want EQUAL treatment for our families. That’s all. It is OUR family that is seeking the marriage license. We don’t want nor need your personal approval, or even your understanding. Obviously, your tiny biblical brain isn’t capable of understanding love between same sex couples, so why even try? No, all we want is to be left alone to live our lives as a committed married couple, and have the legal means to protect our relationship. For the few months that same sex marriage was legal in our state each and every couple who was married was EQUAL. We weren’t straight couples, or gay couples, we were married couples. Is that so hard to comprehend? Equality… Your desparate attempt to subvert an entire population is most disturbing, and in ten or twenty years when the entire country has gay marriage you will seem like an ancient fossil. May we both live long enough to see the day. Will you promise to “get over” your obsession with this non-issue? You appear like a playground bully now, and it’s most unbecoming… Live and let live. I will still be married to my wonderful husband, and there will be nothing you can do about it. Does that frustrate you? Does it make you fearful? Does it in some way threaten your own marriage? What’s your problem, then? You seem to take this very personally, and there is some deepseated issue that you have not addressed. I’m certain of it. You should seek professional help. The general population under 30 tseem to believe that those against gay marriage are completely ignorant, and are hanging onto draconian biblical beliefs that should have no part in our government, which was set up on the principal that no religion would dominate our laws. You are advocating that the majority subvert the minority. Well, sorry, that’s not the America I want to live in…. As tempting as it is to move to Canada, we prefer to stay here and fight for our equality…. America will eventually follow Canada’s lead. May it come sooner rather than later…
One more thing, why do you keep bringing up procreation when it comes to marriage? I know lots of heterosexual couples who have never had the slightest interest in having children, and yet they are married. And, conversely I know several single parents who have no interest in getting married,despite the fact that they have biological children. Why do you insist on making this a core of your argument? It’s a non-issue, as far as I’m concerned. People can have kids out of wedlock, and wedlock does not necessitate childrearing. They are mutually exclusive as far as I can tell. Leave this out of the argument, please, as it has no place here. Procreation is a separate issue…
I just realized that this New Jersey case you cited had nothing to do with sexual orientation, nor civil unions, but rather that they were using the facility for something that was not conservation or recreational in nature. OK, then you have just blown your whole argument completely out of the water that the church was sued because the couple seeking to use the facility was same sex! Oh my god, you just admited that the case had nothing to do with a same sex union or even sexual orientation. Then, please explain why you use this as a fear tactic when it comes to “religious freedoms.” Is anyone else listening to this? He has just refuted that the New Jersey case was in ANY way related to same sex issues. It was because they weren’t using it for recreation or conservation that they were denied…. You, Chairm, just admitted that this was all a lie to scare people. Religious freedoms were never an issue…. This is BIG news. I need to contact some news agencies. Bye for now…
So, Chairm,
What’s your response to this rebuttal of ALL your arguments in your latest “brilliant” TV ad?
“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”
The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
The real facts of each case are:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
Dan your comments are full of trite bumper stickers and slogans that have been fed to you by the SSM campaign. You have said nothing subtantive in response to the challenges put to you in this discussion.
Your latest remarks stand as your concession that you have nothing better to offer.
Dan said: “We weren’t straight couples, or gay couples, we were married couples.”
You have not distinguished marriage from the nonmarriage category.
You have not distinguished gay union from the nonmarriage category.
You have not shown that there is a publis sexual aspect to the relationship type that you have in mind when you use the word, “marriage”.
But you continue to emphasize sexual orientation.
Dan said, “once you get past the emotion”
You have done nothing but hype emotion in your varius comments. Your namecalling is just the tip of that iceberg.
You rely on emotivism, not on reason, and that contradicts your own stated standard.
Dan, you claimed there was sexual discrimination discrimination in the NJ case.
The accusation stands refuted by your own realization that’s not what happened.
Instead, identity politics was asserted as a trump card against freedom of conscience and religious liberty.
Now, you still haven’t identified the public sexual aspect of the ceremony nor its direct connection to environmental conservation and/or recreation. You are losing ground with each comment you make on this topic.
The small mindedness of your remarks, the attempt at hyper-personalization, and the rest, colors everything you’ve said — you rely on your own bigotry. It is being reflected back onto you as your comments hold up a mirror to yourself.
Dan at April 25, 2009 at 8:55 am is a regurgitation of points already discussed and debunked in the comment sections of this blogsite.
Chairm: If you think you are helping to articulate your case, you are sadly mistaken. Most of your arguments are unintelligible and you obviously are not willing to have a rational, thoughtful discussion of the topic at hand. Not to mention that your dismissal of others’ comments is condescending and infantile.
Chairm, you are simply out of your mind! Can you please explain to me what this question means?
You have not distinguished marriage from the nonmarriage category.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?
I am married, which means that I have a marriage license, which means I have state governmental recognition of my union with my partner, including such benefits as tax breaks, and inheritance rights, the right to visit each other in the hospital, and dozens of other rights. If your tiny brain can’t distinguish between a couple who is married and a couple who is not married, then I throw my hands up. You are hopeless. Why all this anaylsis on BASIC words like marriage? You have serious problems.
You need to give up this campaign of hatred towards gays and lesbians. You WILL LOSE THIS FIGHT. It is only a matter of time, and it is clear that civil rights will never go backwards. As long as there are even a few states that allow gay marriage, then it WILL be the law eventually in the rest of the country. This is exactly what happened in Canada. Some Provinces allowed it and others didn’t. The Federal court stepped in finally and said that this was inequitable, and that ALL Provinces must allow it. I believe, and most other experts believe, that this will happen in the US the same way. The LGBT legal community has been very smart about their approach in this regard, because they are hesitant to take our case before the US Supreme Court which is now dominated by conservatives. Once we get a more liberal court in place, and Obama is successful at eliminated DOMA, you will have lost the war. You may have won a battle or two, but we will ultimately win the war. Just be prepared, because there will be many bloodly battles…
I still can’t get over the fact that you can’t understand the difference between a couple that is married (such as me and my partner) and one that isn’t!!!!!!!!!! Are you SERIOUS?
Chairm, you need to get a life, and move on to important issues that affect us all. There are people in America that are homeless, jobless, and don’t have enough to eat. Wouldn’t that be a more prudent way to spend your money and time, rather than trying to oppress people that will eventually get their right to marry? Gay marriage is a worldwide trend, and YOU cannot stop it. You are powerless. How does that make you feel? Your views are more in line with conservative Islamic countries. Go live there, if you cannot deal with gays having equality… Bye, bye, and goodluck with your crusade!
And, you have the nerve to say that I don’t talk of anything substantive. Your campaign is completely predicated on fears that in reality have NOTHING whatsoever to do with gay marriage. The CA doctor case, for example, was about fertility treatment. Please tell me how that is even remotely related to marriage… This case would have existed with or without marriage. Stop trying to relate it to the issue at hand. It has no relevance, whatsoever. The New Jersey case, as you admitted last night, was related to people that wanted to use a facility for non-recreational or non-conservation purposes. It again had NOTHING to do with civil unions, or gay marriage, or even sexual orientation. The Massachusetts mother is fearful that her child will learn that people have different families. Those families exists with or without marriage rights. They would have learned about them in any case, as do many children in public schools around the country, because believe it or not, children of gay parents attend public schools, and kids with heterosexual parents are in contact with them. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend they don’t exist, but is this fair to the children of gay parents? So, please stick to the topic at hand, which is gay marriage, and none of the non-issues you listed above. Stay on topic. Your commercial is the butt of dozens of parody ads on youtube. Anyone interested in a good laugh should look them up. And, the best ones are the mock “auditions” for the acting jobs…. Enjoy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
These quotes are from the above New York Times article, which is well worth reading in its entirety:
Far from terrifying anyone, “Gathering Storm” has become, unsurprisingly, an Internet camp classic. On YouTube the original video must compete with countless homemade parodies it has inspired since first turning up some 10 days ago. None may top Stephen Colbert’s on Thursday night, in which lightning from “the homo storm” strikes an Arkansas teacher, turning him gay. A “New Jersey pastor” whose church has been “turned into an Abercrombie & Fitch” declares that he likes gay people, “but only as hilarious best friends in TV and movies.”
Yet easy to mock as “Gathering Storm” may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America’s anti-gay movement.
What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it’s idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.
As marital equality haltingly but inexorably spreads state by state for gay Americans in the years to come, Utah will hardly be in the lead to follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. But the fact that it too is taking its first steps down that road is extraordinary. It is justice, not a storm, that is gathering. Only those who have spread the poisons of bigotry and fear have any reason to be afraid.
Dan, there is something called marriage. It is a foundational social institution. It integrates the sexes. It provides for responsible procreation.
Gay union, such as it is, lacks all of that.
It is distinguishable from marriage. It is nonmarriage.
Now, you say gay union is marriage.
Well, please distinguish gay union from the wide range of living arrangements and types of relationshps that are NOT marriage.
* * *
If it is just the license that distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage, then, you are clueless about the entire issue.
You would depend on arbitrary governmental authority. Yet the SSM campaign pretends to be arguing against arbitrary governmental authority.
Affirming marriage is not hatred. You are so immersed in identity politics that you cannot tolerate the actual disagreement. So you prefer to hide behind a manufactured controversey and to throwing false accusations against people who do not submit to your over-hyped emotivism.
* * *
You have just now misrepresented what occured in Canada.
The level of ignorance in your comments, in general, is reinforced with each comment you have made.
* * *
Diligent defense of marriage is a worthy endeavor. You disagree. So what?
Despite your many exclamation marks and your brilliant use of all-caps, you have shown yourself to be anything but an expert on marriage nor on the law nor on the political aspects of the issue.
You repeat incantations and pound your little fists at the computer monitor, but to little effect. There is no power in temper trantrums about a meaningless notion like “gay union”.
The NJ case was about identity politics, Dan, as you openly concede. It was not about marriage. It was about the false equivalenc eof civil union with marriage. And it was pushed under the auspcies of a government program that was about neither. You have demonstrated the problem is with your side on that one.
The CA doctor objected ethically to assisting someone create children for the purpose of segregating fatherhood from motherhood. It was not about sexual orientation but you keep claiming it was. The doctor objected also because of the nonmarital status of the woman. You would make that issue one in which the doctor’s freedom of consience would be crushed under the heel of gay identity politics. That you have difficulty defending it, is of no suprise. That you dodge the actual issue while clinging to your peculiar sectarinism, is, again, no surprise.
You misrepresented the public school issue, as well.
* * *
The ad has been a success. The pro-SSM side has over-reacted with attempts to villify those who disagree with the identity politics of the gaycentric variety.
SSMers are fond of fearmongering when it is in aid of their cause. They are the first to denounce disagreement with their cause as fearmongering. The contrast is now being made all the more clear through the words, the behavior, and the over-the-top emotional reactions of SSMers far and wide.
One little ad. So much panic on the SSM side. Priceless.
“gay identity politics” lol
please define that term for us.
Chairm says:
“there is something called marriage. It is a foundational social institution. It integrates the sexes. It provides for responsible procreation.”
I gotta say, I’m kinda confused at this statement. It sounds all high and mighty but what does it really mean, and more importantly, how does it affect a same-sex couple who wants to marry? I guess I see the state’s involvement in marriage as purely a legal one. The state is just regulating a contract and I don’t see what difference it makes what the genders are of the two people in the contract.
********
SSMers are fond of fearmongering when it is in aid of their cause. They are the first to denounce disagreement with their cause as fearmongering. The contrast is now being made all the more clear through the words, the behavior, and the over-the-top emotional reactions of SSMers far and wide.
One little ad. So much panic on the SSM side. Priceless.
*********
Judging by all the parodies on YouTube, it’s more mocking than fear. And don’t you think it’s dishonest to suggest that a doctor will have to choose between her faith and her job? I don’t think Christianity says that to be faithful you must avoid interaction with gay people. It says don’t be gay yourself. Big difference. Dishonest ad.
How, exactly, is this ad a “success”? If the intent was to call attention to a group of small minded bigots who would use the politics of fear and a heaping dose of nonsensical hyperbole in order to maintain a system of inequality…then, yes, NOM has been VERY successful.
1. The man-woman basis of marraige is not a a system of inequality. It integrates the sexes equally. It is based on the truth that each of us is born equal, of a man and a woman.
2. The intent is not as you presented it. The successful effect has been to reveal the anti-religious bigotry of the SSM campaign.
3. The ad draws attention to the facts and this has increased public discussion of those facts. That has reinforced points 1 and 2.
4. The SSM side has panicked. That reveals the thinness of their argumentation. They want to repress religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the name of asserting supremacy of gay identity politics.
5. The NOM blog is now firmly on the blogospheric map.
“Small minded bigots” Hmmm…well I guess that if that’s true then everyone’s parents were “small minded”?
No one has biological gay parents, gee I wonder why?
I can’t believe the hate and the real bigotry coming from those who say they want inclusiveness but clearly want to exclude the age old idea of male-female marriage.
Want another “bigoted” statement?
Your parents were not gay.
Wow..reading all that has me both outraged and intrigued.
The anti-mormon tirades really stood out, and as I am a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (let the bashings begin!) I feel the need to first point out the grave misconceptions in one of your many statements, Dan:
“Are they buried under a rock, or living on a Mormon compound with no television and no communication with the outside world? I have always found it ironic that the Mormon church wants to control the lives of others, and yet they escaped to Utah and set up their compound just for that very reason. They, of all groups, should understand the meaning of “freedom.” ”
If there is any “compound” it is not of the actual Mormon church. We love tv as much as anyone in America, we also are completely allowed and encouraged to be educated by whatever means. The Latter-day Saints were forced (under pain of death) to leave the United States as it stood in the 1840’s-50’s. The mormon establishment is not nor has it ever been a “compound.” But you are correct that we have a deeper understanding of freedom, because we were denied it and so heavily persecuted for decades.
You are aware of the other statements you have made about my church, and while I lack the energy to outline them all right now, very many of them are either entirely false or just very misrepresented.
I’ve lived long enough and had enough of these such discussions to know the difference between when someone has researched that church and doesnt like what they see, and someone who has gone to anti-mormon sources for the majority of their information. It is blatantly obvious that you are the latter, and so I just have to say, if one is someone who values knowledge/truth (not even talking religious stuff here), why would he/she go to the Nazi’s to learn about the Jews? Get the facts, for goodness sake.
And as for this comment:
“Do they honestly think that they will lose their right to wear their magic underwear, have their celestial marriages, and force dead people to be Mormons? They will always have these rights, it is protected. They also will have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples.”
There are again quite a few misrepresentations in there, but I just would like to point out that we have already lost religious freedoms. LDS Temples in Canada have been forced to discontinue our sacred temple sealings, because sealing cannot be offered to gay/lesbian couples. So, church members in Canada are being denied religious freedoms. And as we are a Church that believes in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” this could very well happen to those of us in the United States as well if the new definition of marriage is to be forced on everyone.
And just out of curiosity, what is it that you feel should be illegal–or just an unprotected right–about our choice of underwear? Maybe that’s not what you meant but your wording certainly implied that you feel we should be punished for that. Just another misconception, perhaps?
–21 year old, non-Utah “Mormon”
I am genuinely curious about this. If the social/political acceptance of all kinds of love is the primary goal here, what does a marriage licence/certificate do to validate that, more than the relationship does for itself? I understand the desire to formally proclaim your commitment to one another in front of family and friends, but why must this be called a marriage?
If I did not personally recognize that God expects sexual relations to be reserved for those bound in marriage, I would not have bothered to pay the government to have mine and my husband’s relationship “validated” by a piece of decorated paper. If I did not have these religious beliefs, the relationship itself would have been enough to validate it. Two people fall in love, and as they say in every song, what else matters?
I recognize that inheritance, hospital visits, tax breaks etc are all very significant rights that should be extended to all couples, as our laws and world now stands. Is there not some way that these rights could be extended to all without changing the definition of the marriage institution? I’m not at all knowledgable about law but there must be a way.
So I guess my question is basically, is this desire for marriage really a desire for equal rights? Or is it a desire to change the institution, just because some think they can? I am inclined to think its the latter.
People keep saying “live and let live.” Is it truly impossible for one side to gain the basic rights they want while allowing the other side to preserve their religious liberties and the definition of marriage?
Chairm
Posted May 1, 2009 at 2:23 am | Permalink
1. The man-woman basis of marraige is not a a system of inequality. It integrates the sexes equally. It is based on the truth that each of us is born equal, of a man and a woman.
Marriage used to be the transfer of property-the female-from father to husband, in which the sexes were certainly NOT integrated equally. The second sentence does nothing for your arguement, especially since homosexuals are born of the same process as heteros.
2. The intent is not as you presented it. The successful effect has been to reveal the anti-religious bigotry of the SSM campaign.
The religious anti-ssm campaign is discriminating against an immuteable quality-homosexuality. Religion is not congenital, it is a choice-unlike homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter.
3. The ad draws attention to the facts and this has increased public discussion of those facts. That has reinforced points 1 and 2.
Not many know, but the ad lies BIG TIME about several things. The “doctor” in question knew from the beginning that the patient they were treating was a lesbian. She went through several fertility treatments to become pregnant, heteros do this too, by the way. She had paid her doctor THOUSANDS of dollars ffor the treatments and the “doctor” pulled out only right before the implantation, yet the “doctor was paid thousands of dollars. Would you like to be the one who says what the “doctor” did was right?
4. The SSM side has panicked. That reveals the thinness of their argumentation. They want to repress religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the name of asserting supremacy of gay identity politics.
No, we want to show you how your freedom of conscience can only happen through your head, not the thousands of years old bronze age crap you cling to because you refuse to free your own mind, or unfortunately you jsut don’t know how to.
5. The NOM blog is now firmly on the blogospheric map.
Yes, they are, now aren’t they. And the future of this planet has revealed nom for what it is-worthy only of exrtemely laughable mockery due to nom’s idiocy. And most of the comments and videos slamming nom for what it is happen to be on the only side of this debate that employs reason, logic, coherent thought, solid and structured statements about reality in 2009 and true intelligence. Where’s your magic water walking hebrew sky zombie now?
I encourage everyone to read this NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
And I encourage everyone to ask someone they trust how babies are made.
And then ask children what it means to them to know their parentage.
And then ask people who want to neuter marriage what they think of marriage being rooted in addressing the children rights to know their parentage.
And then, don’t forget the New York Times article that mentiones people who have these concerns, and therefore protect marriage equality as the value we put in each gender’s contribution to each marriage, as some pejorative or another.
Marriage used to be the transfer of property-the female-from father to husband, in which the sexes were certainly NOT integrated equally. The second sentence does nothing for your arguement, especially since homosexuals are born of the same process as heteros.
Actually, there are some societies which treated women as too week to handle their own property, and what-not. But marriage was something that fit inside of that culture, not the culture itself.
I recently reviewed Kentucky’s path to woman’s suffrage and found that married women were the first targeted group to be given real wages and the right to own property.
You see, no one is saying that marriage has always been equal. In fact if you ask someone from the 50’s or even 80’s what marriage equality meant they would tell you it was the equality of each gender within marriage.
And because marriage has been a vehicle of integration, we’ve found it has become more equal over time — and created more equality in society at the same time. Taking the example of Women’s suffrage, consider how rare an occurrence it is through history for one group of people to voluntarily by vote share power with another group of people. No coercion by some greater government, just their own willingness to share power.
Well, but then if their marriages were not the most ready conduit for them to use to obtain that success, I don’t know what is.
That is why I proudly say I’m fighting for marriage equality, and that is why I really lament these poor fools who believe that they are fighting for it by removing that conduit of integration as an expectation in marriage.
Think “patriarchy” is bad? Imagine the patriarchy of an all-male marriage? Imagine if the 50’s segregationists used language like their identity meant they should not and cannot integrate in any meaningfully social way with another race, like gays contend they cannot meaningfully integrate with a woman in any meaningfully marital way.
Oh wait… they did.
David KCMO, gay identity politics is a peculair sectarianism. It is a leap of faith to assert supremacy through identity, as the SSM campaign relentlessly asserts. The ad has done a good job of bringing out the pro-SSM apoligists who insist that to disagree with them is itself an act of bigotry.
Freedom of conscience is a freedom of us all, religious and nonreligious alike. But the sectarianism of the SSM campaign would over-ride that freedom — and not for justice nor for equality nor for freedom.
It is WRONG to force people to do what is against their moral and religious beliefs!! For a government to force people to do what they believe is wrong is TYRANNY!! Regarding the Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong: this is not arbitrary, this is based on many, many verses in the Bible, the Word of God. True Christians base their beliefs and their standard of right and wrong on the Bible. The rest of the world doesn’t. People are free to choose to follow God and His Word, or not. But if someone chooses to follow God and what the Bible says about homosexuality, that needs to be honored, or this is not longer America, land of the free, this is America, land of the Obamanation.
Why should the photographer in New Mexico, the counselor or anyone else be punished for their beliefs? The homosexuals could have gone to many other providers who would have given them service. Instead, with VINDICTIVENESS in their hearts and for no noble purpose at all, the homosexuals who obviously don’t honor the Bible chose instead to punish those that do!!!
“But the sectarianism of the SSM campaign would over-ride that freedom — and not for justice nor for equality nor for freedom.”
HOW?
How not?
Chaim, you have claimed gay people are not excluded from marriage because it is “man-woman.” Do you believe children should be raised in a home where the parents do not know each other, or do not love each other?
Marriage is not about integrating the sexes, or procreation. The Master-Slave relationship has been used this way for generations, creating children with a primary donor, to meet an end. Farmers use this now with livestock. Can you differentiate your twisted version of marriage with livestock?
Marriage is the union of two loving people, which can provide a home for raising children, and many opposite-sex couples either chose to adopt(something you seem to think is a sin and should be barred, married people should be unable to adopt from what you seem to be stating) or to not have children(a claim NOM has not gone against yet).
And you still do not address how NOM is against punishing religious liberties, as they are going against religious liberties and not for it.
Joey, I am just using the same rules of argumentation that SSMers use when they attack the centrality of procreation in marriage.
No legal requirement? Not essential to marriage.
Of course, there is a legal requirement that SSMers seek to abolish: the man-woman criterion. That criteron stands for the integration of the sexes. This has been so throughout human history.
There is another legal requirement that SSMers seek to deeply discount, if not abolish, because it does not fit the one-sexed scenario.
The marital presumption of paternity is embedded into marriage law. It stands for provision for responsible procreation. The husband is the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. Each is reesponsible for the children they created and brought into the world, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. This paternity is based on the sexual relations of husband and wife.
Now, you’d acknowledge the man-woman criterion? You’d acknowledge the presumption of paternity? These are not two standalone options — they stand combined at the heart of marriage, the social institution. Our laws express this, just as our customs and traditions have conserved this.
No, this is not a master-slave paradigm. It is the universal core of marriage across the anthropological record.
I’ve said nothing of sin. I’ve not said that adoption should be abolished.
I don’t speal for NOM, but they have not come out against religious liberty.
Marriage has and always will be — and can only be — distinguished as solely between a man and a woman. To consider any level of “committed” relationship between same-sex couples as equivalent to marriage is an idea lacking any core truth and is quite impossible by definition — unless, of course one entirely REDEFINES the meaning of marriage as it has existed throughout world history. Everyone can agree that an apple has always been an apple and an orange has always been an orange. But to parallel the “gay marriage” argument, the gay community in effect want courts and legislatures to make apples and oranges NOT EQUAL, but rather, THE SAME THING in the eyes of the law. Remarkably, our state judiciaries are entertaining this argument. Incredibly, Justice is in fact blind! Blind to a simple truth.
Of course I’ll be labelled a bigot for expressing my beliefs, but the notion that allowing gay marriage is somehow a fight against discrimination is merely a Trojan Horse. Rather, the whole debate centers around a small minority group that, feeling a lack of affirmation and acceptance of their lifestyle choice, seeks to have affirmation and acceptance by society imposed upon that society through manipulation of the courts and legislatures. And, knowing deep down that they will never gain complete acceptance of their created idea of what a marriage is or ought to be, at least they will be able to hold society hostage to the threat of litigation and punishment (retribution) if one dares to conscientiously oppose the idea that their same-sex union is any different than the historical model of a married man and woman.
I believe that gay rights advocates don’t seek equality here, otherwise a civil union of some kind would suit their goals. Rather, they seek a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions essentially making them one and the same when in fact they are intrinsically different to the core. With the argument of “gay marriage”, the gay community is seeking the last thing that they don’t possess. They want the rest of society to look at their committed relationships and to consider them to be the same as our marriages. And whether the courts call them marriages or not, the gay community will not get what it truly wants because it is beyond our ability to give them what they want. It is beyond ANYONE’s capability to do so — to say that the two relationships are in anyway shape or form the same thing. It is an entirely impossible task! And while the courts may grant them their desired “redefinition,” they will in fact be holding an empty victory void of true meaning. For at the end of the day, nothing will have changed but the law — not the essence of what marriage is. That cannot be changed by clever arguments or the laws of mere men. And, men can and have enacted bad laws! Marriage simply is what it always has been. To define marriage in any new and changed way makes it something else altogether. That is the simple truth! And by conscience I cannot be compelled by anyone or the law to view a gay relationship as a true marriage because it simply is not by defintion marriage. It is and always will be something different than the marriage that I have and share with similarly married couples.
Lastly, historically speaking, the institution of marriage existed long before civil law as we know it today was even established. Therefore, marriage predates law! To that end, the law cannot DEFINE marriage, it can only recognize it as it has always been. Therefore, the law ought to protect marriage, not alter, change, broaden its meaning or, perhaps even attack and destroy it! But sadly, that is in fact what is happening.
NOM, you should alert your supporters to yet another victory for marriage equality. Washington, DC’s city council has just passed a bill recommending SSM for their city! May 5, 2009
Maine has also moved forward towards marriage equality today, May 5, 2009. I predict that all of New England will have same sex marriage before the year is out! The folks involved in the gay agenda were predicting 2012. It means we can concentrate efforts on other areas, since New England has moved in the right direction so quickly.
Max,
But to parallel the “gay marriage” argument, the gay community in effect want courts and legislatures to make apples and oranges NOT EQUAL, but rather, THE SAME THING in the eyes of the law. Remarkably, our state judiciaries are entertaining this argument. Incredibly, Justice is in fact blind! Blind to a simple truth.
So true. Consider if the Civil Rights movement decided that their only path to equality was to re-define white to mean white or black.
Here Here Max!
What the homosexuals want is not a “right.” They want radical change for the sake of change, and for the sake of social acceptance. These are things that cannot and should not ever be legislated. They have their rights (or most of them, nothing a couple of small inheritance etc. laws couldn’t change) and it is obvious that what they are after is an attack on the rights of everyone else.
I have posted previously but for some reason those posts weren’t “moderated” until today.
For you marriage equality supporters, you might find hope and encouragement in this great NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
Larissa, when women were granted the right to vote, did men lose their rights? NO! So, why do you think gays and lesbian’s right to marry, which is quickly approaching, will make you lose something? If so, what?
for that see my above posts (numbers 99 and 100 I think).
rather, I shall just quote myself:
“I just would like to point out that we have already lost religious freedoms. LDS Temples in Canada have been forced to discontinue our sacred temple sealings, because sealing cannot be offered to gay/lesbian couples. So, church members in Canada are being denied religious freedoms. And as we are a Church that believes in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law,” this could very well happen to those of us in the United States as well if the new definition of marriage is to be forced on everyone. “
So, why do you think gays and lesbian’s right to marry, which is quickly approaching, will make you lose something?
No Dan, we’ve been over this before.
Marriage does not discriminate against any sexual orientation, it simply expects one to be able to love honor and cherish the person they potentially have children with for life.
If you say gays can’t do that, you are the one stopping them, not the law.
If you are saying gays can’t marry until marriage is replaced with a more adult-centered institution which, as you put it, is NOT about children, then you have identified yourself what is being removed.
And who is asked to pay the price of your indulgence.
Regarding post number 36, which says this:
It is WRONG to force people to do what is against their moral and religious beliefs!! For a government to force people to do what they believe is wrong is TYRANNY!!
I totally agree, and that’s why the government cannot forbid gay marriage because some Christian denominations (including the Unitarian Church, and Church of Christ) condone gay marriage. You are trampling on their rights when you ban it. And, there are Buddhist groups that are fighting for marriage equality for the same reason. They don’t want the government to impose certain relgious beliefs on us all! You have disprovded your own point, haven’t you? It is wrong for the government to tell me that homosexuality is wrong. It is not wrong. Many of us feel blessed and are thankful every day that we were born gay. And, we’re in good company too. Tchaikovsky, Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, Whitman, I can go on and on about the gay heros of history, but I’ll leave it to you to look it up…
Larissa, you bring up the sacred seals of your cult, and say Canada doesn’t allow this anymore. Prove it. That sounds like nonsense to me… And why do I attack Mormons, do you think? Did you know that marriage equality was well on its way to be passed as law in Hawaii, until a front organization, created by the LDS cult got involved? They disguised the fact that they were LDS, too. Why is that? I attack the LDS cult because we were attacked first. For at least a decade your group has been on a campagn to stamp out homosexuals and to prevent us, by any means necessary, from having marriage equality. It really takes some nerve for a group that had to escape to Utah because and angry mob didn’t want your polygamy around, to persecute and try to subjucate another group of people into your belief system. I will not sit back and take this, we will defend ourselves. And, do you honestly think that this will strengthen and attrack new members to your group? I say NO. In fact, there are websites devoted to LDS members who disagree with their leader’s stance on this issue:
mormonsformarriage.com
affirmation.org
If this is not an instance of religious beliefs being imposed on us all, I don’t know what is… keep your god out of my government….
You are trampling on their rights when you ban it.
False.
There is no ban on same-sex couples having a ceremony and living together for their whole lives in mutual love and commitment. No police try to break them up, etc…
You are confusing a ‘ban’ with simply not recognizing it for government purposes. I have lots of relationships that the government doesn’t recognize but doesn’t reprimand either.
Dan,
The Mormons and Catholics are religions, and ones that do a great amount of charity work around the world.
Part of that is ensuring marriage equality by supporting the expectation of equal gender representation in marriage.
They are not out to ‘ban’ anything, just affirm what is a humanitarian observance.
Really, the things you do to groups and individuals because you disagree with them…
If NOMs purpose is about protecting their definition of marriage why pick on the gays? Shouldn’t you be out there helping alleviate the divorce rate? Gays are a small percentage of our population. Like it or not, heterosexuals, by and large, are the ones who don’t seem to agree (at least in the way they live their lives) with your definition of marriage. The gays have nothing to do with it. Where are all your programs and laws ending divorce?
Larissa, I don’t mean to pick on the LDS any more (although you are an easy target, I have to admit), but I’ve always wondered why your group (which is not recognized by any mainstream Christian churches) decided it was necessary to tack on “another testament of Jesus Christ” onto the existing bible. It seems to me that what we need is for some group from the Judeo-Christian line to answer the burning question: what happened in the million and half years before Adam and Eve? So far, there has been no sect that can explain the appearance of man 1.5 million years ago, despite the bible’s account of 6,000 years of mankind’s existence.
It seems to me that, among the mainstream religions, that the Hindus are the closest to harmonizing scientific fact with their religion (I’m not Hindu, but they do acknoweldge that evolution is scientific fact).
Anyway, just throwing that out there. I realize this is NOT a forum on religion, but I was always curious why the LDS felt it necessary to “amend” the bible…
On Lawn, I acknowledge the some relgions have done SOME good in the world. However, I’d like to point out to you that a far greater amount of damage has been done in the name of religion to our world. I can start as recently as 9/11, 2001. Shall we go any further back in history? Let’s see if you still agree that relgion is mostly positive. I can show you that it is mostly negative….
On Lawn, I’ll also point out that MY rights are being trampled largely in the name of religion as we speak. There are religious groups out there that hate me and my spouse enough to forcibly divorce us. So, you still think religion is good, huh?
Shouldn’t you be out there helping alleviate the divorce rate?
Oddly enough they get the exact same message from me.
Marriage is not about how long you can stay sexually attracted to someone. It is about choosing to love, honor and support the person you combined with to create children.
It is the selfless act of recognizing the children’s needs and your spouses that keeps marriages together.
My concern for them is what motivates me to defend that aspect of marriage from people who would remove that equality as inconvenient to their own intolerance of the other gender.
There are religious groups out there that hate me and my spouse enough to forcibly divorce us.
Wrong. Divorce is when the couple separates and no longer lives with each other. No one is forcing you to separate. No one is forcing you to not call the other one “husband’ or ‘wife’ or tell your friends you are married.
The state is simply keeping its interest in encouraging equality by keeping marriage focused on the responsibilities around human mating. Its not my choice that means one man and one woman. It isn’t the government’s either.
This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents:
My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Consolidating threads about Dan’s quoting a teenager.
Dan,
I really hope you read my longer, initial posts. You have not researched my church. Research involves going to the source, i.e. faithful members or church leaders. This you have not done, hence why you are so very angry. Your repeated use of the word “cult” is obviously meant to rile or anger me, or perhaps anger others against my faith (and it won’t get me angry.)
What do you mean by this? “It seems to me that what we need is for some group from the Judeo-Christian line to answer the burning question”
You seem to be without religious conviction. Is that really a “burning question”? It has no bearing on my personal salvation or view of life, although it may be pretty significant to some scientists. And even if someone or some church were to proclaim what they believe is the case as truth–you wouldn’t accept it anyway–as you have no religious faith. So….I don’t see that as a burning question at all. I believe it was just another attempt to bait me. I experience similar antagonism on a weekly basis from my angry ex-mormon counterparts, put your efforts into a realistic argument, please.
WE do not feel it necessary to “amend” the Bible. If you knew anything about the Church you would know this. We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.
I know–by my own experience and own struggling–that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true. This is another point on which it would be pointless for you to argue with me.
Quoting you again: “For at least a decade your group has been on a campagn to stamp out homosexuals and to prevent us, by any means necessary, from having marriage equality. It really takes some nerve for a group that had to escape to Utah because and angry mob didn’t want your polygamy around, to persecute and try to subjucate another group of people into your belief system. ”
Thank you, you are perfectly right, it does take nerve. We are not the only group going against what is politically correct here, we are not the only group that has lost members due to the strain and opposition. But we are the ones that are persecuted the most for it, certainly. The LDS church is not trying to stamp out homosexuals. I have friends, and family in the church that are homosexual. They are faithful members with strong testimonies and temple recommends. The church accepts them and they hold callings and everything else, they just cannot engage in sexual activity outside of marriage and remain in the church, like the rest of us. And we are not trying to “subjugate” anyone into our “belief system.” We are all for the “live and let live” that so many of us advocate, but no we will not look the other way and allow the definition of marriage (the center of our religion) to be destroyed.
Dan again:
“And why do I attack Mormons, do you think? Did you know that marriage equality was well on its way to be passed as law in Hawaii, until a front organization, created by the LDS cult got involved? They disguised the fact that they were LDS, too. Why is that? I attack the LDS cult because we were attacked first.”
Yes, how dare we exercise our constitutional rights!? How dare we have convictions strong enough to go against such a vindictive group? How dare we stand up for our strongest, most personal beliefs! Atleast we are doing so by lawful and un-violent means.
Unlike :
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/larissacory/whosgotthehate1.jpg and http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/larissacory/whosgotthehate2.jpg
“This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents”
If that’s the case, it will only be because the public schools are as corrupt as the courts. Oh yeah–and because of push-over parents. As for me and my generation–most of those of my age I’ve ever known—we will not accept the current tyranny of tolerance. And we will be the ones raising confident, intelligent, strong children.
On Lawn, again, I feel really sorry for your husband and wife. Sex is a very important part of life and a very important part of a committed relationship. The fact that you deny that is very unfortunate.
“Marriage is not about how long you can stay sexually attracted to someone.”
Yes, it is. Of course there are ups and downs, but most marriages in the U.S. start out with some sort of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is part of what makes us procreate (a subject you are obviously obsessed with).
“It is the selfless act of recognizing the children’s needs and your spouses that keeps marriages together.”
So gays who raise children can’t be selfless in relation to their children when they are in a same-sex relationship, but someone if gays chose to be in straight relationships they could. Why/how?
“people who would remove that equality as inconvenient to their own intolerance of the other gender.”
I still just find this concept so bizarre. So you’re saying you could be in a same-sex relationship and the only thing that allows you to have gender equality is the fact that the government gave you the right to marry the opposite sex? That is truly, truly bizarre.
“There are religious groups out there that hate me and my spouse enough to forcibly divorce us.”
I don’t know where you got that quote from. I never said that. Are you under the assumption that I’m gay. I’ve stated several times I’m a straight, married woman.
Stefanie, as far as I can tell it seems like you’ve only posted on this page one other time. On Lawn wasn’t quoting you, that was from Dan’s post just above the one you’re quoting from.
I was confused because On Lawn didn’t say who he was responding to and one of my earlier comments on this page was about: Shouldn’t you be out there helping alleviate the divorce rate?
I find it odd that gays hold, on the one hand, that one must “call out” (that is, publicly shame) anyone whose behavior they disapprove of, yet they feel outraged that Christians would want the same right to disapprove of and refuse to participate in behavior and activities they disapprove of.
Would a gay photographer be willing to photograph a KKK event? Would a gay professional be willing to assist neo-nazis engaging in a morally objectionable behavior?
What if a gay person were the judge in a beauty contest and had a moral objection to one of the contestants?
Stefanie, here is what I said before…
Shouldn’t you be out there helping alleviate the divorce rate?
Oddly enough they get the exact same message from me.
Marriage is not about how long you can stay sexually attracted to someone. It is about choosing to love, honor and support the person you combined with to create children.
It is the selfless act of recognizing the children’s needs and your spouses that keeps marriages together.
My concern for them is what motivates me to defend that aspect of marriage from people who would remove that equality as inconvenient to their own intolerance of the other gender.
On Lawn, this equality argument doesn’t hold any water. Are gays trying to have segregated water fountains? Are gays keeping heterosexuals out of government? Are gays making laws that heterosexuals can’t get married? No, no, no.
Gays getting married is sex discrimination as much as two white people getting married is racist. The fact that interracial marriage and non-interracial marriage coexist doesn’t make everyone who is in a same-race marriage a racist.
Are gays trying to have segregated water fountains? Are gays keeping heterosexuals out of government? Are gays making laws that heterosexuals can’t get married? No, no, no.
Did segregationists claim that they, because of their innate identity, would be harmed if they were expected to integrate with another race in schools, buses, and restaurants?
Are we now hearing arguments of segregationists of another kind claim that they are harmed if they were expected to integrate with the other gender in an institution specifically targeting the concerns of a biological practice that is only between both genders?
I think the answer to both questions, is yes.
Gays getting married is sex discrimination as much as two white people getting married is racist.
Gender is a part of a specific biological practice, race is not. There are only two genders in respect to that practice that need to be integrated. You cannot construct a marriage of just two people where all races are represented.
People of all racial combinations can procreate, given that there is representation from each gender in the combination.
On Lawn, marriage is not a biological practice. Marriage is a civil contract.
Gays getting married is sex discrimination as much as two white people getting married is racist. The fact that interracial marriage and non-interracial marriage coexist doesn’t make everyone who is in a same-race marriage a racist.
I’m just around here folks for the entertainment of the telephone game where I say something and it turns out into something entirely different.
Turns into something that is interpret as a claim that marriage itself is a biological practice because Stefanie pouts…
On Lawn, marriage is not a biological practice.
Your are right, its a social practice
Gays getting married is sex discrimination as much as two white people getting married is racist.
You said it, not me
Larissa, I know a little about your church (cult, in the view of other Christian denominations), because my spouse’s ex-partner was gay and ex-communicated from the church for divorcing his wife and admitting his homosexuality (not in that order). You said something that intruiges me:
know–by my own experience and own struggling–that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true. This is another point on which it would be pointless for you to argue with me.
OK, let’s say that you are being sincere that the bible is true, how do you possibly harmonize the scientific FACT that mankind has been on earth for 1.5 million years with the bible’s account of Adam and Eve (who were estimated to have been “created” by the heavenly father 6,000 years ago)? I don’t mean to criticize you personally, but the Christian religion has never come up with a sensible answer as to why the bible’s time frame is off by at the very least a million and half years. I was raised in the home of an Evangelical family (my father is a minister), so I completely understand where you and your belief system is coming from. But, you simply cannot take the bible literally and say with a straight face that the Adam and the rib woman were “created” 6,000 years ago. It only means you are in denial, and your “faith” is more denial than anything. There are Christians who are scientists and some pretty bright people, but if you were to sit down and talk with them, they would sooner or later admit to you that the bible CANNOT be taken literally when it comes to many of its stories, and this includes the creation myth. Do you REALLY believe that Methusala lived 900 years, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it, and that Joe Smith looked into a hat, or whatever he did, to read the sacred stones? If you have a functioning brain, I would hope that you would see that the bible, as wonderful and fascinating as those stories are, cannot be taken literally. Therefore, why should we trust anything it says about homosexuality, shellfish, or adultery, ad infinitum? Are you aware that the bible explicitely states that a bride must be stoned to death is she is found out not to be a virgin? Why don’t Christians follow this? Are you also aware that Jesus never said as much a one word about homosexuality? I frankly don’t care what the bible says, nor the book of Mormon. It has no control over my life since I don’t believe a word of it, except perhaps SOME of the historical accounts. So, therefore, for you to impose these beliefs on me, I am violated. There are no two ways about it. My rights are trampled on, because YOUR personal belief cannot tolerate the concept of two loving partners of the same sex who want to marry. This is contrary to our consitution and contrary to the American way of life. And, did you know that the the majority of voters in New Hamphsire are now in favor of marriage equality? Even if their governor does not sign the marriage equality bill, it will be passed into law if the public were to vote on it. I think this is the first state where this is true. Therefore, I see your point of view is fading fast. I wish you all the best, and you can believe in Santa for all I care, but do not impose those beliefs on me, as I will viruently defend my right NOT to believe… Is that clear enough? I hope you have your temple wedding sealed some day, and that gay marriage has nothing to do with preventing this. I’ll even recommend you for temple myself… How’s that?
Larissa, by the way, when I said it was a “burning question” about what happened in the million and a half years before Adam and Eve, I wasn’t saying that I needed to know that. I accept the fact that man has been on earth for millions of years. I want to know why the Judeo-Christian heritage has stubbornly clung to the creation myth and its time-frame, despite the fact that science, in the intervening time since the bible was written, has proven beyond doubt that it could not have taken place in the time-frame that the bible describes. The burning question is “why are Christians in denial about scientific fact?” If you can answer that, then I will start to pay attention to you. Until then, I will continue to believe that man created god and not vice versa. I knew this by the time I was a teenager…
Larissa, I also get a big kick out of those people who condemn gay marriage and ask if they can marry their sister or father or mother. I’d like to point out that the heavenly father’s “perfect” plan includes incest. There are no two ways around it. If you accept that Adam and Eve were the only two humans that were created, then incest was the only way they could get grandchildren. Either Adam impregnated his daughter or one of his son’s impregenated his sister. I suppose Eve could have been impregnated by a son, too? But, otherwise, please explain how they got grandchildren? How did it continue beyond the first nuclear family without incest? No bible believer has, as of yet, had an intelligent answer for me… Usually they defer to their “faith” and leave it at that. Well, that’s not a good enough answer, sorry…
Wow,
Dan loves to talk religion about as much as any of the zealots here.
Did you perchance mistake what forum this is?
“I hope you have your temple wedding sealed some day, and that gay marriage has nothing to do with preventing this. I’ll even recommend you for temple myself… How’s that?”
This statement proves you know very little about my church. As my husband and I have already been married in the Temple, we are also already sealed. The two are simultaneous. Also, that’s not what a temple recommend is.
Like I stated quite a few posts ago, all your information comes from an angry ex-member of the church. If you are fine with this then none of your information is credible when it comes to my church. As I said, no one in their right mind would go to the Nazis to learn about the Jews.
I am not concerned with reconciling science with religion. Most people with any faith aren’t either. But I also do not take most of the Old Testament literally. Things that were done according to the Priesthood, or the things that testify of Christ I do pay attention to, the rest of it is just a manifestation of a culture, and mosaic law which my church believes was fulfilled (i.e. cancelled out) in favor of a higher law when Jesus began his earthly ministry. I know that God’s timing is not our own, one day could equal a million years for all I know. It’s not something that has any bearing on whether Jesus is my Savior or not.
To try to reconcile science with faith is to put my “trust in the arm of flesh”, and not understand that God’s “thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
In other words, we are only human. Three quotes:
President Joseph F. Smith said: “Our young people are diligent students. They reach out for truth and knowledge with commendable zeal, and in so doing they must necessarily adopt for temporary use, the theories of men. As long, however, as they recognize them as scaffolding useful for research purposes, there can be no special harm in them. It is when these theories are settled upon as basic truth that trouble appears, and the searcher then stands in grave danger of being led hopelessly from the right way.”
Dr. Henry Eyring, one of our great scientists, was asked, “Dr. Eyring, why hasn’t the Lord explained how these things came about?” And he said something to the effect, as I remember—“Well, I suppose it would be like trying to explain the theory of atomic energy to an eight-year-old child. The eight-year-old child couldn’t understand it. Until we come to an understanding, we will have to depend solely upon what the Lord has said.”
Dr. Eyring has written: “I have often met this question: ‘Dr. Eyring, as a scientist, how can you accept revealed religion?’ The answer is simple. The Gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion. Try it. Does it work? The conception of a God ruling in the universe and concerned with how it works is impossible for me without the corollary that He should be interested in man, the most remarkable phenomenon in the world. Being interested in man, it is natural that He would provide a plan for man’s development and welfare. This plan is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
One last quote:
Some time ago the secretary of a well-known philosophical society, deploring the lack of inspiration in our day, described the present age as “an age of the government of the uninspired.” There is on all sides much evidence to support his contention. In the realm of art, generally speaking, as he explained, the bizarre tendencies in modern painting, the grotesque figures of modern sculpture, the cacophonies of modern music, and the eccentricities of modern poetry witness the fact that this is an age lacking inspiration. One might add that modern religion, with its readiness either “to be carried about with every wind of doctrine” or to content itself with ritualism in place of spirituality, is another symptom of the same fact.
The man went on to explain that the trouble undoubtedly lies in the fact that today the source of the needed inspiration, the Bible, is no longer considered by much of the world as reliable, with the result that the Christ of the Bible has become to many a vague, shadowy personality who may or may not have spoken the words attributed to him.
It is only as we forsake the traditions of men and recover faith in the Bible, the truth of which has been fully established by recent discovery and fulfillment of prophecy, that we shall once again receive that inspiration which is needed by rulers and people alike.
Now, having written or ctrl+c and ctrl+v’d this whole thing… I am writing to one without religion and who seems to thrive on the spirit of contention. I am thinking now that I have been baited by you and have fallen for it. “If you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it.”
Regardless of what I say you will never believe it because you do not accept my church, let alone christianity, let alone religious reason. Your live depends entirely on your appetites and the trends of the world. You are epitomized by this scripture: “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to decieve.” Eph. 4:14.
In other words, what is popular, trendy and tittilating is what you believe and cleave unto. And that is a very shaky foundation. I say this regardless of your sexual orientation, political beliefs, etc. There are member of my church who are this way too. And I respect them even less than I respect you, because they have been offered truth and still cleave unto the world. It’s a sad way to live.
I already said this but I feel the need to make it clearer.
“And, did you know that the the majority of voters in New Hamphsire are now in favor of marriage equality?”
I do not nor have I ever put much bearing in what the masses (obnoxious minority) say, believe, or do. Regardless of the fact that x-number of people support gay marriage, I will still fight it. I could be the last person in the United States to feel the way I do (though I will never be even remotely alone in this) and I would still fight it. Legally, peaceably, honestly. But I will never look the other way. Not on gay marriage, not on abortion, not on hate-crimes, not on sexual deviancy, not on illicit drug use, not on the denegration of the family.
If I did not do my absolute best to uphold the things that I know are true, then I will have broken every covenant I’ve ever made, and I would be going against every blessing I’ve received. And I would rather die than do that.
Larissa, congratulations on being “sealed!” I’m happy for you… You said this:
I am not concerned with reconciling science with religion. Most people with any faith aren’t either. But I also do not take most of the Old Testament literally.
Thanks for admitting that you don’t REALLY believe the bible as it is written. At least you have a brain. However, if your last statement is true, that you don’t take the Old Testament literally, then why do you cling to the belief that homosexuality is a sin? The bible believers like to quote a verse from Leviticus as their proof that god called homosexuality a sin. And, yet today we know it to be a sexual orientation that is either born with us, or formed by the age of two. How can you choose at two to be gay? Can you answer that?
On Lawn, Do you know why I keep bringing up religioun? It’s because this is the core of your argument. Isn’t this what you fear? Your brilliant storm commercial has as it’s “core” meaning the fear that religious “freedoms” will be taken away. If you take this fear away, you aren’t left with much, are you?
Just to recap folks: religious freedoms are more protected once gay marriage becomes the law, because each and every state that allows gay marriage has unequivocally stated that “No church will be forced to marry or accept gay marriage.” So, stop lying and tell your dim-witted followers the truth. Your “core” argument about marriage being solely about procreation doesn’t even begin to be a valid argument, so you are sticking to the religious fears. You will lose this fight. Just a head’s up….
So, On Lawn, will you agree to take religion out of your argument and commercial, so we can stick to what this argument is really about? It’s about whether procreation is the “core” meaning of marriage, remember? I can just imagine your commercials now. You’d say this: “gay people can’t have children, so we can’t allow them to marry.” It would be even more hilarious than what you have out there now…
By the way, Larissa, I’m “sealed” too, and that is by the state of California. As of now, Vermont, Iowa, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Maine and soon Washington, DC and New Hampshire (hopefully!) will recognize my marriage. I don’t realy care whether you or your heavenly father recognize it, because I’m not seeking “holy matrimony,” but the fact that the state recognizes it is all that I care about… Who would have thought I’d be married to someone I love in my lifetime? What a great time to be alive… Our gay forefathers were fighting for their very right to exist, and now we have the ability to marry. What will be next? Maybe a gay President?
Just want to point out that you are proving more and more that you don’t know anything about mormonism. I wonder if you have any idea what our sealed marriages mean.
I apologize if I’ve ever said “homosexuality is a sin.” In this case, I do believe what science says about it being nature rather than nurture. What I (and my church) believes is that just like heterosexuals, sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage is a sin. It is not wrong for me to be attracted to men, but it would be wrong for me to have intimacy with a man who is not my husband. Same goes for homosexuals. I hope we all realize there is a difference between attraction and acting on that attraction (i.e. homosexual nature vs homosexual actions).
I realize it certainly seems unfair and wrong for me and my fellows to deny marriage, something we value so highly, to anyone else. Great blessings come from it. But extending marriage to include partnerships of the same sex would require obliterating the meaning of marriage as it now stands. Which is why, as I said before (sigh!) I want to know if there really is no way for all the legal parts of what we call marriage to be extended without having to change the definition thereof (see post #100).
“No church will be forced to marry or accept gay marriage.” So, stop lying and tell your dim-witted followers the truth.
Right. No church as an institution will be forced to do so. But individuals? Oh yes, we in our businesses and education will be forced to “accept” gay marriage. It’s already happening. My husband is a professional wedding photographer, and while he has not been faced with this problem yet himself, there are many of our friends who have been viciously attacked by gay couples who wanted to hire them, but due to religious or other convictions, the photographer declined. These photographers never took a deposit or payment of any kind, they politely refused to do the job the first time the couples contacted them, but they were sued nonetheless. I am inclined to think that in one of these cases that occurred with a friend from church, the gay couple sought him out specifically because they knew he would refuse and could get a great deal of money from him by lawsuit. That’s just my opinion and observation though.
This is an attack on religious liberty. Its like someone who owns a small town grocery store being sued by a liquor or cigarette company because the store owner, for religious reasons, doesn’t want to sell alcohol or tobacco. We should have the right to refuse service and not expect such heavy repurcussions.
Larissa, Now we’re getting someplace. You said this:
I apologize if I’ve ever said “homosexuality is a sin.” In this case, I do believe what science says about it being nature rather than nurture. What I (and my church) believes is that just like heterosexuals, sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage is a sin. It is not wrong for me to be attracted to men, but it would be wrong for me to have intimacy with a man who is not my husband. Same goes for homosexuals. I hope we all realize there is a difference between attraction and acting on that attraction (i.e. homosexual nature vs homosexual actions).
I think most fundamentalist Christians (and probably most LDS, too) don’t agree with you on the nature part. They still obstinately stick to the “choice” argument, which is completely preposterous, and at least you can recognize that nobody chooses to be gay. It seems to me your viewpoint fits in with the Catholic church more than the LDS viewpoint. The Catholic church also says that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed. They go on to say that homosexuals must be celebate, and have no relationships of any kind. Utterly ridiculous, in my view…
I still think your “religious freedoms” argument is poppycock. I don’t know any sane homosexual individual who would want a homophobic photographer or ANYONE who is homophobic at their wedding. When we hired the limo company, reserved the restaurant, booked our hotel and booked our honeymoon cruise we made sure that the companies were fine with a same sex wedding. In fact, we went to the special reception for honeymooners on our Bahamas cruise. And, we were welcomed with open arms by the cruise representatives, and most of the other honeymooners. As a matter of fact, we kind of stole the show! There was a Canadian couple who were very interested in the status of American gay marriage, and a wonderful LDS couple from Utah that made a point to sit and talk about our wedding! I’m sure they went back to Utah with a completely different idea from what they had been taught or thought to expect. It shows that, once people adjust to the shock of gay marriage, and I completely understand why the oldtimers are horrified now, they will be able to get that this is a civil rights issue, and has nothing to do with religion. This is why organizations such as NOM should be applauded for educating people gay marriage. Without their commercials, some people wouldn’t even know about it. I noticed that when Maine recently approved same sex marriage, it was barely on the news at all. It is old news now, since Vermont and Iowa. I bet most Americans are unaware that so many states now have gay marriage. Keep up the fine work NOM!
Larissa, do you think a black person would hire a KKK member to photograph their wedding?
Nope they wouldn’t. And I’m not saying they should. I’m saying that we should be allowed the right to politely and honestly refuse. Just as much as they have the right to go elsewhere for business. What has messed with these liberties is that, while it may be a very small few, some homosexual couples have sued businesses. Its not necessary for them to do so, if in like my friend’s case the photographer never took payment.
BTW, just because some LDS people say something does not mean they represent the sentiment or stance of the LDS church itself. The LDS church says this about homosexuality:
“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).
“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).
Nothing about it being a choice, nothing about the inclinations being sins.
On Lawn, Do you know why I keep bringing up religioun? It’s because this is the core of your argument.
Which comment that I’ve made are you referring to.
Go on, find one…
Larissa, I do appreciate your stance, and I would do everything to defend your right to believe as you wish, but where I draw the line is when other people impose their beliefs on others. Same sex marriage affects MY life, and is very, very, very unlikely to impact your life in any fashion. If you can name a way, other than your already mentioned photographer example., I’d like to know about it.
As far as my life being impacted by same sex marriage, I can count dozens of ways. I’ve only been married since Oct, but these advantages have already been felt directly in my life by my marriage:
1. I have health care for the very first time in my adult life (I’m one less uninsured person to worry about having coverage! This is something HUGE in my life.)
2. My tax situation has improved incredibly due to the advantage of being married (And, this is only at the state level. If we had Federal recognition of our marriage, we would have gotten THOUSANDS of extra dollars back. This would obviously have been a tremendous advantage to being married.)
3. I no longer feel I have to “hide” the fact that I have a partner. I currently introduce him as my spouse (husband is too strong a word for some to accept). I used to call my spouse my “roommate,” or at the very best my “partner.” There were times when I didn’t acknowledge that I had a relationship for fear of being rejected or humiliated for being gay. Every gay person has had this experience, and do you think this is a healthy way to live? To deny that you have such an important person in your life? Imagine hiding that you have a husband. Sickening feeling, isn’t it?
4. We live in an apartment, and if something were to happen to one of us, there was no guarantee that the other could keep the apartment, because only one of us is on the lease. Now we are protected, should something happen to one of us…
OK, so there’s a short list of the major impact that marriage has had on my life. Can you name one imposition on your life, that my marriage creates for you?
Finally, I’d like to add that this photographer story can go two ways. I was recently hired (I’m a professional concert pianist) to play a recital at the home of a Mormon family. I could have easily told them that my conscience forbade me from playing there because of their support for Prop 8 (I had earlier seen a Yes on Prop 8 sign in their driveway. How do you think that made me feel, to play in the home of a family that was against my civil right to marry?). So, you have to understand that prejudice is a two way street. The last I checked, it was you that was trying to prevent ME from getting married. Correct?
On Lawn, I have always assumed you are the spokesperson for NOM. If I’m wrong, please tell me. But, you have taken on the role of a moderator, and it seems, therefore, that you represent them. If this is wrong, I apologize.
So, when I said YOU were focused on religion, I was referring to NOM, whose very campaign is based on religious “freedoms.” Three of the examples used by NOM in the commercials are directly related to religion, and the fourth is indirectly related by referencing the Mormon mother whose son hears about SSM marriage in schools. So, bascially ALL of the examples of bad things that will happen due to SSM are religiously based. Take religion out of your argument, and you have NOTHING… So, this is why I’ve encouraged you to use procreation as your argument, and stop focusing on religion. And, as you seem to imply, your argument that gays can’t procreate will have no power to sway people towards your position, otherwise we would have seen it by now. As of yet, this argument has not been used. I watched your campaign with eagle eyes in the CA Prop 8 fight, and your techniques are identical in the NOM commercial. This website even seems to be designed by the folks who designed the CA “Protect Marriage” site. I noticed this immediately.
Larissa, one more thing (I wish we could talk in private instead of needing to “bare” it all in public like this), it seems to me that the LDS approach to homosexuality is exactly like that of the Catholic church. In other words, homosexual behavior is the sin, not that someone is homosexual. This is very, very different from the approach I was raised with in the Evangelical church. Most Evangelicals do not accept that sexual orientation is innate. Instead, it is viewed as a sin, and a “choice,” as if someone has control over it, and can strangely “convert” to heterosexuality at any point. This is nonsense, of course. A homosexual can pretend to be heterosexual by exhibiting that behavior to the world, and this was the norm as recently as the 1950s when nearly every gay person got married to an opposite sex partner, regardless, but internally you cannot change their orientation. This has been proven by the pyschiatric community. In their view, sexual orientation cannot, and should not be changed (although there are hard-line fundamentalist Christian pyschiatrists who will say otherwise, they are by far a minority and their view is not accepted by the mainstream mental health community. They are discredited, in fact,).
I enjoy interacting with someone like you, because I sense that you listen, you are intelligent, and you seem to be open to hearing my opinion. I appreciate that… If you could sit down with my spouse and tell us why we shouldn’t be allowed to legalize our union, it would be our pleasure. And, we both come from religious homes, so we will be able to understand your position with a great deal of sympathy. In fact, it was drilled into my head from birth that homosexuality was wrong, a sin, and the homosexual needed to change. It will take years of therapy to get this Jesus training out of my system.
Larissa, I encourage you to check out this site. It is designed directly for the LDS community (you have a special language, that some of us don’t understand). I think all of your arguments against gay marriage are addressed and these fellow LDS members explain their counterarguments. I have found it very informative and helpful in clarifying my position. Did you know a BYU professor was fired for publicly supporting gay marriage? He said that gay marriage strengthened marriage, and strengthened society and there was no logical reason to deny it.
http://www.mormonsformarriage.com
This site outlines the beginnings of LDS involvement in gay marriage, when it started to surface in Hawaii:
http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/?q=node/59
Larissa, as you can see, the LDS fight against gay marriage dates back to 1988. Do you now understand why so many gay people are upset with your church? Far before the word gay marriage was even mentioned nationally, the LDS have been heavily involved in trying to stop it. And, it has only escalated. We are only now getting a true picture of how much the church itself, and the members have contributed to stop gay marriage. I wish the gay community were as involved financially to this extent. Unfortunately, far too many gay people actually don’t care, believe it or not. It was a straight guy, Gavin Newsome, that got the ball rolling here. Do you know what prompted him to get so heavily involved? He heard GW Bush’s State of the Union speech in person, and it angered him that Bush was pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban it. People seem to have the incorrect assumption that gays were demanding the right to marry at this point. Far from it, it was not even something we thought remotely possible. Thanks to Gavin, this was pushed through the court system, and he ultimately got his way. Unfortunately, the backlash from the other side was far too strong, and some have acknowledged that it was too much, too soon. At any rate, it is clear that the momentum will eventually go our way. It’s only a matter of time, as you know… I hate to say this, but your side will end up the losing side on this, and I think you are smart enough to realize it. I don’t say that to gloat, but just to point out that this is the way all civil rights issues have progressed. This is no different. Time will sort it out, and most likely, our side will prevail and SSM marriage will be the law.
Even the Republican party is making moves in the direction of supporting SSM! This article explains why:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/04/mccain-guru-to.html
The architect of John McCain’s 2008 campaign for president urged the Republican Party on Friday to drop its opposition to same-sex marriage lest it find itself in the political wilderness for years to come.
“If the party is seen as anti-gay, then that is injurious to its candidates” in Democratic-leaning and competitive states, said Republican strategist Steve Schmidt.
Schmidt acknowledged that legalizing gay marriage would represent a change of tradition, but he vehemently rejected the view that gay marriage “threatens the rights of others.”
From the standpoint of practical politics, Schmidt thinks Republicans need to change their stance on gay rights because swing voters use the issue as a prism for evaluating how tolerant a candidate is. While he expects younger voters to become more receptive to the Republican Party’s low-tax message as they grow older, he does not expect younger Americans to become more conservative on gay marriage as they grow older.
“I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it,” said Schmidt.
Unfortunately, this is not written by me, but confirms my viewpoint on the inevitability of gay marriage in the US:
The Future of Gay Marriage in America:
Opponents of gay marriage appear willing to do anything at all to stop it — and the reason is that cultural, social, and political forces in America are moving almost inexorably towards the legalization of gay marriage. Sooner or later, marriage for same-sex couples will be as legal and recognized as marriage has traditionally been for heterosexual couples. Major steps in this process have already occurred in other Western nations, and some minor steps are being made in this direction within America itself.
Opponents of gay marriage appear to recognize this — they seem to realize that the cultural, social, and political forces are against them. This is why they are so determined to enact federal laws, and perhaps even constitutional amendments, to prevent gay marriage from being recognized or legalized anywhere in the United States. If cultural, social, and political forces were on their side, this wouldn’t be necessary. What is the future of gay marriage in America? Full legalization and recognition, just as is the case today with interracial and interfaith marriages.
It will take a long time for this to occur — even interracial and interfaith marriages continue to be looked down upon by many in America today. Not even racial integration and equality have come as far as they ideally should have. All of these have been opposed by the same religious and political forces which currently oppose gay marriage, so there is every reason to think that they will have the same success in hindering gay marriage.
This means that even after gay marriage is legalized, social and political barriers will continue to be thrown up in front of gay couples and their supporters. In the long term, though, these barriers will fall apart because the bigotry and animosity towards gays will lose the sort of support they currently have. Perhaps progress will be even faster because of the progress made with other minorities thus far in America.
Dan,
Naw, it seems your gay pain argument is really just anti-religious animus.
Not a very bright plan if you wanted to prove NOM wrong…
a lot of people are saying there not against Christians and that there only against there beliefs controlling things . i think these days no one understands that this is Gods Universe and Gods World And God says Homosexuality is an abomination as long as there is righteous Believers in Christ Gods voice will be heard people say that the gays are the ones being attacked i say its the Christians who are. we no longer could stand for what we believe in without being called names or taken to court . when you think about it Gays have the same equal right to marriage as anyone if they want to get married to some one of the opposite sex they CAN
Divorce is a bigger ‘threat’ to the institution of marriage than same-sex nuptials. Its sad that so many people working on their second or third marriage would actively try and preclude an entire class of people from working on their first. To quote NOM’s president, Maggie Gallagher, “you don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage.” Well, thats what proponents of legalizing gay marriage ARE doing. We are standing up for equality too.
Just remember Ms. Gallagher, not so long ago you couldn’t marry the man you wanted to if he had a different skin color, you couldn’t vote or own land. It took laws, NOT VOTES, to right those wrongs.
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based of Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is stinky, disgusting, and immoral; and, we oppose that gay judge making us unhappy by exposing us to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our responce: Carrie’s right to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that We The People have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. Thereafter, the U .S. Supreme Court declared in,( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursue happiness by marrying a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge who has slandered Carrie Prejean because of her support for traditional marriage, and because of her right to pursue traditional happiness; because, that gay judges slanderous attack has destroyed Carrie’s career and livelihood because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn’t attack him, He attacked and slandered Carrie, and this the way all of you gay rabibd dogs are, you exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based of Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is stinky, disgusting, and immoral; and, we oppose that gay judge making us unhappy by exposing us to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie’s right to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that We The People have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. Thereafter, the U .S. Supreme Court declared in,( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness by marrying a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge who has slandered Carrie Prejean because of her support for traditional marriage, and because of her right to pursue traditional happiness; because, that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie’s career, and livelihood, because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn’t attack him, He attacked and slandered Carrie, and this the way all of you gay rabid dogs are, you exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
>>>> ERRORS CORRECTED <<<<<<
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based of Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is stinky, disgusting, and immoral; and, we oppose that gay judge making us unhappy by exposing us to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie’s right to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that We The People have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. Thereafter, the U .S. Supreme Court declared in,( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness to marry a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge, who slandered Carrie Prejean, because of her support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman; because, that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie’s career, and livelihood, as a result of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn’t attack him, he attacked and slandered Carrie, and this the way all of you gay rabid dogs are, you exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
Thank you Joshua for your very enlightened comment. It only goes to show that we who support gay marriage are being treated unfairly due to discrimination based on our sexual orientation. It’s called bigotry. Coretta Scott King was absolutely correct when she said that a Constitutional ban on gay marriage is nothing but gay bashing. We see through your “religious freedoms” charade and realize this is about hating gays and nothing more. You’ll have to come up with a better reason to oppress ten percent of the population, I’m afraid. Because eventually the public will see through your hatred and realize that there is no logical reason to deny rights to gays and lesbians. I’m glad you posted your rant three times, as it is representative of the holy trinity. How very appropriate!
So, On Lawn, when do you (NOM) plan to release your commercials with your “real” reason for opposing gay marraige, which is that gays and lesbians can’t procreate? I’m waiting…. Until then, could you kindly refrain from using the “religious freedoms” argument, as it isn’t working. People don’t seem to be buying it…
Joshua, I wasn’t aware that Carrie Prejean (soon to be “former” Miss CA) was being forbidden from marrying a man. That’s what you say in your rant. Is this true? I wasn’t aware that gay marriage would now prevent heterosexuals from marrying. This is news to me…
On Lawn, I want to point out that it is YOUR side of the fence that is bringing up religion into this argument. I have said all along that religion should play NO role in gay marriage, because this is about governmental rights, and not religious rights. You guys seem to confuse the two. We are quite clear that this is about legal issues, not religious issues. As far as gays and lesbians are concerned, some of us are religious and our religious clergy WILL marry us. Unfortunately, there are those of you on the other side, who want to stop this because you say it interferes with your right to worship as you please. Nobody has yet been able to sufficiently explain to me how any person’s marriage interfere’s with your right to worship as you please. Can you explain it, so that I will understand it? (No photographer stories, please, because the photographer still has the right to worship as he/she wishes, even if he/she won’t photograph a gay wedding. There is NO connection between being able to worship and photographing a wedding…).
Do you agree, On Lawn, to stick to your “core’ argument of procreation, and drop the religious argument?
Joshua is an eloquent spokesman for NOM. I think you should use words such as his in your commercials, it might go a long way towards swaying voters to your side of the argument, and prove that homosexuals aren’t worthy of civil rights:
stinky, disgusting, and immoral
Dan,
My argument is my own. If you can discredit it, feel free to try (well, you’ve tried but demonstratively failed).
Debunk anyone else as you see fit. I’m still here though.
Oh, and perceived harm done by others does not justify the harm you seek to do to marriage.
Its time we all got along.
Speaking words of marriage, let it be.
Let marriage be marriage, and let homosexuality be homosexuality.
On lawn—
I haven’t said anything to you up to this point, but dude…you seriously need to construct your “arguments” and re-read before you hit post. Your last comment made no sense. No substance to that whatsoever. Plus I’m pretty sure you contradicted yourself.
I really do appreciate anyone and everyone who labors on the side of marriage, but for heavens sake, don’t give the rest of us such an ignorant image, please! This goes for you too, J.J. Israel.
“Nobody has yet been able to sufficiently explain to me how any person’s marriage interfere’s with your right to worship as you please.”
I thought I already had. In canada, LDS temples have been forced to discontinue temple sealings for a time, because they would otherwise be legally forced to extend that ceremony to gay couples. I am trying to track down a link to this information, which I heard from my mother. She’s a snopes fiend and checks all her info before she sends anything along so I’m very sure that this is true.
Anyone who knows “mormons” knows that our temple ordinances are our most valued and important parts of our religion. So, to me this is an attack on the very core of my right to worship. It hasn’t happened here in the US yet, but if what you all hope happens happens, the Church will very likely have to suspend those ordinances in our temples here. This would be devastating to so many of us.
Everyone: Marriage is an infinite union between man and woman, it has no limitation or boundary, and the depth of the joy that man and woman find in each other is a never ending journey of increasing fulfillment. This is what homosexuals fear, and seek to destroy, and perverting the identity of marriage is the first step in the process. Now, in contrast, SSM’s are limited, and the depth of their irrational relationship is shallow, and weak, and this causes them seek multiple partners. So to make themselves feel better, they attack and erode the loving relationship of the traditional family, in order to bring us down to their level of dissatisfaction; and, this is exactly what that gay judge did to Carrie PreJean. We have the right to pursue the happiness of traditional marriage, just as they have the right to pursue happiness in a sodomite union. However, that gay judge stepped over the line, and violated Carrie’s liberty right to pursue happiness just because he could not manipulate her into destroying her morality, and he should be paying her money for the rest of his life.
============
As far as the Carrie Prejean issue, she is the victim of a sodomite corruption scheme designed to impose his immoral life style upon her. She resisted, and that gay judge used his authority to defame her and destroy her career objectives. Therefore, Carrie Prejean will have a claim for damages when The-Donald takes away her crown. Like I said, this is not about marriage, or civil rights, its all about the right to pursue happiness, and that gay judge has interfered with the right of Carrie Prejean to pursue traditional happiness. Gays cannot be happy until they have interfered with our { personal rights } and { free choice } and then thereafter, they will corrupt everything else. It is the pursuit of traditional happiness that is under attack, and the gays are trying to disguise it as an equal right, or a civil right.
============
Another thing, why would a “Modern Woman” who is Liberated and Free, allow a sodomite to deprive her of the right to pursue happiness, as EQUALLY as he does, in his sodomite life style?
Larissa, thanks for researching about the “sealings.” I don’t think what you claim happened in Canada could possibly occur here. Because in the US all religious groups have always been granted the right to refuse to marry anyone they choose. In fact, my father will not marry any couple if one of them has been previously divorced, and that’s for ANY reason, even in the case of a spouse who was infaithful… He can never be forced to marry divorced people. Jews are not forced to marry Catholics, etc, etc. Have you ever seen those signs in stores: “we refuse the right to refuse service to any customer” This pretty much sums up the law in the US regarding marriage and religion. This very issue is what held up the recent New Hampshire bill, until it was clearly spelled out, and then it passed through without a problem. It still awaits the governor’s signature. If he doesn’t sign or veto it, it becomes law….
Larissa, you seem to forget that I’m on the side of marriage. I’m fighting for my right to marry… The NOM folks have continuously put gays and lesbians on the defensive by pretending we are against marriage. NO, we are FOR marriage… We believe in it, and want the equal right to participate in this wonderful instutition, which we’ve always observed from the sidelines, and have been prohibited from enjoying. That is, until now…
On Lawn, if you are so convinced that your argument is compelling, by all means bring it to the people at NOM, because so far they’ve not mentioned procreation at all. I find it completely without merit, but if you can convince voters that gays should be denied marriage because they can’t procreate, go for it… I don’t think it will fly, but it’s your position and you seem convinced it has validity… I know many straight people, and have had this discussion, and they say the procreation argument is absolutely the weakest. They point to all the arguments I’ve presented to you. The relgious argument, while also weak, seems to resonate. Otherwise, the Protect Marriage folks wouldn’t have used it as their “core” argument against SSM in their “crusade”
Joshua, you are the best possible thing to happen for same sex advocates. You simply show that there is more hatred and homophobia coming from the religious community, than anything else. Larissa is absolutely right about that. I’d be more than willing to sit down with her and discuss things. She is reasonable, and intelligent, and has valid arguments that are worthy of consideration. Your spoutings of hate, on the other hand, do nothing but prove our point that anti-gay marriage equals bigotry… I say keep it up Joshua, because you will further alienate those people who were once on the fence, and will see the “campaign” against marriage equality for what it is…. And, do you know why marriage equality has spread from Massachusetts to the rest of New England (except for Rhode Island, which I’ve discovered is extremely Catholic)? It’s because they are nearby and can see that no harm has been done by gay marriage, and it, in fact, has strengthened the institution because there are more committed couples, and their families are now legally protected.
On Lawn, if you are so convinced that your argument is compelling, by all means bring it to the people at NOM, because so far they’ve not mentioned procreation at all.
The irony of this importune to take it to NOM occurring on this very site (NOMblog) is hilarious.
Dan, you know how to make it fun for everyone, don’t you
I find it completely without merit.
Of course you do. You are showing have no tolerance for any quality that is unique to men and women integrating together. Your relationship doesn’t have it, it doesn’t exist.
Its a statement about you more than a statement about the argument.
I know many straight people, and have had this discussion, and they say the procreation argument is absolutely the weakest.
Yep, its like the con-artist that tries to convince people that what they have isn’t really valuable so they should give it away.
Some people do fall for these cons. Which is sad, because it is especially people who have kids who believe like you do, that causes so much pain and neglect for children all throughout the world.
And that is sad. Its bigotry towards adult feelings, where the children are portrayed as strong and resilient and the adults are portrayed as helpless victims to their emotional needs. Its shared by far too many, and the heartache it causes children is more common than not these days.
She is reasonable, and intelligent, and has valid arguments that are worthy of consideration. Your spoutings of hate
Oh, a while ago I was the smart reasonable one and Chairm was the intolerant bigot.
Your penchant for playing Wizard of Oz and declaring who has a brain and who doesn’t is just another side show that I’ve enjoyed in this long held entertainment you provide — instead of real arguments.
I say keep it up Joshua, because you will further alienate those people who were once on the fence, and will see the “campaign” against marriage equality for what it is
I know you say that to insult Joshua, but in a way you are right.
Joshua mentioned in a post to me how fully virtuous it is to love someone who you can discover the rest of humanity with (meaning the uniqueness of the other gender). It is a way to show love of all of humanity through valuing their contribution.
He is showing where you are against marriage equality…
On Lawn, in the hierarchy of people who make sense, and people who are full of nonsense, you still rate higher than Joshua and Chairm and lower than Larissa. How’s that?
Here goes:
Larissa makes the most sense,
On Lawn is next
Chairm next
Joshua is at the bottom with his anti-homo rants. He is, unfortunately, representative of a large group of Americans, and is the very reason that civil rights and marriage equality should never be up for a vote. He has no rational, nor valid reason to oppose marriage equality, except that he hates gay people. Sort of reminds me of the KKK voting on civil rights for blacks.
So, On Lawn please try to convince NOM to use your argument that gays can’t procreate, because it will win us more converts to vote for marriage equality more quickly. That’s for sure….
As I’ve said earlier, you WILL lose this fight. It’s only a matter of when… Some polls are saying that voters in Maine and New Hampshire now favor marriage equality, and this is already the case in Massachusetts, so you guys have given up on trying to reverse it there.
Just to be clear, I think civil rights should never be up for a vote, because the minority usually loses. That being said, eventually we will win marriage equality rights even if it is put to a vote, because we are gaining more supporters daily. Don’t believe me? Just look at California. Just 8 years ago 60 percent were against gay marriage. In Nov it was only 52 percent. We are narrowing the gap step by step. Only a matter of time….
On Lawn, you are being disingenuous when you say I hide behind children to promote marriage equality. I’ve said all along that procreation, children, and marriage are different issues completely. Marriage is between TWO people, and two people only. If a couple wants to have kids that’s their option, and children should be protected by marriage, whether they be in same sex or opposite sex households. But, procreation is irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage, and apparently NOM agrees, because they haven’t used this argument yet.
So, let’s be clear about who is using children as their shield against same sex marriage. That would be YOU, On Lawn…
Marriage is about TWO people…
LETS BR CLEAR! I Am The Voice Of Experience!
I wasn’t born yesterday, in my youth, I tried to date a lesbian, and she was a horrible irrational monster that strained every ounce of human goodness and consideration I had. But, it didn’t stop there, I tried to get to know several others since then, and the only opinion that they gave me is MAN-HATER. I had a boss who was a gay man, and women thought he was attractive; however, he admitted to me that these women made him sick, and he would not even give them the time of day. Years later, when I got divorced, this gay man thought that he could introduce his homosexuality upon me, and he was relentless to the point of administrative disciplinary action. So, to a man, a lesbian is a true Heart-Breaker; and, to a woman, a gay man is a true Heart-Breaker. GOD did NOT create a heart-breaker for either a man or woman,…Satan did!!
===========
Now, since the gay movement has been on the rise for the past 20 years, the Heart-Breaker routine has increased in traditional man - woman relationships. So, … do the math, who is corrupting who? And, who is eroding traditional marriage? This is why the (NOM) exists, they see the threat and the growing trend, and they are taking action.
On Lawn, in the hierarchy of people who make sense, and people who are full of nonsense, you still rate higher than Joshua and Chairm and lower than Larissa. How’s that?
Compliments are like chewing gum… they may taste good but don’t swallow.
Sorry, while I respect where you are coming from in the debate, one thing I haven’t had any reason to respect is your opinion of others.
Chairm is quite honestly far more rational then myself, or Larissa in this discussion if you really were basing on well spelled out reason and common sense.
An example of you botching even the most simple of arguments is as follows in that comment…
So, On Lawn please try to convince NOM to use your argument that gays can’t procreate
Gays can procreate. Its true procreation happens where you have one man and one woman, but gays are men and lesbians are women.
It is because procreation has its unique circumstances, its unique rights associated with it, that marriage is devoted to equally recognizing the rights of everyone involved in the human mating practice.
But, you’ve read me say that before
That is okay, each time you misrepresent my position is another opportunity to correct the error.
As I’ve said earlier, you WILL lose this fight.
No, I won’t lose. I know what marriage means. The real losers are the children who are placed at the back of the bus of adult needs and recognition. The real losers are the people abandoned by their spouses, or worse off payed to have children as much as abandon them to the new consumerism of babies. The real losers, quite frankly, are the people who believe you when you say, marriage and procreation are two different topics.
Those are the people who lose out on the real pay-back that happens when you consider others first. They are the ones who lose out on the potential relationships that only occur when people treat each other equitably. The relationships which require equality and integration.
Just like the segregationists who came before you, they were the real losers no matter how many states they won.
I know what ground I stand on. And it is marriage equality, one man and one woman loving each other and the children they have, each equally considering the needs of the others.
I’m not going to lose anything. And future generations will see you like they see the segregationists you follow after.
On Lawn, you are being disingenuous when you say I hide behind children to promote marriage equality.
Now that is funny. You said “disingenuous” in the same sentence you make a claim about what I’ve said. A claim which doesn’t even resemble what I’ve said.
To put it more accurately, I think you simply put children and their rights and needs in the back of the bus. I don’t think you hide behind them, I think you hide them.
Also its disingenuous to say you are for marriage equality, when all you want is the ability to make an all-male marriage. When all you want is to remake marriage in the eyes of the state into the same relationship you two have.
That isn’t equality, thats just plain self-centered.
To correct above allow me to fix the html formatting to read…
An example of you botching even the most simple of arguments is as follows in that comment…
So, On Lawn please try to convince NOM to use your argument that gays can’t procreate
Gays can procreate. Its true procreation happens where you have one man and one woman, but gays are men and lesbians are women.
Joshua, you clearly have “issues” surrounding homosexuality, and I hope you get that taken care of… Nobody can turn anyone gay, any more than a black person can turn someone black. If your sexuality is that much in doubt, I would seek help, and FAST…
On Lawn said this brilliant pearl:
To put it more accurately, I think you simply put children and their rights and needs in the back of the bus. I don’t think you hide behind them, I think you hide them.
I’ve said all along that children’s rights matter, and this is all the more reason to support letting their parents marry when they are of the same sex. I’ve also said repeatedly that marriage is about TWO people, and if they want to bring children into their marriage it is their decision. But, marriage does not imply the necessity to have children. The core meaning of marriage is NOT procreation. It is the union of TWO.
On Lawn, don’t you have better things to do with your time? Your tactics remind me of bible believers who dissect each and every word of each and every bible verse. It must be a terrible way to live. A mind that is so centered around minute details and analysis of every syllable of every word is a troubled mind.
I think we should cease contact, as it is getting tiresome to recap the same old stuff over and over. We will always disagree about the “core” meaning of marriage, and if we cannot come to an agreement about that, then what is the point of discussing anything beyond it.
All I have to say to you, On Lawn, is we will prevail, and it is only a matter of time, and sooner or later you will have gay couples who are married and who are your neighbors. You can do the right thing, and let them live their lives, or you can continue to harrass them and try to take away their rights. It is your choice. I can only say that gay people face such bigotry and discrimination on a daily basis. It’s nothing new to us. We have survived, we will survive, and we will prevail. Bye, bye…
Dan,
I’ve said all along that children’s rights matter
I know you may think that you do, but that is all the more telling.
Because everything you don’t think matters, as far as children’s rights means you don’t even think it can or should exist when you say, “The core meaning of marriage is NOT procreation. It is the union of TWO.”
Because your relationship has nothing to do with procreation, you have to remake marriage into the same. Sounds like you are the one with an argument which starts “gay couples can’t procreate, therefore….”
and this is all the more reason to support letting their parents marry when they are of the same sex.
Its illogic like this that makes talking to you so entertaining.
I mean, where else can you find someone saying that you need to let the parents marry for the sake of their children — oh and this means same-sex couples too.
You need to consult with someone you trust to find out where children come from, if you don’t believe me…
marriage does not imply the necessity to have children.
Correct, society implies the necessity to have children. Marriage just implies the necessity to treat everyone in that enterprise equally, the children as well as each representative of the genders who combine to create that child.
A mind that is so centered around minute details and analysis of every syllable of every word is a troubled mind.
Wow, the things you are resorting to as complaints. This must be the bottom of the invective barrel for you then? Or is there even more trivial depths to fathom?
All I have to say to you, On Lawn, is we will prevail, and it is only a matter of time
Prevail may be the most appropriate word yet. It seems those who you seek to prevail over was mentioned before when you said, “The core meaning of marriage is NOT procreation. It is the union of TWO.”
Though your opponent (mother nature, evolution God, … either way), will likely not succumb to a court order on the matter.
Nor does your supposition really stand, I doubt the children you’ve put in the back of the bus will thank you and herald your victory over them and their rights.
You can pretend they don’t exist, but not for long.
This is perhaps very petty, but I feel the need to contradict this:
“Your tactics remind me of bible believers who dissect each and every word of each and every bible verse. It must be a terrible way to live. A mind that is so centered around minute details and analysis of every syllable of every word is a troubled mind.”
Etymology is the love of my life…second only to my husband and future children. In my mind, when we study words and their origins, derivatives and word-parts it gives us a much deeper understanding of language and communication, as well as cultures, histories, anthropological habits, and probably psychology too. I spent two or three hours researching the word “remember” lastnight, and I learned all kinds of interesting things. The more you learn about a word, the more you know how to use it. I sure hope that this isn’t the passion of a troubled mind, although perhaps someone with too much time on their hands. But heck, I’m celebrating my first week without homework.
“Larissa, you seem to forget that I’m on the side of marriage. I’m fighting for my right to marry… The NOM folks have continuously put gays and lesbians on the defensive by pretending we are against marriage. NO, we are FOR marriage.”
Perhaps then I should have said “traditional marriage” although, quite frankly, I hate having to say it that way because traditional in many ways has become synonymous with “old-fashioned.” Which is another term I hate. Marriage as it has stood for millenia is the only type of union which deserves that name, it is tried and true. Just because its been around a long time does not mean it needs to be reinvented.
Marriage as it now stands is NOT what you are seeking. You seek a state and socially sanctioned union of two humans of the same sex. Marriage–as a word–means the union of a man and a woman. So that is what your union can never be. This is not bigotry or selfishness, it is truth. Truth manifested by history, etymology, practicality, and logic.
So yes, gays and lesbians ARE against marriage because for you to “marry” requires destroying the meaning of the word itself. There is no way around this. –Rick and Dylan want to unite in a way that is socially and legally acceptable to their nation. This is not marriage because they are not Rick and Diane. Marriage requires that one of them be male, and the other female. Homo unions and hetero marriage cannot “coexist” under the same name. They are polar opposites in their very makeup, each rejects the other, because of their inherent differences.
I am not against gays and lesbians searching and hopefully finding happiness. I will never seek to physically or otherwise harm them because of who or what they are. I do abhor the choices of many of these people, but not because of their apparently inherent homosexuality. I abhor the behavior of those who vandalized and desecrated the temple in California (and other temples across the US), just as much as I abhor the uneducated, insult-spewing tirades of those who are against homosexuality (but apparently for reasons they themselves haven’t really thought out).
But while I try to love everyone as the Savior would, and be an example of kindness and patience, I cannot go against my testimony of marriage, family, and the Plan of Happiness and accept gay “marriage.” My mind is entirely closed on that point.
As you have so frequently and fully pointed out, the odds are indeed in favor of gay “marriage” being widely acceptable. I am saddened at this, and generally disgusted with the ignorance and laziness of those who could stand up for their beliefs but choose not to because they see it as a losing battle. So, my thoughts turn to what can I do, as a future mother to ensure that my children will stand up for what they believe? This has been the subject of my prayers and scripture study lately, and it will continue to weigh heavily on my mind.
All I know right now is that I will not stand for my children to be taught that the family is no longer sacred, any more than I would stand by and let a pedophile have my child as a plaything. My mother-in-law was too selfish and clueless to notice what my husband’s babysitter was doing to him as a young child, and I liken her utter stupidity to so many parents now who are more concerned with their own careers and lives than to teach their children correct principles (be honest, be kind, work hard, etc).
Just as I am going after my little sister’s teacher at school who is showing his students violent slasher films and teen oral-sex videos to “illustrate deviant behavior” I will likewise go after any person who seeks to “instruct” my children about those things that should not be part of a classroom school experience, and this includes gay “marriage.” ]
Larissa, I will continue to fight for what I know is right, too. Marriage has been a continuously changing institution. If you don’t believe me, then sometime sit down and read a history of marriage. You must certainly be aware that marriage was not traditionally about love at alk. It was considered a contractural agreement between two families, and women were often bartered as if they were property. It was like selling a home or land from one family to another. Women were the slaves of men. As times changed, so did this practice. Now you can argue that with the freedom to marry the person you love has come other changes in society’s view of what constitutes a marriage. For example, divorce is accepted because when two people fall out of love they are given the opportunity to exit from the marriage. Children are usually not even taken into account when the couple falls out of love. It is the needs of the adults that seem to matter. Therefore, another reason that the procreation connection is a moot point. (I’m not saying children don’t matter, but if they did matter, there would be far less divorce, wouldn’t there?) But, this was unthinkable in the days before divorce. In fact, the church of England exists because the King wanted to divorce his wife, and the Catholic church would not allow it, so the King formed his own church… :I feel badly that your religious dogma has claimed your thoughts so much that you can’t see that gays seek governmental rights and not the sacred matrimony that you are concerned with. Some gay people do believe in god, and their religions will marry them. But, speaking personally, I don’t want any religious connection to my marriage, and we went to city hall to get married, because we view it as a civil issue. But, perhaps someday you will be able to see the value in granting these equal rights to gays and lesbians. It is interesting that in the newest states to offer gay marriage some public officials have stated that civil unions and domestic partnerships are not good enough because they in reality treat gays and lesbians as second class. In those states the civil union rights were nearly identical if not identical to the rights of hetero married people. Therefore they’ve concluded that the use of a different nomenclature is not acceptable. The CA Supreme Court layed down the same argument when they ruled for gay marriage last May. I’m glad you’ve come to terms with the fact that we will eventually win our rights to marriage equality (which means the right to marry, and has nothing to do with equalizing the sexes, or whatever other nonsense On Lawn comes up with).
The beauty of this whole thing is that you will still be able to worship the god of your choice, and I will be too. I could believe in Santa, and it won’t affect marriage rights, and that’s as it should be. I feel badly that you feel your religious views have been compromised, but they actually haven’t. The fear tactics, as put forth by NOM are baseless, and I hope you will come to realize this. I’m quite sure that those who were fighting against interracial marriage felt that the world was coming to an end as we know it. The fact is, nothing really changed except that people of different races could now marry and not face imprisonment for being together. The same will happen with gay marriage. It will affect the lives of gay people, and not the lives of anyone else, despite NOM’s best attempt to get you to believe otherwise. As far as “teaching” gay marriage in schools, I feel that if gay marriage is the law, then the teacher has a responsibility to tell their students that this exists. It is wrong to ignore it, or pretend it doesn’t exist, and is definitely not fair to the children of same sex married couples to ignore it. If it is your firm belief that gay marriage is wrong, then you need to deal with that with your kids at your church and at home. Public schools are not the forum for you to impose your version of moratity or religious beliefs. And, if you feel that strongly about it, then why not place your kids in a Mormon school, or homeschool them? They can only be sheltered for so long. And, I would imagine there are no school kids anywhere in this country that haven’t already heard about gay marriage. It reminds me of the drug debate. When parents want to pretend that drugs don’t exist it is the first step towards children wanting to experiment with them. It is better to sit down with them and tell them of the dangers of drug use than it is to pretend it isn’t there. By the way, it is an irrational fear to think that because a child hears about gay marriage they will decide to be gay. Sexual orientation is usually decided by the age of two, if not at birth. It is not contagious. It is not learned, and it is definitely not “taught.” These are myths. As far as child molestation goes, that is usually a crime of power, and has little or nothing to do with sexual orientation, and as a matter of fact there are more heterosexual child molesters than homosexual. When priests molest kids it is a crime of opportunity because they are in close contact with children. And, most kids who were molested by priests end up to be heterosexual adults. This is fact. Their sexual orientation is not formed by molestation. They suffer lifelong damage from this horrific event, but their orientation does not change.
Let me ask you something, Larissa, would you teach your kids about homosexuality and homosexuals? The reason I ask is because I was taught the homosexuality was a sin, and that homosexuals were perverted child molesters, etc. All of the bad things. I never had positive reinforcement about my sexual orientation until I was in college. And, yet, despite the only negative aspects I heard about homosexuality, I knew I was homosexual and I knew that the adults around me were narrow minded and blinded by their reliigious views. Somehow I knew better, and accepted myself for who I was. Never for a moment did I believe what they taught me. Maybe it was because I could see it was something that was “innate” and I had no choice over the matter. And, if people think I learned it, then where did I learn it? I certainly didn’t have any positive role models that were gay. We didn’t see it on TV, we didn’t hear about in school (except for the negative stereotypes), so where did I get my positive self-esteem? Somehow I saw through the lies that the adults in my life taught me, and realized that I could accept who I was and get on with my life. I’m proud of myself for this, and looking back I realize that my parents were only a product of their environment. They loved me, but simply did not have the information they needed to act in a responsible manner. Fortunately, times are changing, and with education people are losing their fears of homosexuality. It is not that we are trying to force our “lifestyle” on anyone, but people are waking up to the fact that homosexuality is a part of a person every bit as much as race, and gender, and is never a choice… Therefore, we can either be respectful of the ten percent that are homosexual or continue the wrong approach that our parents generation instilled in us. I hope you will be intelligent enough to understand what I’m saying and will one day teach your kids the right thing. All the best to you, Larissa…
I didn’t say that marriage has always been related to love, I just said that the definition (1 man, 1 woman) has always been the same. I haven’t mentioned procreation, because while I believe it is still central to the purpose of marriage, that’s not a point that many others believe so I haven’t bothered to bring it up.
“I feel badly that your religious dogma has claimed your thoughts so much that you can’t see that gays seek governmental rights and not the sacred matrimony that you are concerned with.”
Is this not what I have been saying in past posts? That the rights can and perhaps should be granted, but this can be done without having to re-define marriage!? Regardless of whether most gays want religious marriage ceremonies, some do, and that’s what has caused the problem in Canada.
“But, perhaps someday you will be able to see the value in granting these equal rights to gays and lesbians.” I thought that I already said that I do. Granted, this page is an awful lot of info to sift through, so if you forgot thats fine, whatever.
“In those states the civil union rights were nearly identical if not identical to the rights of hetero married people. Therefore they’ve concluded that the use of a different nomenclature is not acceptable.” This is just a little confusing, but I think it proves my point…that rights are not really the issue here. All those picketing signs that say “what about our rights?” and so on are not really expressing the desire of homosexuals. They just want the same thing we have…social acceptance that will help them “feel good” about themselves and their union. You cannot and should not legislate that!!!
You’re right, if it becomes the case then teachers would be wrong to ignore that gay “marriage” exists. But there’s a difference between giving information and giving propaganda. For instance, creationism exists but it is not taught in schools. Is that not unfair to the children whose parents believe the God created the Earth? Mormonism exists but that doesnt mean that children hear the full story of the restoration (taken from the correct sources), is that not unfair to the mormon kids? The only info that kids get in schools is what the government wants them to learn, i.e. evolution over creationism, science over religion, absolute acceptance over self-control, etc. Things that exist in the world are excluded from schools because priority goes to the “politically correct” topics. And this is the way it kind of has to be, our children are in school too many hours of their childhood as it is, and are increasingly learning less and less. My hope for schools is that information can be given, and its left at that. This exists..here’s what brought it into being…if youre interested in learning more see me (or your parents!) after class or visit the library some time.
“And, if you feel that strongly about it, then why not place your kids in a Mormon school, or homeschool them? They can only be sheltered for so long.”
There aren’t really “mormon schools” unless you mean the ones perhaps in Utah or BYU and the like (but those are universities). Even if there were I’m not sure I’d go for it. The most messed-up ex-mormons are those who lived their whole lives in Utah, attended BYU right off their missions and have never known anything of the world until its too late for them to know how to cope with it. I wasn’t going to go into this, but it seems like I need to. I was homeschooled during my middle and high school years. This started when we lived in Okinawa, Japan and the DoD school there was pretty awful. Where I live now is a bit better, mostly except for my sister’s teacher as I said before. The way my mom homeschooled us was to include everything. Evolutionism, creationism, most religions, most world cultures, very wide range of world literature, etc. I would never have had a class on african history if I hadn’t been homeschooled. In the >40 years my university has been established they have never had any history courses concerning nations other than America, Mexico, Japan, and Europe.
Public schools teach what the goverment wants the kids to know, and nothing further or deeper than that. Homeschooling was one of the best things my mom ever did for me, and it was very very difficult. Socially, financially, and legally, homeschooling is not easy. I would say I am far less sheltered than any of my peers who went to public school. And all of them are now off at BYU or the like, getting one heck of a sheltered education. If I homeschool my kids (like my husband wants me to) I will try to do it the same way my mom did. But its ultimately the child’s choice.
“It reminds me of the drug debate. When parents want to pretend that drugs don’t exist it is the first step towards children wanting to experiment with them. It is better to sit down with them and tell them of the dangers of drug use than it is to pretend it isn’t there.” Yep, exactly. And its the same way with sex too. I want to have very honest and open communication with my kids, right from the start. I want them to be able to ask me anything without fear of punishment or harsh judgment. I’m not going to pretend the problems don’t exist, I hope to make their existence very plain to my kids so that they can sort out what is right and what is wrong, and make their own commitments to themselves of what the will and won’t do.
“By the way, it is an irrational fear to think that because a child hears about gay marriage they will decide to be gay.” Uh, I’m pretty sure I’ve never said that.
Let me ask you something, Larissa, would you teach your kids about homosexuality and homosexuals? Yes, and its unfortunate that your upbringing was so heavily one-sided. I will teach my children what I already know, and which comes from the official position of my church on this matter:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
Gay people are not inherently evil, and God loves them as much as He does anyone else, and expects us to treat them with as much love as we would expect ourselves to recieve.
The best to you as well.
Dan’s greatest hits continue…
Children are usually not even taken into account when the couple falls out of love. It is the needs of the adults that seem to matter. Therefore, another reason that the procreation connection is a moot point.
Yes, divorce is mostly about the adults needs. You can put that on a bumper sticker, “neutered marriage, its as child centered as divorce!”
You must certainly be aware that marriage was not traditionally about love at alk.
While wrong, (the most ancient references to marriage regulation and the lore around marriage for centuries have all centered around romance), it completely invalidates his case that any two people in love should comprise a marriage.
It was considered a contractural agreement between two families, and women were often bartered as if they were property. It was like selling a home or land from one family to another. Women were the slaves of men.
Another interesting proposition from someone who (as a gay man) said he had no interest in raising children and that was best suited for lesbian couples…
But again it is wrong. Marriage was not a way to barter property, nor was a marriage a financial transaction between owners.
Women were treated unequally in many societies, but you will find it was their integration which provided them the means to gain equality rather than the other way around.
Integration leads to more equality over time.
Which is why it is so funny to see people arguing to have their own all-male marriages, turn their noses down at the patriarchy of old…
Larissa, thanks very much for your heartfelt comments and personal experiences relating to your education and your plans for the education of your children. I was waiting for you to bring up the creation versus evolution as is taught in schools. I feel that the way things are now are correct. In other words, religious views on the origins of the world and humankind are generally left out of public schools, and I feel this is the correct approach. Evolution is no longer viewed as someone’s opinion on how things have changed throughout history. People should understand that the word “theory” translates as “fact” in ordinary speech. Gravity is also a theory, but does this mean it is still debatable? No, it is accepted as fact and reality. Evolution is accepted science, and is thus taught in schools. There is no doubt that it happened. This is not debated among scientists any longer. However, the creationists insist that evolution does not explain our origins and insist that creationism also be included in school science classes as well. Unfortunately, there is no concrete scientific proof of creationism other than the act of faith that a higher power created everything. Therefore, it is not taught in schools. I remember when religion was included in public schools, and this included prayer when I was in Elementary school. I grew up being taught that Christianity was absolute truth and that those that didn’t believe it were doomed to eternal damnation. I didn’t even hear about Islam and Judaism until I was exposed to it in college. Sad, isn’t it? I questioned everything starting very early on, because I saw so much that was contradictory about Christianity. It didn’t add up. Couple that with my travels around the world later on, and exposure to other religions and cultures, and I became a devout non-believer.
I wish we could sit and have coffee and discuss things in person. Not as a way to change each other’s minds, but because we can talk civily and not tear each other apart, and I appreciate this. It’s unlike my exchanges with On Lawn, which, by and large, have been hostile and unpleasant. He quotes every word I say and contradicts me. This is no way to engage in civil conversation. If conflicting views are ever to reach compromise, it must begin with listening to one another. You have done a great service to those with your position by engaging intelligently and not debunking every word I say. There is one thing I can say for sure, and that is that you are probably a wonderful mother! I bet you listen to your kids, and this is an invaluable tool for any parent.
I know it will take decades for society to come to terms with same sex marriage. Believe me when I say the concept is new to us as well. In fact, I pinch myself daily to remind myself that I’m, in fact, legally married in the state of California. But, I hope people eventually can learn to accept this, and just keep in mind that same sex marriage is meant to protect OUR lives, and really shouldn’t affect your life. And, it is my hope that there are no consequences that would adversely affect another person’s religious beliefs, or personal beliefs. This has never been the intention of same sex marriage supporters, just be assured of that. Hopefully, same sex marriage will take a place similar to interracial marriage, and it will have minimal impact on society, and benefit those whose lives are actually affected by it (such as myself, and those gay couples who have children, especially)….
I just scrolled back and read post Number 9, which is by someone else. It is worth reprinting, because it is so pertinent to what we’ve just been talking about:
You people talk like gay marriage is the end of the world if it won’t stop. Seriously people. Drop the Christian bullcrap and listen with your own mindset. Let loose and put some serious thought into it. Why is same sex marriage bad? Do the homosexuals have nukes? Do they have control over the sun? Why are you guys trying to take over their marriage rights? Because you’re all a little too selfish, or you’re too sunk into your religion. I said it before in my last comment that was shot down. “Life is given to all, and all who have it should have it’s privileges.” I find it ironic. You’re trying to take away something that god gave to these people. Am I the only one seeing the hilarious error there? Gay marriage won’t affect anyone but the two getting married, and their friends. Your freedom won’t be taken away because “Oh no! Two men got married! Earthquakes around the world! Lava covering the land! Lighting, thunder, striking us all down!”.
And schools teach gay marriage as okay because it is. If you don’t like it, move your kid from the school. Home school them, or put them down for a talk. Just don’t take it all out on same sex marriage.
Face it people. The only reason you want same sex marriage banned is because if your religion, and your own wants. There is nothing bad that can come out of this. Once again to the mod. Let this be heard. I’m assuming that if you shoot this comment down, you’re agreeing with me,but you don’t want to face it. It’s your call.
Hello Dan: I think you missed it. when you said I was homophobic, I brought forth my experience with lesbians and a gay boss. Now that you can’t call me homophobic anymore, you tell me that I need to seek help. So…, it is you who evade reality and honesty, and it is you who refuse to comprehend that we know what we are talking about. Since gays are in the midst of society, we have to get to know each other, and we have, and now I know the truth of reality. Truth and reality is not something that you can take away, just because you can’t deceive us anymore. It’s time for homosexuals to re-evaluate, or more truth will come forth. Stop while you are ahead! There are 50% more truths that I can bring forth.
Joshua, I agree that intelligent dialogue is a good thing. After these statements which I cut and pasted from your rant, do you think I would sit down with you and chat? Not on your life…
You said this:
We just want to get away from something that is stinky, disgusting, and immoral; and, we oppose that gay judge making us unhappy by exposing us to his disgusting immoral sewage… this the way all of you gay rabibd dogs are, you exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
I am an upstanding citizen, and if you, or your kids attend college, I could be their professor, since I teach at a private Catholic University, which, by the way, very proudly does not discriminate based on sexual orientation (they perhaps disobey Catholic officials on this, too, much to their credit). I’m not a gay rabid dog, and I’m not stinky, disgusting and immoral. You most certainly are the immoral one for trying to promote discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is a illegal in some states, including my own…
So, if you were to apologize, I would consider discussing with you in an intelligent manner. Until then, bugger off, and get that help you need with your sexual confusion…
Joshua, I want to address one more point you’ve made:
Now, since the gay movement has been on the rise for the past 20 years, the Heart-Breaker routine has increased in traditional man - woman relationships. So, … do the math, who is corrupting who? And, who is eroding traditional marriage? This is why the (NOM) exists, they see the threat and the growing trend, and they are taking action.
Apparently, you are under the misconception that people switch their sexual orientation at whim, and when it becomes “popular” then more people choose to be gay. This is patently false. You can ask any professional on this subject and they will say that the percentage of homosexuals in the general population has not changed since the beginning of time. It has always been around 10 percent. The difference today is that people are more comfortable to be out of the closet about their true orientation. In the 1950s and before it was not considered even remotely possible to be honest about your homosexuality, and the vast majority of homosexuals masked their orientation by being in “faux” heterosexual relationships. The reason I say they were fake is because these people were lying about their orientation, and this often led to heartbreak for everyone involved. See the movie, “Far from Heaven” sometime for a realistic portrayal of the life of a homosexual in the 1950s. It will open your eyes. So, your observation that gay rights activists are more visible is absolutely correct. Your assumption that there are more gay people, and that somehow they are being “recruited” is patently false. By the way, the “trend” as you call it, towards equality for gay citizens took another step forward today. New York’s state assembly today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30711945/
It will be sent to the Senate next. If it passes that hurdle, the governor will enthusiastically sign it if it makes it to his desk. New Jersey’s governor has also vowed to sign any gay marriage bill.. And the inexorable mark towards equality continues…
OOps, my link erased part of my comment:
New York’s state assembly today passed a bill to allow gay marriage… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30711945/
NOM is not keeping up with the gathering storm. They only list these states in their crusade:
Connecticut
Iowa
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Gay marriage is already a done deal in those states (with the exception of New Hampshire, because we’re waiting for the governor to weigh in).
NOM needs to focus on New York and New Jersey, which seem poised to be the next states in line for gay marriage bills. Keep your umbrellas out and available, the storm is coming to a state near you…
NOM: a head’s up: Rhode Island and Maryland are considering legislation to legalize gay marriage… You guys have a lot of catching up to do…. You still list the states that have already passed gay marriage as targets in your anti-gay crusade… You’re behind…
Dan…, You find me offensive and you say “bugger-off,” and, … Now I say the same thing to you. Now, both of us will find peace and happiness by IGNORING each other. [ live and let live ] and this is all that I am saying
——————-
RIGHT NOW, the homosexuals are seeking equal rights. Then when they aquire their equal rights, gays use this equal-right platform to attack and erode moral christian values, just like what happened to Carrie Prejean. So, it is not moral christians who are to blame for this (NOM) controversy, it is that gay judge. That gay-judge used his authority to try to corrupt Carrie Prejean into subverting her moral christian beliefs for his gay life style. If Carrie has had sold-out her moral Christian beliefs just to be Miss USA, that gay judge would have awarded her with the Miss USA Crown. She refused, and that gay judge unlawfully retaliated against her. So, this irrational rabid-gay-judge-dog should be silenced, forever, because he created a problem for Carrie Prejean, where she had none. it is us who need you to “bugger-off” and respect our Equal Right to Pursue Happiness.
So, … do the math, who is corrupting who? And, who is eroding traditional marriage?
Lets see.
1) Neutering marriage so that it no longer references the equality of one man and one woman.
Check!
2) Neutering marriage so that it no longer references the practice of human mating that it was meant to regulate and target for the sake of everyone’s rights involved in that practice.
Check!
3) Neutering marriage so that it is all about the “TWO” and no longer about anyone else involved (though requiring everyone to still recognize it with all the same benefits).
Check!
There you go, three out of three for those seeking to neuter marriage.
Joshua, just a note to correct your lack of understanding on what constitutes sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, nor a choice. Marriage is a lifestyle choice, but sexual orientation is not.
Read this for a definition of sexual orientation:
http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html
A question for you: why would you knowingly date a lesbian? This is what you said in a previous post. Do you have such a low self esteem that you would date someone who could never possibly fall in love with you physically? This is the sign that you have a disturbed mind. I would never date a straight man. NEVER… And, the other sign of your lack of mental stability is that you say a co-worker tried to “turn you gay.” I have news for you, nobody can turn anyone else gay. This is determined by genes or at the very latest by the age of two. So, if anyone influenced your sexual orientation is was your parents, and probably through their genes… Your co-worker might be able to seduce you to have sex with him, and many, many straights have had gay sex. In fact, a quite high percentage of them. This is also true of gay people. I’ve had sex with women, big deal, it doesn’t make me straight. I’ll always be gay, no matter how many women I sleep with. Behavior and orientation are two very different things. And, if you think gays are the only ones who try to seduce people, you are mistaken. I’ve had to dismiss at least three female heterosexual students from my class within recent memory, because they would not give up on making sexual advances towards me. This is true. Their behavior was inappropriate, and I successfully removed them from my class.
Joshua, you are such an excellent spokesperson for NOM. I hope you keep it up! This gem from Joshua:
this irrational rabid-gay-judge-dog should be silenced, forever, because he created a problem for Carrie Prejean, where she had none. it is us who need you to “bugger-off” and respect our Equal Right to Pursue Happiness.
So, apparently, you’d like the “rabid-gay-judge-dog” to die. Is that right? I haven’t heard anyone from the homosexual side saying that Carrie Prejean should be killed. Have you? She absolutely has a right to her opinion. Nobody disputes that. But, what was a dispute was the fact that she acted as a spokesperson for NOM, which violated her contract agreement with the Miss USA pagent. If she had been on the pro-marriage equality side, and had acted as a spokesperson for Equality California, she would have been equally blamed for her involvement. It is a violation of the contract she signed to act as a spokesperson for ANY organization that is not the official Miss USA organization. But, it is very interesting that the Miss California officials are publically saying that Carrie offended many Californians (including myself) for her failure to represent ALL of us. She is clearly against equality for gays and lesbians, and thus doesn’t deserve the right to represent our state. That’s my opinion and I’m stickin to it… If a beauty pagent winner had come out against interracial marriage when it was the hot social topic, you can bet that the black, Latino, Asian, and other minority communities would have, and should have come out against that. Bigotry is never the right thing to do. I even support her right to express her “Christianity” in public. However, to deny a minority group its rights because of those personal beliefs is not OK….
——- D A N ————
You said “bugger-off” and that is what I will do, after this. Is it that you just can’t exist without attacking the morals, ethics, and values of a person, like that gay-pagent-judge did to Carrie Prejean?? Is it you know that I’m happy and content without even acknowledging you, and you need to bring me dis-satisfaction?? Then it is you, you have that brain disease called an irrational mind!!
——————————–
Let’s take a look at your NON SEQUITOR:
You claim I dated a lesbian; however, I wrote that I [[ tried ]] to date a lesbian. She would not allow it, she was filled with hatred, and I’m glad I know what they truly are about (End of Story). Just because you are out of ways to attack my psychological well-being, don’t mean that you can use your perverted mind to create one.
——————————–
You claim I was harrassed by a male gay co-worker; however, I wrote that this gay man was my [[ MANAGER-SUPERVISOR ]], and it took administrative disciplinary action to put him in check. I have real true-life experience, I didn’t just shun and avoid, I got to know and understand.
——————————-
Your need to evade reality and honesty is repulsive, and you need to ‘bugger-off.”
Thanks Joshua for clarifying. The burning question remains. Why did you “try” to date a lesbian? I’m just trying to understand you. As I said, I would never, ever, date a straight man. My first partner (we were together for ten years) was married to a woman while we lived together. He was no more a straight man than I was, but he married before he came out of the closet, and it took many years before they divorced. The divorce occurred in the middle of our relationship, and his ex-wife lived in another state. I got into the relationship with him knowing all of this, but also aware that he was not a heterosexual. In your case you attempted to start a relationship with a person who was homosexual, even though you are heterosexual. This is clearly a different situation, and one that, to my mind, shows a confusion on your part. I’m trying to help, even though you lash out at me as if I’m an evil enemy. Let’s get the facts straight, here. It is YOU that are trying to prevent ME from having the civil right to marry, correct? It seems to me I should be the hostile one. Your hostility is a sign of something far deeper than is on the surface now. I”m just trying to get at why you hate homosexuals so much, and I think I’m onto something by uncovering these odd incidents that have happened to you. I have told you that I was similarly harrassed by several female students. I dealt with it, and it was no big deal. It’s over. You seem to be hanging on to this as if it was a life-changing event.
OK, let’s both bugger off, and I’ll break out the champagne to celebrate New Hampshire’s gay marriage bill, which the governor has agreed to sign as of today!
—————- Proverbs 1:1-7
—————- Proverbs 29:16
—————- Daniel 12:10
John 15:18-19 The authorities of this world does love its own , if moral Christians are hated by this immoral world, then they deserve better than this world. Just like that gay-pageant-judge created a problem for Carrie Prejean, where she had none, so have other irrational-authorities, in GOVERNMENT, have created problems for moral Christian parents, where they have none. Gay and lesbian AUTHORITIES were the one’s who spear-headed the women’s liberation movement [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_woolfe [ note the organization Bloomsburg and the defiant nature of their objectives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_Group ], and their influence of the elite in society did encourage authorities to shatter the traditional family, and destroy the man as head of house hold, and as the sole provider for his family. They diminished the man’s pay check, and his earning capacity, so that both parents MUST neglect the child, and work for a paycheck, just to make financial ends meet. So, now that a man is no longer a provider and the head-of-house-hold, and that both parents must struggle against economic slavery that is designed to destroy the family, a gay man now deems himself equal to the man who has had his prestige and recognition diminished and stripped away, by gay and lesbian authorities. Like I said before, homosexuals use their equal rights to obtain a higher platform to attack traditional Christian values, and bring us down to their level of DIS-SATISFACTION. Now, after diminishing and destroying heterosexual relationships, a gay man accuses heterosexuals of being bad parents, and claims that he can be a better parent. Here is REALITY, heterosexuals are in a life and death struggle against an immoral corruption campaign that is waged against them by homosexual authorities, in our own government, and most of us don’t even know it; YET, and this unnecessary strain does damage our ability to be better parents. What the (NOM) is trying to do is to make heterosexual parents aware of this immoral homosexual crusade against them; so that together, we will repel this immoral corruption campaign made by gay and lesbian authorities.
Joshua. You are hilarious! Do you really think that bible verses proove anything, other than this is the basis for your homophobia and insistance on banning gay marriage? I don’t believe the bible, so your verses mean nothing to me. Let’s talk about reality and real life, not some imaginary spirit friends from 2000 years ago….
Joshua, can you tell me your “core” reason for opposing same sex marriage? Name your top reason is should be banned. I’m sincere in this question, and would like a direct answer. Stop and think about it, too. Please no more bible verses. It will take years of therapy to get all of the Jesus out of my system. I heard nothing but Jesus for the first 18 years of my life…
————- Proverbs 28:15 to 16
———— Ecclesiastes 4:1 to 3
—————- Proverbs 22:24
————— 1st Corinthians 11: 11
————— Ist Corinthians 11: 7
Joshua 77: 49
Joshua 49: 34
Joshua 22: 55
See, Joshua, we can both quote bible verses! WOW!
I’d still like an answer to my most important question. The bible’s timeline puts Adam and the ribwoman on earth about 6000 years ago. And yet scientists have documented the earliest human footprints at 1.5 MILLION years ago. What happened in those years between the earliest humans and when your god “created” Adam? Where is the missing history of humankind? Don’t quote more verses, because I’ve read the bible cover to cover, and there is nothing in the bible that explains this enormous, vast hole in the story of human beings… If you can fill this gap, I’d be most appreciative… Thanks, Joshua. You rock!
Aliza, shrimp is an abomination too. Do you eat shrimp?
(Leviticus 11:10-12)
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
On Lawn, you claim that the reason Dan finds your “equality” argument without merit is because Dan is gay. How do you explain the fact that millions of heterosexuals (many of them who are married) who also find that your argument has no merit?
The country is split almost half and half on this issue and half the country is not gay.
“You are showing have no tolerance for any quality that is unique to men and women integrating together. Your relationship doesn’t have it, it doesn’t exist.”
On Lawn, you claim that the reason Dan finds your “equality” argument without merit is because Dan is gay. How do you explain the fact that millions of heterosexuals (many of them who are married) who also find that your argument has no merit?
Could you specify the quote you are pulling that from?
Thanks Stefanie! On Lawn’s homophobia, most likely based on religious beliefs is showing through loud and clear. He’s like a robotron and repeats the same non-argument over and over, and even you, as a straight woman, don’t buy it. Isn’t it interesting that NOM doesn’t even mention procreation in their storm commercials? Why is that?
Joshua, on what authority do you get the 650,000,000 years of evolution during Noah’s ark? Is this something you’ve read, or made up yourself? If so, how did Noah and his family live so long?
Joshua, one more “deep” question for you. If god created Adam and the ribwoman, how did they get grandchildren without incest? Either Adam slept with his daughter, or Eve slept with a son, or the children slept with each other. There is no other scenario, because otherwise there is no mention of god creating a third human after the first two were “manufactured.” Maybe you can explain it?
Thanks. I love those verses, too. Keep them coming. I’m try to think of some for you to check out, too…
I wasn’t planning on commenting here again, as I thought I had expressed my views enough and gotten to a fairly good place.
But, I just have to say, Joshua, while I am technically “on your side” I think you are digging a hole for yourself. Those passages you have shared are nothing to base a testimony on, and whether they are relevant or not, they still fall on deaf ears here. There is no basis (scriptural or otherwise) for the Noah’s Ark scenario, I cannot imagine where you got that, and it just goes further to discredit your arguments.
This, just like any argument between rational people must be based first on mutual respect and civility. I’m not homosexual, I do not support the idea of gay “marriage” at all, and yet even I have been bothered, almost offended, by many of the things you’ve said. So, for your own sake I really hope you’ll try to come up with some more rational and reasonable arguments and try not to be so, uh, passionate. Again, I support what I think your ends are, but not your means.
Dan–
“If god created Adam and the ribwoman, how did they get grandchildren without incest? Either Adam slept with his daughter, or Eve slept with a son, or the children slept with each other. There is no other scenario, because otherwise there is no mention of god creating a third human after the first two were “manufactured.” Maybe you can explain it?”
I cannot explain this, other than with my own personal beliefs. It was not incest, because God likely commanded it and made it possible, for the continuance of the race. The same as when Mary, the mother of Jesus bore a child without a human man, even though she was not married to the Deity that created the pregnancy, it was not a sin because it was necessary for God’s plan to continue. I hope this can be taken delicately, as I know of no other way to write it.
Larissa,
Thanks for you explanation about Adam’s grandchildren. You deserve a speicial prize, in my book, because you are the very first “believer” who has even attempted to answer the question. Most people get flustered, and just ignore it. It is a compelling question, I think. Why would god create a scenario that required incest, and then later on forbid it…? Best regards to you!
Poor Joshua. I agree, he means well, but has only created problems for himself. I agree that he is alone in his Noah theory…
You Know, and irrational mind cannot perform any kind of integrated thinking, and I’m not going to communicate with that IRRATIONAL MIND; so, to those OTHERS who are interested, my answer to those SHALLOW dilemas will be forth-coming.
First they say, “let’s just discuss without supplying proofs and research. Now, they say you must prove it, Make up your mind! I’m doing the research, NOW!
===============
Tell (DD#*) to evade this answer and just look at this =>(John 3:3-7)
——————————-
^^^^ No D#* zone ^^^^^
Most people won’t even try to understand or deal with an angry GOD; that is because they over-look and EVADE the reality of those things that are standing in plain sight. [[ THERE WAS INCEST ! ]] Why do you think GOD is so ANGRY, and why do you think HE does NOT have direct contact with humankind. For the past 6000 years GOD has been operating from a distance, to CLEAN-UP this mess, and restore honor, dignity, and respect to humankind, and gays and lesbians are NOT on that list. Remember, the 2nd Adam said these words, “Verily I say unto you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of GOD, restored here on planet earth.” (John 3:3-7)
==================
The first step in the INCEST cleansing process was during the days of Noah’s Ark, when the Ark sat of that mountain-top for over 7 months (Genesis 8:1-19). If you will look back, I SAID, that TIME STOOD STILL on the Ark, while 650 million years of evolution passed them by => http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/EvolutionOfLife.shtml#Vendiananimals and they didn’t even know it. If you will look back, I SAID, that this was GOD’s INTERVENTION, and anything was possible. Now, the first step in the INCEST cleansing process, was when CREATED life came out of the Ark, and INTER-BRED with EVOLVED LIFE. So, what do you think, interbreeding with evolved life is an effective method of reducing and cleaning-up incest, after the FLOOD, and interbreeding isn’t such a sin after all, is it?
———————————-
People keep thinking that GOD is so unjust, “integrate your mind with reality for once!”
———————————-
I also SAID, that created life inter-bred with evolved life to create a genetic blood-line link to the 1st Adam, so that the 2nd Adam can be born form humankind, and have the necessary blood-line lineage to the 1st Adam, so that the 2nd Adam, can act as the Redeemer (to Reclaim) of the 1st Adam’s lost estate, (planet earth and all life thereupon).
———————————-
Since you were not there in person, use HINDSIGHT to put the pieces together. Now if you ask me anymore questions, you will be required to answer my question, first.
OMG, Joshua, you need more help than I originally thought. Would you like to discuss this with a friend of mine who is a gay Evangelical Lutheran minister? The two of you would have lots to talk about regarding bible history and theology, I’m sure. And, it would be interesting to see you call him a depraved person, since he’s a minister of the same gospel you believe in.
I don’t presume to speak for gay people. I speak for myself, when I say I’m a non-believer. And you seem to forget I was raised in the home of my Evangelical father, who was also a minister. I read every word of the bible by the time I was a teenager. I can probably quote more verses than you can, even though it’s rusty now… And, by the way, some fellow bible believers on this very blog have already stated that your account of Noah’s ark and the 650 million years is wrong. Take it up with them, please, because you also forget that I don’t believe a word of the bible myself… So, you still haven’t satisfactorily filed the gap of the 1.5 million years before Adam and Eve were “created,” and the appearance of the first document human footprints. Sorry…
I am doing my best to try and follow you. You said
“Since you were not there in person, use HINDSIGHT to put the pieces together. Now if you ask me anymore questions, you will be required to answer my question, first.”
And since you declared your incoherent rant a “no D zone” which I take to mean that Dan cannot read it….that must all be directed at me.
Nope, nevermind, I cannot make sense of what you said.
Your first main point was that gays and lesbians are not part humankind, or those whom God is trying to help (offensive statement #1).
Your reference to Christ as the “2nd Adam” is extremely confusing. That sounds like you believe in reincarnation, and that you atleast do not understand who Christ is.
You remind us of what you already said, that Noah and evolution “argument” but we don’t need a restatement, what we asked for was information on where you came up with that and how you pull that out of Christianity. Because, quite frankly, it sounds extremely nuts.
I do not believe that “original sin” is a valid belief, just personally. But you seem to be taking it a step (or gargantuan leap!) forward in saying that not only are mankind being punished for Adam’s transgression, but that we are also responsible for the act(s) that allowed mankind to flourish on the earth (in the Judeo-Christian view)?!
You said: “Since you were not there in person, use HINDSIGHT to put the pieces together.”
Using all-caps does not help us to understand you any better. There are better ways of letting us know of your frustration. Also, hindsight by definition requires personal experience of some sort, so if we were not there in person we cannot possibly use hindsight, ok?
Finally, again you said “Now if you ask me anymore questions, you will be required to answer my question, first.” Aaaand, um, what question would that be that you have asked? I don’t see one.
Obviously, this is like explaining a three dimensional world to one who lives in a two dimensional world. Here’s a question, WHAT IS INTEGRATED THINKING?
Joshua, try directing your comments at whom you mean to speak to by using their name, like I just did.
Larissa, I don’t think it’s possible to follow Joshua’s thinking because it is scattered and irrational. I feel badly that his mind has been so taken over by the bible that he cannot have a meaningful discussion without quoting verses. When you use examples from the bible, I’ve noticed that you avoid quoting the bible, but instead give a summary of what it says. It is clear that your mind has processed the”message” of the bible, and are able to communicate what it says. Joshua quotes verses (as if it means something to me), and then goes off on unrelated tangents. If he is not the perfect protype of a brainwashed mind, I don’t know what is. It’s sad, isn’t it? I might poke fun at him (he is an easy target, after all), but I really do pity him…
On Lawn, I did specify the quote I was pulling from:
You said to Dan, “You are showing have no tolerance for any quality that is unique to men and women integrating together. Your relationship doesn’t have it, it doesn’t exist.”
Basically, that means Dan doesn’t have tolerance for the unique relationship between men & women because his relationship doesn’t have it (meaning he’s gay).
How do you explain that nearly half of all Americans (including ones like myself) who aren’t gay support gay marriage? Do you think we don’t have “tolerance” as you say for male/female relationships? I find that strange since many of us gay rights supporters are married.
Dan, it’s truly comical. On Lawn & Chairm use this weird equality of the sexes argument as their basis for being anti-gay marriage. NOM knows this argument won’t fly because everyone knows procreation isn’t a requirement for marriage and NOM knows the people who are against gay marriage are mostly against it based on religious grounds. That’s why they use the religious argument in the perfect storm ad.
What scares me most is that these same religious groups aren’t just against gay rights. They want their interpretation of the bible made into U.S. law and that is very dangerous. They don’t respect individual liberty and that is dangerous for all of us. If I don’t stand up for the gays, who will stand up for me when they try to take my rights away?
1. They’re usually the same people who are against single heterosexual people adopting or giving foster care to children (as can be seen with the law passed last year in Arkansas).
2. They also want to end no-fault divorce.
3. They are usually not only against abortion, but they’re against women using the birth control pill.
Stefanie, Thanks for that! I needed that. I thought I was the only one who thought that On Lawn and Chairm were full of it. This obsession with “identity politics,” as they call it, reminds me of cult members who use specialized language that the general public doesn’t use nor understand. Do you have ANY idea what identity politics means? All I want is the right to marry. I’m not being political in the least. This is neither a Republican nor Democratic issue. It’s an issue of fairness, and equality, and a growing number of Republicans are defecting from the Bush era position of anti-gay marriage. They realize if they don’t come on board in support of same sex marriage, and soon, they will lose by an even wider margin than in the last election.
Yes, procreation is not a valid argument. This is clear, because NOM won’t use it in their ads.
On Lawn and Charim remind me of those Jonestown people who took the Kool-Aid because their leader forced them to do it. They use this obscure labelling and terminology to isolate themselves and their argument from the general population. It frightens me.
I asked Chairm if he would have use the “identity politics” label when describing blacks who wanted the right to marry a white person. So far, no answer. He also can’t answer how my marriage will harm his marriage. They act like gays will take away their marbles or something. This is not a playground. Granting the right to marry to same sex couples takes away nothing from heterosexuals. They seem to act as if they will no longer have the right to marry if gays are allowed to marry. Ridiculous and paranoid…. Again, cult-like behavior. Ever heard of magic underwear and the secret handshake?
Stefanie, let’s not even start the abortion question! Have you ever heard that some Jews believe that the soul doesn’t enter the body until we are born? In other words, life begins at birth! I believe that, because otherwise why celebrate our birthday? Why not celebrate our conception, if that’s when life begins?
And, Stefanie, I’ll stand up for your rights any day! I even stand up for On Lawn’s and Chairm’s right to have their celestial marriages, wear magic underwear, and have secret handshakes. It’s their right to do whatever they want. They can even drink the Kool-Aid for all I care…
Stefanie, there were several religious groups that argued to overturn Prop 8 for the very reason you are talking about. They think it is dangerous to let some religious groups dominate our laws, because there are religious groups that support gay marriage. Nobody is being forced into a same sex marriage. It will never affect their lives, and yet they use this backward thinking that by allowing someone else to marry will somehow harm their marriage. Very paranoid, as I said earlier. And, you are right, this is setting a dangerous precedent for religious groups to dominate our laws. Maybe someday we won’t be able to eat pork because it violates the rights of Muslims. Who knows how far they could take this? Frightening, isn’t it?
Stefanie:
I’m going out on a limb here and giving a profile of Chairm’s and On Lawn’s identity politics:
1. Anti-abortion
2. Pro gun ownership
3. Probably participated in the “tea parties”
4. Probably voted for GW Bush (twice) and McSame
5. Base their political views on religious beliefs.
6. Believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
How’d I do so far?
Oh, forgot the most important thing:
7. Anti-marriage equality
Guys, we can see through you to your “core” meaning. Your identity politics shows in every sentence you write.
Ah ha! If you click on On Lawn’s name, you will be connected to this Mormon website. I’ve been right all along. On Lawn and Chairm have tried their best to keep their religion out of this, but we can clearly see that they are members of the church (cult):
http://latterdaycommentary.blogspot.com/
So, I’ve been in this hornet’s nest all along. My intuition told me it was true, but now we have proof!
Dan’s spamming across threads again.
How hilarious.
Stephanie,
You seem perfectly capable of answering your own question, but fall short of it.
Why do you not accept expecting equal gender representation in marriage, to be expecting marriage equality?
As for Dan, his parade of statements that complain that children are being considered at all, that this forum should be talking about only the concerns of same-sex couples, alludes to a very self-centered view of the matter.
Its not that he’s gay. Theres many gays who believe in true marriage equality meaning equal gender participation. Its just that Dan can’t see beyond the nose on his face. Its not unique to Dan, but it isn’t universal either.
But just look at his weird conclusions that happen all the time.
The latest being that if you click on the hyper-link in my name you will be “connected” to a cult site.
You’ll be connected to Opine Editorials, which “Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity. Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.”
If by connected you find a link on the right side bar, you’ll find that there are a number of feeds which are on the right side. Some from specific sites on both sides of the issue, including Evan Wolfson’s, etc…
It seems not much this person says is very true at all…
Umm, I really doubt that either On Lawn or Chairm are LDS. They have not said anything so far that would designate them as such, and it’s especially apparent to me that they aren’t since members of the Church generally come to one another’s aid. No one here has helped out in the slightest in attempts to defend the church from hasty generalizations and vicious slams.
I thought I had made some sort of headway here in regards to mutual respect. Apparently not.
I am begging you, Dan, please do not bring up our Temple garments or other sacred things from the church here. This is not because I am in any way ashamed of them, but because to me they are so sacred that we do not discuss them outside of the temple. Please. There are other ways to make your arguments, please respect this much. Thank you.
I have always been curious as to why this is a problem: “Base their political views on religious beliefs.”
To anyone who is religious, those convictions should encompass most or all of their lives. Not to the point of fanaticism of course, but faith influences many major decisions and daily choices. I know for me, my faith keeps me grounded and focused on my personal goals and the goals I have for my family. I consider voting to be a significant blessing and opportunity, as well as a responsibility, and so why is it strange that my religious convictions might influence my votes? My faith is where all my strongest convictions stem from.
Sorry, Larissa, I’ll try not to offend your religion, if you agree not to offend or try to take away my right to marry who I want (which I point out has NO affect on your life). Deal or no deal?
On Lawn, speaking of hilarious conclusions, here’s one of your pearls:
Theres many gays who believe in true marriage equality meaning equal gender participation.
Please site an example of a gay person who thinks that we have no right to marry our same sex partners.
And, speaking of not being able to see beyond your nose, you still cannot see that marriage can and does exists without children. Why can’t accept that most heterosexuals will acknowledge that marriage is not dependant on procreation, and in fact, millions of marriages exist without children, and are equally valid in the eyes of the law (which is what we’re talking about, aren’t we?).
You cannot see beyond procreation. That’s very sad for those childless couples.
Larissa, who otherwise supports your anti-marriage equality stance, is so embarrassed by your procreation argument, that she disassociated from you a long time ago… Frankly, On Lawn, it IS embarrassing, and also laughable to most people. How many people actually believe that marriage cannot exist without procreation? Take a poll, and you’ll see you are in the minority…. I’ve got an idea, since you are in the minority, let’s vote on your rights. How would that be?
Larissa, I apologize for trying to connect On Lawn to LDS. I realize he is an embarrassement to your side of the fence, but the fact that you don’t want him in your religion speaks volumes…!
Its not that I don’t want him “in my religion.” If he were, that would be fine. I’m just making the observation that it is highly unlikely that he is LDS. He is welcome to be in the church, there are silly people in the church as much as anywhere else. Its just not apparent that he is a member at this time.
Larissa, you are so cool, and speak well for your beliefs! I have always appreciated that you never attack people, unlike On Lawn. He has brought this out in me, and it’s not really my true character. I was ready to cut off this blog until today when Chairm and On Lawn kept up their badgering. Isn’t it a shame that people can’t be civil?
Larissa, do view marriages that have no procreation as valid?
Larissa, here’s an interesting video I found about the topic of religious freedoms and same sex marriage. You can thank On Lawn for helping me find this valuable info…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCjNQFvNIaw
Larissa, do view marriages that have no procreation as valid?
Do you view drivers with car insurance that have no accidents as valid?
Is the man+woman relationship not the one that you can expect procreation in?
Do you think homosexuality is a disability?
He has brought this out in me, and it’s not really my true character.
So says the abusive personalities in this world.
On Lawn kept up their badgering
If replying to your deliberate misquotes, endless off-topic accusations, and tirades are badgering, then you truly have no clue about how to treat people with respect.
On Lawn, procreation is an off-topic issue. This is about marriage and nothing more. Procreation is a separate issue, remember?
And, I asked Larissa, not you…
And, of course drivers with car insurance, but without accidents are valid. What is your non-point?
Procreation does not equal marriage and marriage does not equal procreation. They do not depend on one another to exist.
Is a single mother invalid, because she is not married? NO, she is a parent. Is a marriage with no children invalid? Well, according to On Lawn it is… What a crock…
Marriage is for TWO people, and is a contract between those two people and the state. There is NO agreement to procreate either stated or implied… TWO people…
On Lawn, I think I just “got” your insurance analogy. OK, so couple’s get married in order to protect their children, should they at some point decide to procreate. Is that your point? So, it validates my point rather than your point. In other words, couples who marry don’t do so in order to procreate, but with the possibilty that they might procreate. Gotcha.
Well, that was interesting…
Is a single mother invalid, because she is not married?
Excellent point. Think about that a bit more introspectively
She is not “invalid” just because a single person is not a marriage.
So, it validates my point rather than your point. In other words, couples who marry don’t do so in order to procreate, but with the possibilty that they might procreate. Gotcha.
I’m glad you got that far, but its not clear how that validates your point. Its still got a way to go.
If I were to rewrite that to be more accurate I’d say…
couples who [engage in the human mating practice which has] the possibility that they might procreate[, marry to ensure responsibility from all parties involved in case children are created].
Its written similarly for car insurance…
people who engage in the practice of driving cars have the possibility that they might get into car accidents. Car insurance ensures responsibility from all parties involved in case of an accident.
On Lawn, I have a great idea. Since you insist on this notion that marriage must have procreation in order to be valid or meet the “core” meaning, how about we wait until couples have had a child until they can get a marriage license? Would that make you happy? Then there is no pressure for the couple who doesn’t want to have children. They will be left out of marriage altogether. We could grant those couples civil unions. Would that appease you?
So far, none of your explanations, anecdotes or analogies has convinced me that the core meaning of marriage is procreation. In fact, if you look back at our comments you will notice that both you and Chairm tried numerous times to get my definition of the core meaning of marriage. Chairm said that every person who supports SSM has failed to get the core meaning that HE was looking for. Now, this wouldn’t have something to do with the fact that the core meaning of marriage is something else, would it?
I think I’m right. The core meaning of marriage is a commitment between TWO consenting adults, and the legal rights, benefits and commitment that the government grants those two individuals. Whether those two adults procreate or not is a matter between them and has nothing whatsoever to do with the government’s legal agreement. The only important issue relating to procreation is that the children of these two adults is protected by their parent’s marriage once they are born. When those parents decide to end their marriage, the children are often split up as if they were property or assets. And, children are often used as weapons when the divorce is process.
So, it seems to me you and Chairm would like everyone to believe that marriage is about procreation, when it actually isn’t. It must be frustrating that so many people do not see your point of view? And, doubly frustrating that NOM hasn’t seen procreation as a valid argument against SSM since they’ve never used it in their campaign…. Your message is not getting across…
how about we wait until couples have had a child until they can get a marriage license? Would that make you happy?
Would waiting until someone gets into an automobile accident to get car insurance make you happy?
Would waiting until someone falls off the highwire balancing act before you install a safety net make you happy?
You want people to enter into the commitment, to be prepared and understand what is happening before the child enters the picture.
So far, none of your explanations, anecdotes or analogies has convinced me that the core meaning of marriage is procreation.
Oh I don’t pretend that is an accomplishment. Ignorance is pretty easy to do.
Yes, I agree with you On Lawn. Ignorance is pretty easy to do, as you’ve so eloquently demonstrated. Just a recap: marriage is not about procreation. Marriage as about the union of two adults, and the legal recognition that comes with that union. Procreation is irrelevant….
I’ve got an idea… if churches want to take tax-payer money, then let’s tax the churches! If they want to use their “faith” as a reason for non-compliance, then they should refuse all tax-payer money, because last time I checked, Gays and Lesbians pay taxes too. So, if your organization takes tax-money, you have to follow the EOE guidelines as well. Simple. If you want to be exclusionary, fine, raise your own funds. In the meantime, practice your faith, rather than just be “scared” about it being taken away.
Larissa, here’s the problem with basing your political views on religious beliefs instead of a secular view:
If you base your political view on your religion, then your specific religious views become law, therefore disenfranchising everyone of every other religious view or non-religious view. Our laws must be secular in nature in order to best protect us all.
So let me get this straight….
If the object that causes the religious to suffer legally or from lack of religious freedom it should be okay to discriminate and practise your religion but when it comes to a mother 6taking her child away from medical practice then that’s somehow bad. She was practising her religion and yet you will scream just as loud that her religious beliefs hold no value. BUT the same doesn’t apply when religion discriminates against homosexuals. It doesn’t matter when religion teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death…. that is your religion in the Bible but you don’t even follow the bible except for the parts you want to follow.
If you wish to take the religion arguement anywhere then you need to first proove to everyone that your religious values work for everyone and not just one targeted group.
Someone somewhere was using taxation as an arguement and sorry but you pay your taxes and you enjoy the protections. I pay my taxes and get less protection. That is in-equality and that is why this is a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. But you guys will try anything to convince the unwary. Even to the point of lying and half-truths….
Religion that relies on deciept and fear to acheive its end, is not religion but pure human greed for control over other’s lives often at the victims expense.
“Larissa, here’s the problem with basing your political views on religious beliefs instead of a secular view:
If you base your political view on your religion, then your specific religious views become law, therefore disenfranchising everyone of every other religious view or non-religious view. Our laws must be secular in nature in order to best protect us all.”
Laws are created by humans. We are able to create laws based on convictions and our desire to change or better things. These convictions, for many many people come from some kind of religious faith. If religion were not “permitted” to inspire convictions strong enough to be put towards laws, then the only laws would be ones that come from secular ideas (i.e. I do what I want and there’s no consequences. Anything other than that includes some kind of religious principle whether the writer of the law goes to a church or not!).
“If you base your political view on your religion, then your specific religious views become law,”
Oh, wow I never knew I was so powerful! So if I vote a certain way my religion is forced on everyone? Not in my experience..
My views do not become law. I simply vote or act the way I do because of my beliefs, all or most of which are founded in religion.
The belief that religious beliefs shouldnt influence our votes is absurd. Just as absurd as if I told an african american to forget his/her culture and vote only based on the politics of a candidate. Just as absurd as if I told a homosexual that he/she could only vote for things that specifically support their quest for rights and nothing else. It is asking a group of people to cut off part of themselves.