FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), at 703-683-5004
APRIL 30, 2009
National Organization for Marriage and Carrie Prejean Launch New Ad
Showing Intolerance of Gay Marriage Activists, Illustrating Threats to Religious Liberty
(Washington, DC) - A new television ad featuring footage of Carrie Prejean explaining her support for marriage between a man and a woman, and then being verbally attacked by gay marriage activists was launched today by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). The ad - a continuation of NOM’s campaign in defense of marriage - also features footage of a gay marriage activist from the Human Rights Campaign referring to supporters of marriage as “outright bigots.”
“Carrie only said what the majority of Americans believe: marriage means a man and a woman,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “Her example resonates, especially to many young Americans, because she chose to stand for truth rather than surrender her core values.”
Gallagher added, “The behavior of Carrie’s critics raises a question in a lot of folks’ minds: if this is how they treat good people who disagree with them now, what will they do once they have the power of the law on their side?”
The new ad, called “No Offense,” follows an earlier NOM ad (”Gathering Storm”) that warned Americans that the push to legalize same-sex marriage has significant implications for religious liberty. In response to the earlier ad, a representative of the Human Rights Campaign appeared on Hardball to denounce NOM and supporters of marriage as “outright bigots” who are hanging onto the tradition of marriage through “lying and misrepresenting.” The HRC spokesman challenged the notion that same-sex marriage has any implications for religious liberty.
NOM’s new “No Offense” advances the religious liberty argument by informing Americans that a number of prominent legal scholars have warned that legalizing same-sex marriage in fact “will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict” for individuals, small businesses and religious groups. At least one of these scholars supports same-sex marriage.
“Many backers of same-sex marriage simply do not want to debate the consequences on society of this profound proposed change to redefine marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM. “They want to browbeat and silence opposition. But no matter how loudly they yell, their attacks on supporters of marriage will fail because people of integrity will speak the truth — whether they are in pulpits, law schools or even beauty pageants.”
To view the ad and read the letters from legal scholars, go to www.nationformarriage.org.
###
557 Comments
Well, if this is a case of ‘being verbally attacked by gay marriage activists’ then welcome to the club. The religious have been legally and verbally abused homosexuals for an awfully long time. It doesn’t feel good, does it? Makes you feel misunderstood and rejected? Even hated?
Now, all gays and lesbians want is for the legal abuse to end.
Rest assured, you’ll be able to continue to hate gays and lesbians.
People at NOM don’t want to debate the impact on their lives of gay marriage, because they know there is NO threat to their marriages. When asked repeatedly for info on the way in which gay marriage impacts their heterosexual marriages, they have NO answers… Gay marriage impacts the lives of gay people, plain and simple. Straight people will not be prevented from marrying each other. Stop trying to impose your religious views on everyone.
Here’s a great article which predicts the demise of NOM: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
Your days are numbered, and you might as well try to desperately muster up support before you are completely dead…
Same sex marriage is sweeping the globe like swine flu. The only countries where you will be immune from it are countries dominated by Islamic law. If same sex marriage is so frightening to you, and hurts your marriage perhaps you could find a condo in Saudi Arabia, or Iran? You will be protected from homosexuals there….
Miss Preajen, if you read this I congragulate you on your character and integrity
But wait I thought Jesus loved everyone?… Isn’t your organization somewhat hypocritical?
The obvious realities of nature pre-date the institution of marriage, are the basis of marriage, and, therefore, are the basis of recognizing the futility of the concept of homosexual marriage, regardless of pretences and insistences to the contrary.
Hmmm…same-sex “marriage” is legal in four states out of 50. On the other hand, some 40 states have either passed state-level DOMAs or state constitutional amendments to protect natural marriage. If we’re talking about the United States, the statement that SSM is “sweeping the globe like swine flu” is a bit hyperbolic, to say the least.
The bigotry thing is so tired. Give me a break. It is not bigotry to suggest that maybe two men living together as partners is not a marriage. It is also not bigotry to state the obvious fact that two men living together as partners is unhealthy, and not something that the state should encourage.
In terms of the impact of SSM on the lives of people who aren’t involved in same-sex relationships, I would offer (a) the Knights of Columbus, who were fined in Canada for being insensitive because they declined to rent their hall out to a lesbian couple for a “wedding” reception; (b) the judges and justices of the peace in Massachusetts who were told they had a choice to either perform same-sex “weddings” or lose their jobs; (c) the Methodist organization in New Jersey that lost its tax exemption for declining to allow a civil union ceremony to take place on its property, and which is currently being sued over the same issue; and (d) Catholic Charities in Boston, which shut down its adoption operation because the State of Massachusetts would not allow it to provide adoption services unless it violated its own religious beliefs by placing children with same-sex “married” couples as adoptive parents. (These are just a few examples; I could go on.) The biggest impact, though, is more indirect; in legalizing SSM, a state sends a message that forming a household with two same-sex parents is completely equivalent in every way to forming a household with a married mother and father. This is a false message with which the majority of Americans profoundly disagree.
SSM advocates should be honest and admit that they are looking to have the state validate and endorse their alternate lifestyle choices, and to silence and marginalize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint.
While some may wish that the natural marriage movement’s days were numbered, the reality is that we are just getting started.
I have a problem with DAN! Anyway Thank God for people like Carrie Prejean, finally someone who is ready to stand up for our rights as a man & a woman In a marriage. This has gotten out of control! If you can have your opinion & want to be with a man then it is your decision live with it. As for me I also have an opinion & YES do know that My GOD has created male & female and joined them together to go forth and multiply! Maybe if all of this world would go back to these Christian values maybe right now we wouldn’t be worring about the swine flu outbreak & other catastrophis going on today in our world. People wake up there is a reason for what is happening we need to beg GOD for his forgiveness. And no I will not apologize to DAN for my religious belief !!! Also NOM need not answer your question on same sex marriage because we all know that it is WRONG!
Dan, do you have nothing better to do than spam the comments space? Seriously, get a life! It seems like that you still haven’t gotten the point and are completely lost in your little world. There is a direct threat to heterosexual families if we allow homosexual marriage. It is all about the gay agenda. If it was only about the “rights” that gay partners don’t have; yet there is so much more than just that, and you know it. Majority of us Americans believe in traditional marriage. Don’t try to impose YOUR views on the rest of us!
Why doesn’t NOM openly state the fact that they are pre-censoring comments to this blog? Seems odd for a group that is attacking their opponents for not being willing to debate the issues.
I applaud Carrie Prejean for standing up for what she believed in. The contrast between her response and those who have vilified her is stark and telling.
Giving homosexuals preferential status either through marriage laws or hate speech laws, it opens a legal can of worms that needs to be addressed.
I found Rep. Randy Forbes argument striking: If Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who supports traditional marriage, had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage under H.R. 1913 she could be indicted as a “violent hate criminal,” facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under H.R. 1913.
This “religious liberty” argument is no different than when the southern politicains called you anti-south for opposing segregation. The Christian bigots will be exposed for the hypocrites they are.
@Dan
Equating being gay to skin color doesn’t work for a few reasons.
First, I’ve never heard of a former Black person. By contrast, ex-gays like singer Donnie McClurkin and actress Anne Heche (Ellen DeGeneres’ ex) are common.
Second, Black people, even Democrats, STRONGLY oppose gay “marriage.” Naturally, Black people vote for traditional marriage amendments like Prop. 8:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a-marriage-mandate/
Even Pres. Obama says he’s against gay “marriage.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/gossip-bloggerpageant-judge-calls-contestant-dumb-btch-over-gay-marriage-question/
(Interestingly, Perez Hilton hasn’t called the “homophobic” president the N-word.)
Finally, unlike civil rights activists like Martin Luther King, gay activists go on racist rampages when things do go well for them. Check out these stories of PRO-gay Black guys who suffer Klan-style attacks from “tolerant” gay activists:
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html
If you want to indulge in the gay lifestyle, that’s between you and God. But this nonsense of gay rights being like civil rights. Most Black people including myself clearly aren’t buying this flawed analogy.
I applaude NOM for their work. I would love to have a NOM give a presentation at my college. You can contact me at the e-mail that I’ve left for more details.
Dear Stupid People of NOM,
Understand this:
Perez Hilton is not a spokesperson for the gay community,
Perez Hilton does not speak for the gay community,
Perez Hilton does not represent the gay community,
Perez Hilton is not a symbol of the gay community.
Is there any part of that which you do not understand?
You really can’t stoop much lower than this can you? .
New Hampshire’s senate has just approved a bill to allow same sex marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/gay-marriage-new-hampshir_n_193141.html
Maine is considering legislation as early as next week. Slowly but surely gays and lesbians will have marriage equality. It might take 20 years, but I have no doubt it will happen in entire country. Stop your campaign of hate. You are simply out of step with reality and current trends on this issue. You are wasting your time…
Rather telling that my two reasoned comments discussing the issues, are awaiting censor approval, but Dan’s screaming “hate” flies right through. Seems NOM is using their “moderation” to present a false picture of their opposition. How dishonest.
Why gay people couldn’t focus on their gay thing?
I seriously suggest they should.
I want not want to share the “marriage” umbrella with them, while they can easily make their own unbrella.
It has nothing to do with right, it’s all about identity.
This statement was released from the Miss California USA Pageant regarding the unfortunate decision by Carrie Prejean to be a spokeswoman for NOM:
In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue. We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs, and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda.
Hey Dan,
You totally ignored the fact that Miss California USA Pageant was dragged into water by gay activist pretending as a judge.
He asked for it, he got it
What is it about you homosexuals? Are you ALL like the idiot Miss USA judge who should NEVER have been a judge in the first place? He had ONE goal that was to humiliate whoever answered his question “wrong”. You really think that people who believe that there is a reason that marriage has been around for 5,000 years and has done wonderfully well, will just give up and say, ok we have been wrong for the past thousands of years and will just let big mouth violent homosexuals like the idiot judge to just run over us? Think again.
Bigots? Decide for youself:
Oxford American Dictionary: Bigot: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions; expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance
dan, if you don’t agree with the wisdom and truth that is generated from this website, then go to the human rights campaign website, where you can continue your efforts to destroy traditional marriage forever. We are tired of being victimized by people like you for our beliefs only, and we WILL fight it, just like we did in this new ad campaign.
Carrie is a billiant young lady. Glad she has enough courage to stand up and not cower to the terrible media coverage provided by holleywood. I do support Nation for Marriage, but frankly it seems they are losing online. This site for example not very many comments, Do a google search for Nation for marriage or Carrie prejean and there isn’t much out there that is positive. Same for Yahoo news. Those are the 2 biggest online sources. Those supporting same sex marriage somehow seem to get to the top of the news sites. Anyway I do applaud Carrie and her courage, I know my children will know Carrie’s story.
thanks to NOM for all the work they do!
I will ask every God fearing person who reads this to join with me in a prayer for Dan, the multi-poster tonight on NOM.
Dan, everyone seems to rebel against anything for little or no reason. We need our own energy but someone doesn’t want us to drill. So we consider wind-power and another group doesn’t want the trees cut down. But one much mightier than any of us set the standards for marriage and also condemned relationships between same sex persons; His name is GOD.
You do not have to believe in God to be subjected to his judgment because none of us can escape that.
Without debating the religious aspects then I’d simply ask why those of perverted sexual persuasions could not have been satisfied just living together; not that I agree at all. It is beyond belief that it is not enough that you defy God’s and civil society’s dim view of same-sex relationships … BUT, I would love to know why you (I say you, collectively - not just to you, but to a group) … why must you take joy in tearing down the fiber that built the very Country you are lucky enough to call home. You make a mockery of everyone who fought, worked and died to provide you the very freedom you enjoy.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, I have supported your stand from the first moment. I was disappointed tonight to see you dodge almost every question that was posed to you by Fox News. You can’t lose but one tiara.
Also, in addition to very visibly dodging question after question the biggest disappointment was that you have stop mentioning - God, faith, belief.
I trust you took your stance based on faith and beliefs; don’t be swayed away from those fundamental cornerstones.
Dan said: “before you are completely dead…”
Why did you make a death threat against the people at NOM?
* * *
What minority are you talking about? Neither men nor women are minorities.
* * *
Identity politics is certainly divisive since that is its purpose, afterall. The gay version is no exception.
Dan, it is odd that you demand submission to your peculiar sectarianism and then make a joke about the Saudi version of religious identity politics.
Are you sure you aren’t a double-agent, because you are lending a good hand in illustrating the very thing that threatens religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
Maybe you are an opportunist who’ll end up standing with Carrie in favor marriage and against the bigotry of the SSM campaign.
It was that Pereze guy who asked the question in the first place. He brought the topic up about same sex marriage. Carrie Prejean has probably had a guts full of the criticism from minority groups due to her support for marriage and so probably thinks now is a good time to get involved.
How does allowing same sex couples to marry affect society? It removes the both sexed nature of marriage from its core meaning.
For thousands of years, since the beginning of civilization, marriage has applied only to the union of man and woman. Have we really been wrong all this time? Why should we redefine marriage or anything else for that matter, to suit a minority view? I personally have no problem with Civil Unions, but to equate same-sex unions with marriage is not true. No matter how often one hears a lie, it doesn’t make a lie truth … this would also apply to abortion and other lies that have been made law, i.e., none of us existed prior to conception, what’s left to ponder as to when life begins - as just one example of truth/logic. If same sex unions were to become legal as “marriages” in every state, that doesn’t make it so, i.e., the truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and also not between persons cosmetically altered to appear as either as well. So, lets all come out of the closet on this matter, and repeat the truth, at least as often as the lies or mistruths are repeated. I can only imagine the nightmare this will create with regard to family court and custody battles as well, to only mention one very adverse pervasive effect would have on our laws. As a Christian who’s religion is Catholic, it is with compassion that I offer this comment, because without either mercy or compassion, the objective is no longer Christian. As we all move forward to correct this mistruth and misleading understanding of what marriage really is, let us continue to do so in truth, regardless of our religious beliefs, i.e., applying the two threads that run through all world religions: Mercy and Compassion. No one or group has the market on sin ladies and gents, you break one commandment, you’ve broken them all. We all fall short, and none of us can say we haven’t experienced deceit in one form or another in this life. Again, even though a lie is told often, it doesn’t make it the truth - and although our laws are not perfect, the primary objective of law remains “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Why is NOM posting what they characterize as death threats, but censoring posting debating the issues? Seems that contra their advertising, it is NOM and not the “homosexual activists” who are afraid of open discussion.
Thank you for what you are doing to stand up for marriage. There are so many more of the silent majority than there are of the vocal minority. I am certain that because of your example and the example of Carrie Prejean and others, more people will take up the torch to defend marriage and family against redefinition and devaluation. Vitriol against supporters of traditional marriage is reaching an all-time high as same-sex “marriage” advocates watch civilized America stand up for Carrie Prejean and her right to share her opinion and still be treated respectfully.
In short, I think America is getting tired of the temper tantrums.
Chairm,
You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Gay people are minorities, duh… There are two main categories of sexual orientation, the majority orientation: heterosexual, the minority orientation: homosexual…
Still waiting for your definition of “identity politics” because no known living human being I know personally has ever heard this term before….
Also, still waiting to hear how my gay marriage hurts your straight marriage. Is that so hard for you to explain?
I do stand for marriage, and that’s why I’m fighting for my right to be married. You really are dense aren’t you? It is you that is standing AGAINST my marriage. I’m FOR it…
And, I’m for religious freedoms too, and that means the right to worship as I please. MY god of choice, or no god of choice, and if my god says gay marriage, then YOU are infringing on MY religious freedom to deny me my marriage, aren’t you? NOM is trying to get ALL Americans to live by their religious view, and this is not freedom, this is a theocracy based on your personal beliefs. You are against marriage, and against religious freedom. Same sex marriage affects MY life, not your life….
You owe me tuition for educating you….
Speaking of religious freedoms, the New Hampshire senate was about to fhrow out the gay marriage bill until a provision was included that prevented any retribution towards religious clergy that refused to marry same sex couples. That means that all of the states that currently allow gay marriage, also have in their laws this same allowance: “no religious group will be forced to marry same sex couples.” is that clear to you? Their reliigous freedoms are respected. What is it about this that you don’t understand? You will always be free to be in a heterosexual marriage, and I want the same freedom you enjoy to be married to my spouse. It’s really easy, but you don’t seem to get it. You want to prevent me from getting married. That’s what NOM stands for. You are against my marriage. You are not for anything, but promoting YOUR personal religious views and projecting them onto us all. This is Un-American….
Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan and Dan. Oh and Dan, you too…
Did I forget any Dan’s?
NOM is a good hearted charity working to preserve the humanitarian cause that marriage has meant for equality, help of the innocent and helpless,
There’s two different views of equality here, are there not?
One equality described as, “Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences.”
The other is described as, “I cannot fully love someone of the other gender so the government needs to change its institution to accept my discrimination against them.”
Which side do you belong to? Which side do you think sounds like 50’s segregationist mentality?
But it is even more than that. Take it from the children’s point of view. They place a real value and importance on knowing their parentage. They learn real value from seeing the parents they identify with showing each other the true value of their identities in currency of commitment, love and support. I’m not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres? And when you answer that question, you find that this isn’t a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender’s participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
Homosexuality doesn’t have to tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage. But it does if they find marriage’s equality in equal gender participation an affront to their own understanding of themselves.
The whole queer marriage thing is as hypocritical as a thing can be.
The underlying purpose of queer marriage is to achieve equality in the ability of persons to receive various state bestowed marriage benefits. When queer marriage becomes the law of the land, it will instead make marriage an unequal, limited, and non-inclusive contract form.
Instead of marriage maintining it’s unique clearly understood meaning, it becomes a special status that the state will only bestow only 2 types of relationships.
To restrict the receipt of civil marriage licenses and the associated benefits and responsibilities to only couples that engage in some form of mutual sexual activity does not achieve the objective of equality. That instead makes the civil power guilty of discrimination based on sexual activity. So sexual activity cannot legitimately be a requisite.
By allowing queer couples to contract civil marriages the civil servants actually create the inequality they claim to be eliminating. Adding one additional social micro-structure (queer couples) to the list of those qualified to contract civil marriage does not achieve their stated desired outcome of equality.
To achieve equality, civil marriage must be opened up COMPLETELY to permit any group of citizens to obtain marriage licenses if they choose. There is no valid excuse why any couple, or other group of citizens should not be permitted to contractually certify their communal living arrangements, and share civil benefits with their co-habitors.
The solution is to leave it alone so that marriage continues to mean what it always has. By allowing queers to contract civil marriages, the state increases inequality.
You and your friends can educate themselves at the wonderfully free resources on the internet. Identity Politics at Wikipedia.
“Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group whose members perceive themselves to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation). The term has been used principally in United States politics since the 1970s. Identity politics is a phenomenon that arose first at the radical margins of liberal democratic societies in which human rights are recognized, and the term is not usually used to refer to dissident movements within single-party or authoritarian states.”
Well, I suppose my comment will be in perpetual moderation, so let me try again in a much simpler way, and one that can not possibly be viewed as anything other than a differing view, not some kind of attack.
NOM, debates are going on in your very own blog, so to say that your opponents do not want to debate is very, very misguided, especially when you don’t allow comments that welcome debate.
I can honestly say that I have never hated a homosexual, nor any minority for that matter. I will admit that it has been difficult sometimes to understand them. I have thought long and hard about about why I would find it hard to accept gay marriage in society around me, and I’ve come up with this conclusion: I’m terrified. Terrified of losing that which is more important to me, and that is my family. I have always been taught that having a family is where real happiness if found. My wife and I want to have children of our own someday. Both of us believe that the family is an eternal unit set up by God. Since this whole gay marriage deal began, I have spent many hours talking to her about what we would do if one of our children decided to become gay. It was a hard conclusion to make. If I believe that my family is going to be with me in eternity if I’m faithful to God, and if I was taught that homosexuality was wrong according to the teachings of my Heavenly Father, then I’m terrified I wont see them again.
Also, when the Mormon front organization was on its campaign to prevent gay marriage from happening in Hawaii, there was a Buddhist group that protested against them saying that their religious freedoms were being violated, based on the fact that they have no problem with gay marriage. Once again, it is a case of YOU imposing your beliefs on everyone else. In the fight to invalidate Prop 8 there were many church groups who support gay marriage, and they claim that their religious freedoms were being violated by Prop 8. Why don’t you have an answer for these people? Nobody is violating your right to a heterosexual marriage when gay marriage is allowed. Quite the reverse is true, you are imposing on ME by preventing me from marrying my same sex partner. It’s quite obvious that you are the tryannical group imposing on the beliefs of others who do not agree with you….
You don’t have a marriage Dan if you have a same sex partner. Same sex marriage is impossible. Marriage has some fundamental principles which come from our human nature. Human nature can not be changed therefore the definition of marriage can not be changed.
Both sexes are required to form a marriage. If both sexes are not present then it is not a marriage. We could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married. People could be required to refer to homosexual unions as “marriages,” to refer to people in such unions as “spouses,” etc.
While the law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is.
Isn’t time that this troll be banned? 9 of the first 10 posts are by this bigot. True, I didn’t waste any time reading them, as I’m quite familiar with the garbage put out by those trying to destroy marriage. It’s just that I would like to be able to find some sensible comments in these threads without having to pick through the refuse of this troll.
Both religions and governments are free to define marriage however they choose. Marriage recognized by the state is not a Christian institution. If it were, then why do we give marriage licenses to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc? Also, there are numerous religions (some Christian sects, Unitarians, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc) in the US that allow gays to marry. It is unconstitutional for the government to recognize one religions’ marriages, but not other religions’ marriages (where consenting adults are involved).
Chairm,
Sorry I called you stupid. Unenlighted and uneducated might be a more appropriate label for you. Oh, I forgot, bigot fits nicely, too…
By the way, it seems the “gay agenda” is very likely to win over New England in the next few months. We thought it would take until 2011, but it’s happening at lightening speed. At this rate, you guys should give up in those states, and you might as well move straight (no pun intended) to Texas, because it seems like the Northern states are a done deal for us… It’s only a matter of time before SSM will make inroads into the South. Might as well get started with your campaign of hate there.
Dan, the marriage law’s man-woman basis does not include a sexual orientation test.
Does “gay union” law have such a test?
Nope.
Men and women are not minorities.
Still waiting your justification for your emphasis on gay identity.
You offer none but keep talking about sexual orientation — also without providing a coherent formulation for the law.
Your emphasis is irrelevant to the social institution of marriage but it is central to your political meddling with marriage.
You are not fighting for the right to marry, since the man-woman basis of marriage integrates the sexes and your argument is about special status for segregation of the sexes.
You seek nonmarriage.
There is no such thing as “heterosexual marriage” nor is there “gay marriage”, but rather just marriage.
And that is the union of husband and wife.
Your homo- vs hetero dichotomy does not apply to marriage.
You want a special status for some idealized version of The Homosexual Relationship. Okay, so what is the public significance of such a type of relationship?
Is it the sexual behavior, or the romance, that you mean to reward with special treatment? It seems not for there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior nor for romance when an all-male or an all-female arrangement applies for a license to SSM in Massachusetts or to domestic partnership in California.
Your emphasis seems to be stuck on stupid, since your argument is self-defeating by the stated standards of the pro-SSM arguments.
Once again, Dan, your namecalling does not add substance to the discussion. It reflects back onto you as a false accuser.
Disagreement is not bigotry. You want to impose a merger of marriage with a nonmarital arrangement.
Marriage entails the marital presumption of paternity which is based on the sexual relations of husband and wife. It is not based on anything sexual that an all-male or an all-female arrangement might engage in.
So while there is public/sexual aspect of marriage that is central to the most pro-child social institution, there is nothing of comparable societal significance in your assertions about “gay marriage”.
That is a huge gaping hole in your entire range of propaganda. And when you keep pushing a false equivalence, obstinately disparaging the truth, your display fits the classic definition of bigotry.
Explain your emphasis on gay identity — without resorting to identity politics — if you can. You are putting identity above justice and above the core meaning of marriage.
When racists did that, our society repudiated identity politics. There is a close analogy with racist identity politics and gay identity politics — when both are exagerated to assert supremacy.
That’s what you are doing, Dan, with an emphasis that defeats your own demand for political changes to the Government’s regard of the foundational social institution of civil society.
Wow. I never thought someone could be so deluded that they actually believe that someone who is fighting for equality and freedom is a bigot, but I guess I stand corrected.
Chairm-there IS such thing as heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. In some states, marriage is now between a man/man and a woman/woman as well as between a man and a woman. Just because you do not recognize it as marriage does not mean that is isn’t marriage.
And everything you accuse Dan of doing is what you are doing. You are the person creating false premises, spreading lies and propaganda, trying to sway the weak minded into thinking they are against families and such if they do not oppose same sex marriage. Look at this site, it is a perfect example of that.
And lastly, yes, disagreement isn’t bigotry. However, denying people civil rights, freedom, and denying them benefits, not to mention the write to express their love for one another, simply because you do not like it, IS bigotry. Its intolerance.
It’s sad that many same sex marriage activists have insisted on launching personal attacks on Miss California, even if you disagree with her views, engage the issue and not the individual. Folks like Perez Hilton are just giving these people more ammo to spin for their side, they already make up more than enough bull to argue against ssm, do we really need to give them more?
And by the way, not to engage in personal attacks, but Chairm, for the love of God, you do not have to hit enter after every sentence, a period will suffice, please try to talk in paragraphs. That’s been bugging me in all the threads you’re in.
Thanks, bwprsoup! I couldn’t agree more.
Phil, I agree that Miss California didn’t deserve personal attacks for expressing her opinon. However, the original comment she made at the competition shows that she was very confused in her stance on the issue of same sex marriage until the NOM people jumped on it, and convinced her to speak for their point of view. Her comment said that she “personally” thought that marriage is between a man and a woman, but also felt it should be a personal choice whether same sex couples should marry. In other words, it’s nobody else’s business but the same sex couple that wants to get married (that’s how I interpret it, and please tell me I’m wrong if you view it on youtube). This is similar to Obama’s point of view. He is fully supportive of equality for gays and lesbians, but falls short of the word marriage. However, the most important issue is that he has promised to do his best to eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act. If this were to happen, then NOM will have lost the war, because it would finally open the Federal government up to the rights of same sex couples. And, you can bet the US Supreme Court would weigh in on the issue, and I’m afraid NOM is on the wrong side of the fence if it got to that point. Why do you think GWBush was so desperate to get his constitutional amendment on the books to ban gay marriage? It’s because he knows that to ban gay marriage is unconstitutional at the Federal level… People who call the California, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts Supreme Courts “activist” are forgetting that they are merely intrepreting the consitutions of their states/commonwealths, and that when these decisions were made there was NO constitutional grounds for forbidding gay marriage. It’s called “doing your job.” The CA Supreme Court was mostly Republican appointed, so I’d hardly call them “liberal” or “activist.”
Hi. Most people are trying to give civil rights to gays. Legal rights. However, the line is drawn with the word/concept of “marriage”. This is not bigotry.
It is a bit more than “let people do what they want in the privacy of their homes.” By equalizing same sex marriage with man/woman marriage, (again, not civil unions…) it will become (and is already becoming at an amazing rate) normalized in our culture. Children will grow up with confusing role-models for marriage. On tv we will see men kissing men, women in bed with women. We already see it now on mainstream tv with men/women, even teenagers.
Freedom is worshipped in this country, and be careful, as freedom can go too far. Where do you say “no’?
Every one of these religious people is an ordinary human being who thinks he is smarter than he really is or who has the delusion he possess special powers of insight whe none exists.
In their warped minds, tolerance and forgiveness are considered evil unless approved by the religious. This is very evident in the way they treat homosexuality, if really a sin, compared to criminal behavior. They treat murderers better than they do gays. Who among them was empowered to play God and decide which sin is bigger and requires more punishment than another?
Propaganda is evident as the religious charlatans try to invent things to help support their false sense of preferred treatment in the eyes of God. Some, who believe “marriage” is a status symbol they alone deserve, claim that it is defined as being between a man and a woman and that definition, which exists only in their hate-filled minds, needs to be defended. So another disguised discrimination practice against gays was started to oppose their union being called “marriage.”
Their opposition is really needed to help perpetuate a false sense of superiority. The strange thing is that the act of forming a homosexual union in itself is not the problem, because they are willing to give “gays” basically all the same rights, but they just don’t want that kind of partnership to be called “marriage.” The bottom line is that this dispute is all about a word; it is OK as long it is called something else!
You will hear the claim that using that word diminishes the marriage between heterosexuals, but you will notice also that strangely enough in their eyes things like divorce and infidelity have less of an impact upon marriage than allowing two gay people to get “married.” So, the baseless “It demeans our marriage” argument, which we all know is not true unless it is meant in a class of citizen context, causes one to correctly ask, “Except as a status symbol, how does someone-else’s marriage affects yours?” and “Why is it that you are not up in arms in a corresponding way against divorce, which affects approximately fifty percent of the married population?” Why does one not even hear as much as a whimper out of these protesters defending the so-called sanctity of marriage?
Instead you hear such silly arguments as that from one “anti-gay marriage” Catholic priest, “If we let this happen, then what is there to stop people from marrying their pets? They love each other, don’t they?” If marriage is so sacred, why was a loophole known as “an annulment” created for the members of Catholic Church to be able to get out of it? Amazingly, these same opponents have no objection to letting even the most evil criminal marry a woman. So why shouldn’t the innocent crime-free-loving gay have a similar opportunity?
Even though they conveniently chose to ignore it, the opponents are also aware there is a religious as opposed to a civil aspect to marriage and each serve different purposes. In a civil context it is just like any other contract, still they want to combine the two uses and pretend they are one. Another reason why they are so vehement in their opposition to the concept of “gay marriage” is because using that term confers a lot of legal rights that the opponents want to reserve for themselves, thereby discriminating against gays as a subtle form of punishment and show of disapproval.
All this is a reflection of the inherent evil of any religion that permits a doctrine in which one’s beliefs can be used to form different classes of humans and make some more equal than others. The propaganda and deception behind the claim that their actions are in the defense of marriage is very evident when they do nothing to protect marriages against other things that represent a true and bigger scourge.
So now sore loser, Miss California, blames her whacky Christian answer for her loss instead of her ignorance and is now a spokesperson for stupidity. Before she or any other charlatan opens his/her mouth again he/she should read more from “Then Man Created God: The Truth about Believing a Lie”.
Everyone, please take the time to read some of these hateful and distorted comments on here against traditional marriage. Then, allow that fire that rises up inside of you to do something about it! Do your part to fight for traditional marriage. We don’ have to be the silent majority anymore. We don’t have to accept the redefinition of marriage. The only way things will change is if we do nothing. We are in the majority, and we have the power to stop it. So everyone, do your part. The disparaging remarks against traditional marriage will continue on here, so feel free to keep reading them and let it inspire you even more. We can win.
This Miss California nonsense is a red herring. Neither she nor Perez Hilton need be characterized as poster children for their respective movements–I think it’s telling that NOM is using this bit of foolishness as a centerpiece for their campaign of bigotry and misinformation. NOM is likely going to characterize her rather tepid response as the “reason” she didn’t win Miss America or Miss USA or Miss Stereotypical Male Fantasy from 1965 or whatever.
And to Rob from waay up thread: children don’t “become” gay any more than anyone “becomes” straight. Also, you really need to seek a way to overcome your fear. Fear eventually leads to anger and then hatred. If one of your children was to tell you that he or she was gay, they’re still your children. Also, what you’ve been taught about homosexuality and God=flat-out wrong. Think about the agenda associated with vilifying homosexuality (also, do some research on how we even get to the term “homosexual”–contrary to popular belief, the term didn’t exist in the first century). Overcome fear; embrace openness.
To all readers:
Please carefully read the comments above by Jack, On Lawn, and Secular Herectic.
* * *
bwprsoup said: “Just because you do not recognize it as marriage does not mean that is isn’t marriage.”
Hang on.
I’ve referred to the legal requirements but SSMers have been dodging the fact that “gay marriage” lacks legal requirements that define the meaning of “gay marriage”. So this is not just my personal opinion. SSMers, by their silence on this point, concede (probably because they agree but fear the implications) that there is no core meaning for “gay marriage”.
I have asked SSMers to plainly state the core meaning of “gay marriage” and to specify what distinguishes it from the types of realtionships and the kinds of living arrangements which are not marriage. There has been no forthcoming answer.
So if SSMers cannot identify “gay marriage” by its essentials, then, it is a gaping hole in their complaint. The complaint has become nonsensical, To wit: society does not recognize the distinguishing features of “gay marriage”, because there are none.
If you mean “recogonize” as in granting a government license, okay, but if the thing being licensed is indistinguishable from the rest that remain unlicensed, then, the governmental authority is acting arbitrarily. SSMers complain about abritrary use of government authority. Indeed, SSMers have routinely and insistently claimed that the lack of a law that forces married people to procreate must mean only one thing — that the centrality of procreation is a myth. Use that rule to test the assertion of SSMers, such as those of Dan and Roger and yourself, and the claim for “gay marriage” self-destructs. The faulty premises are those of SSM arugmentation and I have merely traced the logic of the SSMers. These are not my premises, but those of the SSM campaign as expressed in courtrooms, legislative assemblies, tv ads, anti-marriage amendment campaigns, and in other venues such as the blogosphere — like in the comment section of this blogsite.
You are not fighting for equality but for a false equivalence. And doing so in the name of gay identity politics, not justice, not liberty, not civil rights.
Is there anyone that you would prohibit from “gay marriage”? Related people, for example? Previously married people, for another example? No, not all related people, just some; and no, not all previously married people, just some. Do such lines exist for “gay marriage” — or no? Think about what you just said in your comment: “denying them benefits, not to mention the right to express their love for one another, simply because you do not like it, IS bigotry. Its intolerance.”
I don’t deny anyone the liberty to love. So you missed the mark anyway. Maybe you meant something else. Afterall, there is no love requirement in the law. Indeed, you haven’t specified what kind of love you have in mind. Maybe you are not talking about marriage but something more vague. Please plainly state the core meaning of the type of relationship or the kind of living arrangement that you have in mind. Thanks.
Phil, a paragraph can be one sentence or more sentences.
Or a single word.
Thanks.
Dan that is not what Miss CA actually said nor what she says she meant to say. You are confused, again.
You now say that she “didn’t deserve personal attacks for expressing her opinon”. On that we can agree.
But.
You have repeatedly made personal attacks in your comments here in the comment secions of this blogsite.
Apparently, your viewpoint begins with an axiomatic assertion that to disgree with you on SSM is an act of intolerance and bigotry.
SSMers rely upon that leap of faith in almost every assertion and every complaint that they make on behalf of their favored legal and cultural reform.
You have been no exception.
Chairm doesn’t seem to understand the “core meaning of gay marriage.” I’ll explain it to him. Marriage means the same thing to heterosexuals as it means to homosexuals. It means two people who decide to commit themselves to each other for life (ever heard of “till death do us part?”), and would like to have this union protected by law in case one spouse were to die. Additionally, gay married couples would like to recieve the tax benefits (i’d call them more like tax “breaks”) from the state and federal governments that heterosexual couples have always enjoyed. To deny these rights to gay couples is nothing short of discrimination, and it is the current law, at least at the Federal level. Can anyone tell me why my spouse and i could file joint tax returns, and get a huge refund for being married in 2008 (which is actually not fair to single people, in my view. Why do we deserve SO much more money back simply because we’re married?), and yet the Federal government will not even allow us to file jointly? We are thus not entitled to an additional several thousand dollars in refund, due to DOMA. This is patent and blantant discrimination. Why is our union considered “less” than yours? If Charim, or anyone else, cannot see that this is wrong, then I have no faith in your ability to think rationally or equitably.
So, to sum it up, Chairm, stop obsessing on nomenclature. Gay marriage (SSM) and straight marriage (OSM) have the very same core meaning. If you cannot understand the core meaning of gay marriage, it means that you also cannot comprehend the core meaning of straight marriage. Are we clear yet?
And, I have to thank someone else for defining your pet word “identity politics,” which you couldn’t seem to define for me….
One more time, Chairm: the core meaning of gay marriage equals the core meaning of straight marriage, and in the very near future the laws of our country will reflect this basic equality. May it come as soon as possible… I want our tax refund…
Chairm,
You said this:
Apparently, your viewpoint begins with an axiomatic assertion that to disgree with you on SSM is an act of intolerance and bigotry.
This is one of the first statements that you’ve made that I totally agree with you on. Read my last post. To discriminate against SS couples who are married, or would like to marry is intolerant and bigoted. You are absolutely correct. This is the core of my argument. Did you think it was fair to deny blacks housing, simply because of their skin color? The people of California voted to do just that in 1964. Ronald Reagan came out with this priceless statement: “If a person wants to discriminate against a Negro (HIS word), it is his right to do so.” Can you imagine a current politician making such a statement? And, yet we have politicians today that are advocating for such discrimination towards MY people (gay people) simply because they don’t want to allow us marriage. I don’t know what else to call it but bigotry and discrimination. It is singling out one group of people and treating them differently simply because you cannot comprehend that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. It goes to the core of our being, just as race and gender do. It is mindboggling that the religious folks still grasp onto this complete fallacy that a person’s sexual orientation is chosen and a “sin.” Wake up, people!
Charim, when interracial marriage was banned, one of the judges that heard a case pertaining to it actually made a comment that should remind of us of our current fight for marriage equality. He said, “God put the different races on different continents for a purpose. These races should not mingle, it goes against God.’
So, do YOU Mr. Chairm, believe that this statement is correct? After all, it was your god that put people on different continents. Why should we disobey this law of nature and mix the races? It means that white guys and Asian girls should not be married.
So, one of your core arguments has been that society has had no experience or model for SSM and therefore it isn’t right. I’ll point out to you that interracial marriage started from the same point, and it eventually became accepted. Did you also know that when the Supreme Court (US) finally overturned the discriminatory ban on interracial marriage that 70 percent of Americans were still against it. It has only just now reached a point where the majority of Americans approve of it. It took several decades before society could come to terms with it. So it will be with SSM. But, it should be tremendously encouraging to gay people that nearly 50 percent of the state of California (a very large state) voted for our marriage equality. This is tremendous progress, even from just a few years ago when less than 40 percent of our voters favored SSM. You are losing ground, FAST….
And, yet we have politicians today that are advocating for such discrimination towards MY people (gay people) simply because they don’t want to allow us marriage.
Dan, lets go through a thought experiment on bigotry.
A gay man finds a nice woman and says, “hey I believe I can get married to her”.
Now, tell me. Who will say he shouldn’t or couldn’t get married to her?
The government? Or some other entity?
Who really is telling that person their marriage is verbotten. You tell me.
God put the different races on different continents for a purpose. These races should not mingle, it goes against God.
Funny, it seems if God really wanted something to not happen he would have made a barrier that wasn’t breached with just a good pair of walking shoes and a knapsack.
But thanks for reminding us how errant judges can be when engrossed in temporary popular cultural thought.
I’ll point out to you that interracial marriage started from the same point, and it eventually became accepted.
Interracial marriages have happened throughout history with great variances (even from state to state within the USA) of regulation. Even the Loving court recognized that only two of possibly many racial combinations were outlawed.
Your starting point is more of an overly simplified historic narrative for grade-schoolers.
Oh and just a further note, it seems that the comments have been released from moderation and there has been many conversations going on this whole time. One may wish to review them
I want to thank Ms. Prejean for courageously speaking her belief about marriage. Because she stood up for God, God will stand up for her. What appalled me was the backlash of criticism against her right to speak her beliefs. Why is that homosexual people can be so loud and vocal about their beliefs and the rest of us can’t. What happen to ‘free speech’ or did the U.S. Constitution change and say only ‘gay’ people have the right to voice their beliefs. When Mr. Hilton called Ms. Prejean a ‘bitch’ that was clearly verbal abuse to say the least. How would he like to be called a ‘fag’? And when he said that had Ms. Prejean won the crown, he would have run up on the stage and ’snatched that tiara off her head’, that would have been tantamount to assault. Who’s bashing who now? I stand with Ms. Prejean and her courageousness. We are living in a mad, mad world where things that are abominable before God are considered right and things that are right before God are considered wrong by the world. You cannot talk about same-sex marriage without talking about homosexuality. And you can’t talk about homosexuality without talking about sexuality. And you can’t talk about sexuality without talking about God, the Creator of Life. In the Beginning God… That’s what the best selling book of all time, the Bible, throughout the whole world, says. God created the man and the woman — the man for the woman and the woman for the man. God created Adam and Eve as a union of love and family, NOT Adam and Steve or Eva and Amy. God says so in Genesis 2:21-24. Even God’s Son, Jesus, talked about sexuality and marriage-Matthew 19:4,5-and He began saying “Have ye not read that He(God) which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said(God said) for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife(NOT husband): and THEY(man and woman) TWAIN shall be ONE flesh? God spoke in Leviticus 18:22,23; Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality is clearly an abomination before Him. The Apostle Paul spoke about homosexuality in Romans 1:28-32 clearly saying that these people will go down in the judgment of death if they don’t repent including those that agree with this sin. And finally in the end when God’s judgment is upon us, Revelations 21:8 the ‘abominable’ (those that commit abominations)go to Hell. For a person to not believe God’s Word does not get him or her off the hook here in life. However, homosexuality IS a FORGIVEABLE sin and it is God’s Will that WE all(not just homosexual people) come to complete repentance of any and all sin. And we don’t have to go to Man to confess and repent from our sins. We have Jesus who made it all possible through the Power of the Cross to come to and confess our sins to Him and repent so that He can graft us back into God’s Family. Jesus is The Door to Heaven. There is no other way nor is there another name on earth to be saved. If there is no repentance of sin by a person then there is no forgiveness of sin by God. And if no forgiveness of sin then God will judge. And judgment for sin is death.
If truth be told, judges and lawmakers are legalizing same-sex marriage because they want to be re-elected. It is politically correct to be pro-same-sex at this time. So these judges and lawmakers are doing the proverbial ‘following the crowd’ because they fear…they fear criticisms, reprisals, backlash and losing elections.
The United States of America was founded on the Bible. And that is why we are the strongest nation on earth. Not because of our might, but because our God is The Living God, The Creator of the Universe. No one can refute that even if they tried. If we as a nation cut out this Root, for whatever reason, we will no longer be the strongest nation on earth. That is why Satan is attacking this nation and attcking it on many fronts: through terrorism by forcing us to denounce our God, our government and switch to false gods or ungodliness; through wars; through the breakdown of our economy; and the attack against marriage and the family by using abortion and homosexuality among others. But God has His Army, too, fighting against these forces of darkness. But the weapons of God’s Army are ‘not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds’. In the end God and His people win.
For homosexuals to use love as their reason for a marital relationship is not leverage for marriage. They are wrong. If a man who is inlove with his wife but falls inlove with another woman, that man is still wrong and committing sin regardless of how much he loves the other woman. He is committing adultry. And what about the rest of us who love our family members or friends of the same sex. That love doesn’t signal us that we must have sex with them or marry them. Absolutely not!!! Love doesn’t make things legal. A deranged man tells a judge he killed his wife because he loved her. That man is going to jail for murder. Where do we as a society draw the line between what is perverse and what is right. Where do we draw the line between the letter of the Law and the spirit of intent of the Law. That is why we are living in a world of madness at the present moment. The line between what is right and wrong have been substantially blurred. We as a society have abandoned conviction of Godly morals because of fear and intimidation from the ‘other side’. Soon the pedophiles are going to begin lobbying Congress and our courts to lower the age of consent so they can have sex with little children. Are we going to say yes to them? I would like to say, ‘No’. But I also never thought I would live to see a fight to defend marriage either. Already through television and the films, there are hints of pedophilia in scenes of adults addressing children sexually or with adults in conversation referencing sex to or with children. There have even been scenes suggesting bestiality. And it is all done either as a comedic scene, or television comedy shows, or cartoons, or films about a child being considered an ‘old soul’ in a physical relationship with an adult. This perverseness is shown without any rebuke. How long are we going to let this madness go on and not speak out. We are living in a very lost and dying world. It’s scary. Someone must speak out and I thank the National Organization for Marriage and other groups like Focus on the Family, Rod Parsley and also the Church itself for doing so and waking up the grassroots of this cause to do something and speak out against this seemingly social plague. Marriage belongs right where God put it: The union between one man and one woman. For those of us that believe in this Holy Matrimony, we will not be afraid nor intimidated by the fight this will take. Neither the critics nor the homosexual activists, who are so feverishly trying to back us down with their intimidation using buzz words like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobic’, can succeed.
My outcry to all homosexual people is: God does love you but you are wrong in your belief in this twisted, misguided sense of love. He sees the bond that you have with the one you want to call a spouse. But that bond of friendship is NOT the love you think that it is- physical love or marital love. Jesus says to “Come unto me…Matthew 11:28-30. He says again, “If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”, John 8:31,32. God loves you, but He doesn’t love your sin. That goes for all of us, not just for you. God hates sin because it IS the work of Satan. Satan hates God. So his way of getting back at God is to come against God’s greatest and most significant creation: Man. If Satan can deceive Man through sin, then he, Satan, will have plenty of souls in his kingdom of Hell. To God, all sin is on the same level: lying, robbing, murdering, homosexuality, adultry, etc. But you(homsexual people) are trying to turn your sin into law and culture throughout the world, thereby thinking the law will justify you. The Bible says Only the Righteousness of God and the Blood of Jesus can justify you. Come to the Cross and meet Jesus. Confess and repent from your sin and walk in His Ways, for His Ways are not grievous. For Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. God so intently wants you back with Him, NOT with Satan. It is not God’s Will that any man perish, but all come to complete repentance of sins.
Keep up the good work National Organization for Marriage.
From a Concerned Citizen
Chairm-there IS such thing as heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage
Sure, and currency manufactured in the Middle East that looks a lot like US currency actually passes as legal tender to most also.
Let me be more specific. There are two models of marriage, one which is centered on the responsibilities and rights around human procreation, and the other around the model of romance which is centered around the right people have of association.
You can have programs that deal with both, but not the same program. Calling both the same name simply confuses people.
Now by noting counterfeit money, I don’t mean to say that the latter is a counterfeit of the former. But they are similar, and if passed off as the same one is recognized and expended at the expense of the other.
In this case, people who need the protection and support of in-tact family relationships will get a deaf ear from the government who out of being compelled to find that marriage in every way the same as an all-male or all-female “marriage” cannot hear see or speak of anything one is responsible for that the other is not.
OK…..This question is for Dan.
I have a business I am a baker, I make cakes for weddings. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, if a decline to make a cake for a gay couple Am I going to be protected against a “discrimination” law suit?? Is my business going to be in jeopardy because of my personal believes??
Dan said that for him the following is the core meaning of “gay marriage”:
“two people who decide to commit themselves to each other for life [...] and would like to have this union protected by law in case one spouse were to die”
Nothing in that would sustain lines drawn against some related people, some previously married people, or even some underaged people.
But I see you made no mention of a sexual aspect that makes “gay marriage” a public type of relationship that merits special treatment.
Indeed, in previous comments you’ve derided the public sexual aspect of marriage. So along with abolishing the legal requirements that do not fit “gay marriage” you would press the mute button on the sexual aspect.
Yet you continue to emphasize sexual orientation.
The marital presumption of paternity makes of the conjugal type of relationship a sexual relationship and a public relationship. The integration of the sexes does the same thing in a different way. Combined, these form the core meaning of marriage.
Sure, it does not fit “gay marriage”, but you have offered no good reason to gut marriage of its core meaning for the sake of identity politics of the gaycentric kind.
That means you are the one who is talking like the racists of the anti-miscegenation system. You are the promoter of identity politics that would selelctively segregate the sexes and undermine respnsible procreation — through the nonmarriage use of marriage in our society.
Dand said: “singling out one group of people and treating them differently”
The man-woman basis of marriage does not do that. There is no sexual orientation test in the marriage law.
You are talking about a nonmarital alternative that is one-sexed, and which you assume is “gay”.
But the same-sex category is not one and the same as the “gay” category.
As you must know, there are nonmarital arrangements and relationship types that are ineligible for marriage because these are two-sexed. The marriage category is not one and the same as the “straight” category.
In fact, the two-sexed category is not one and the same as the “heterosexual” category.
You have emphasized sexual orientation but you have derided the public sexual aspect of marriage. So you are playing a rhetorical game that explicitly discriminates based on sexual orientation.
That’s your own assertions defeating your own argument.
Integrating the sexes is not bigotry. It is justly inclusive, not unjustly exclusive. It is a necessity for civilization.
When the anti-miscegenation system selectively segregated the sexes through a racist identity filter, that was bigotry. That was pressed into marriage. That was the flaw. The man-woman basis of marriage is not the flaw of marriage.
Your attempt at stating a core meaning immediately went to government bennies. Yet that was not in your stated core meaning.
Marriage bennies are the by-product, not the core meaning, of societies preference for sex integration and responsible procreation.
Now if some of these (like inheritence or taxes) are unjustly based on marital status, okay, that can be resolved without touching marriage law.
Apologies for misspelling your name in that earlier comment, Dan.
Dan said: ” simply because you cannot comprehend that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a lifestyle”
You misrepresented my viewpoint. Maybe you did that out of confusion, misreading, or some other lack of understanding of what was actually written. What you just said is mistaken.
Stick to what has been actually said rather than what you imagine.
Chairm, I haven’t taken the time to read your comments, because you seem to continuously skirt the issue in an attempt to disguise the fact that you or your religious viewpoint cannot accept that a same sex couple is capable, willing and will soon be granted the same marriage rights that heterosexuals enjoy. Gay people are very much pro-marriage, and we’d like to experience the joy that comes from such unions. I’ve already made this commitment, and have my legal CA license to prove it. Whether you can accept this or not, is your problem. All I care about is that it iS a legally binding document, and, to the best of my knowledge, will remain so. So, what can you do about it now? As I’ve said over and over ad nauseum, this is NOT about religious freedoms, nor about fertility, nor who makes better parents, nor about what kids learn in school. Every one of those issues might have merit, but they shouldn’t have a part in the topic at hand, which is two consenting adults who would like to have legal recognition and rights from the government. That’s all….. I could care less what your core definitions are. It seems to me that YOU are the one with the identity politics crisis. Have I ever expressed my political positions? NO! How can you presume I’m democrat? I might be a libertarian for all you know. You get hung up on the core definiton of this and core definition of that. Can you define the core definition of heterosexual? I mean come on, if you can’t understand what marriage means, why are you representing NOM? I have defined what marriage is, and have pointed out that it is the same for same sex couples as it is for straight couples. I think NOM needs a more lucid and intelligent spokesperson. You wrote this: But the same-sex category is not one and the same as the “gay” category.
Is that not unmitigated nonsense? Garbage… Can anyone out there make sense of what Chairm spews?
Your campaign is one that tries to divert away from the real issue at hand. You quote a fertility doctor as evidence that gay marriage will affect her in her work. Please explain to me what fertility treatments have to do with SSM… Those are two separate issues. By your own admission, you have said (you can look it up, if you don’t believe me) that the New Jersey case had to do with a lesbian couple who wanted to use a recreational facility for something non-recreational in nature, and this was the reason they were not allowed to use the facility. It had NOTHING to do with sexual orientaion or SSM. NOTHING. Why do you try to “sell” this as if it were? I have no idea why the lesbians sued, because it seems like they had no grounds for their lawsuit, but it most certainly is NOT an example of religious freedoms being taken away. Religious freedoms were never at stake here. And, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that each and every state that has allowed gay marriage has clearly stated: “No religious groups will be forced to marry same sex couples.” What is it about that statement that is unclear? it seems pretty catagorical to me.
Finally, the school children. If Mormons (and by the way, those Massachusetts parents you put on the CA Prop 8 ad WERE Mormons. It’s been proven) don’t want their kids to learn that some of their fellow classmates have same sex couples for parents, then they shouldn’t let their kids go to public schools. Gay parents, whether married or not, do have kids, and those kids often go to public schools, and whether the religious folks like it or not, it is a disgrace for a teacher to ignore that these children exist. It’s like saying, well Johnny matters because his parents are opposite sex, but Mary doesn’t count because she has two moms. Is that fair to the children? This reminds me of the times when black people were not in TV commercials or shown in any positive light in the public media. Black children grew up thinking that they were without worth or purpose, because they did not see any positive images of themselves. The same can be said of gay children. Like or not, they exist, and for society to ignore them is reprehensible. And, let’s face facts Chairm, is there ANY child anywhere in the US that has not heard about gay marriage by now? If so, they must be living under a rock in Utah, and probably live near you, because you seem to inhabit the same mental place.
Now, Chairm, one last thing. Can you define the coore meaning of male and female?
Lawn wrote this:
A gay man finds a nice woman and says, “hey I believe I can get married to her”.
Now, tell me. Who will say he shouldn’t or couldn’t get married to her?
Dan’s answer:
Lawn, i guess you weren’t aware that throughout history gay men have married straight women and lesbians have married straight men. This was often a way to “hide” who they were on the inside from society, from their friends, and from their families. Every gay person alive knows someone who was once married to an opposite sex partner (it is far more common than you think), and eventually had the courage to come out of the closet as a gay person later in life. Many of them go on to divorce their spouses, but some of them don’t even bother to do that, and continue to live a “lie” and their spouses are totally unaware of this double life (Larry Craig, and Ted Haggard come to mind). So, what do you think of these people, Lawn? Should they continue to pretend to be straight, and sneak behind the backs of the spouses to have sex with same sex partners, or would you prefer that they live the truth and divorce their opposite sex spouses?
I’ll tell you my preference. If these people had the opportunity to live their lives as homosexuals out and proud, and had the “freedom” to marry their same sex partners, then these tragic ‘faux” marriages would have never taken place in the first place. I hope for a day when ALL gays and lesbians will have the freedom to marry a same sex partner, and once and for all end this deception. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in large metro areas on both coasts (NY and SF), where I can be who I was born to be, and I’m incredibly proud and gratified that I AM married to my same sex partner, we live proud lives, have lots of friends, both straight and gay, and hope that people who know us will realize that we are just like them, and they have nothing to fear.
OK, sorry for the long answer, but you asked…
They took away ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ terminology last year. That was codified into the law in CA. That’s how it impacts marriage. It may still not be restored.
Stop the attacks on ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ please. Why take that away from generations? We are not that good.
Let’s all pray for tolerance for all. We need religious freedom. We need ‘bride’ and ‘groom’. We need to find a way to come together against the larger enemies out there that we all have in common.
it is far more common than you think
I’m thinking a message to you, mind-reader Dan, about how really strange i tis to read minds of people who are writing in conversation with you over the Internet. see if you can guess what it is
I think you’ll find that my point entirely dwells on the fact that these marriages have happened.
and continue to live a “lie”
You mean these aren’t really “marriage”?
If these people had the opportunity to live their lives as homosexuals out and proud, and had the “freedom” to marry their same sex partners, then these tragic ‘faux” marriages would have never taken place in the first place.
Wow, you do call then faux marriages. And if you had your way they would never happen.
Now trust me this isn’t a setup where I twist your meaning. I realize from what I understand in your writing that you are not asking for government enforcement to make sure that gays never marry women, or lesbians never marry men. You have in mind a thought that if you could equalize both relationships enough that no one who didn’t want to integrate with the other gender in marriage would not have to.
Have I understood your point? Is that an accurate restatement?
Gay marriage is todays issue like integration of blacks was in the 1960s, womens right to vote of the early 20th century, and slavery of the 1800s. Looking back, there was always a clear, evident answer to the ignorance, however it will take time, as history shows us, for the issue of gay marriage to be truly accepted as a nation. We must also remember, that even if it is nationally accepted, groups like this will still exist. While unfortunate, their mindsets of anti-gay, because of one sentence in the bible not even spoken by Jesus, will forever put homosexuals in a negative light. Real Christians, are for equality. As are, real Americans.
NOM if you want to “stand up for marriage” try doing more to avoid the 50% divorce rates, the Vegas quick weds, etc. If anything is destroying your sanctity, those are. Love is blind.
You cannot use religion as a reason to inspire litigation within the government. The Bible is not a piece of evidence and you can not call Jesus to the stand, so please if you have any concrete reasons as to why equalizing the governments system of marriage truly affects you, please let us know. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, this is nothing new, nor nothing you can shove in a closet, hoping it goes away. Open your minds, and your hearts. Good day.
Dan, I have not discussed a religious viewpoint on the topic of marriage nor on your emphasis on sexual orientation.
Taking digs at religion does not bolster your various claims but it does strongly suggest an bigotry that is intrinsic to you oft-repeated misunderstanding of the actual disagreement on marriage.
On that score among SSMers, you are not alone. Indeed, your quasi-religious adherence to identity politics screams sectarianism each time you take those digs at religions and religious people who don’t submit to your false equivalencies.
* * *
You have a license to have SSM’d and that is all you have. You have shown you have no substantive understanding of marriage qua marriage.
Since you have not entered a union with a woman who’d become your wife and make you her husband, you have not consent to marriage. Whatever you consented to you still have not clearly delineated it. You say you made a commitment to a man. Congradulations and I wish you the best. But that’s not marriage, it is some chosen nonmarital alternative type of arrangement.
If you relied on the arbitrary power of Government, as exemplified in the CA Supreme Court’s reasoning, then, your complaint about the arbitrariness of issusing licenses based on the man-woman criterion of marriage law — now constitutionalized in the state constitution’s text, well, that would make you an admitted hypocrit.
You have given nothing but some assertion of an arbitrary power to issue licenses. Your entire complaint is centered on identity politics.
The state marriage amendment is proscriptive. Only the union of husband and wife is to be recognized as marriage in California.
The obvious remedy for your situation is domestic partnership status. That is a localized merger with marital status and so you would be denied nothing that California law had already made available to you before the abuse of judicial review occured in your homestate.
This is not something I would do about that, Dan, but something that the People have done — and did long before the rush to SSM before the vote on the amendment. They affirmed the man-woman criterion of marriage that has always existed in California; they did it first in a popular vote approving a statutory provison that made it explicit; they did it again when the constitutionalized the statutory profvision. Both democratically and justly where reaffirmations of marriage.
Those who rushed to SSM in the interim after the CA court’s meddling, did so unadvisedly. They were making a political move based on identity politics.
* * *
I have not suggested that you are a member of a political party.
If you meant small “d” democrat, well, I am guessing that to the contrary you would have no hestitation to use undemocratic means to impose your favored reform. That’s why many others rushed to SSM before the marriage amendment vote.
* * *
As I asked previously, Dan, please explain what sexual orientation has to do with infertility and medical treatment of that disability.
If it is about meeting the consumer needs of people who choose to segregate fatherhood and motherhood, then, that becomes a legitimate question of freedom of conscience and religious liberty — for the doctor.
The treatment would not fix lesbianism, right? It is not a treatment for an illness or a disability, is it?
* * *
The same-sex category is not one and the same as the homosexual category. Your whining does not make it so.
Two brothers? Both heterosexual. Cannot marry despite so-called “same-sex marriage”. What’s the basis for that exclusion? You have derided the sexual aspect so don’t try to bring that back from the dead now.
Two married women? Both bisexual. Cannot marry despite so-called romantic and sexual attraction to each other and to their husbands.
You have denounced societal concerns for sex integration and resonsible procreation, so don’t return to those concerns when drawing lines against plural marriage or polygamy.
A man and a woman who are son and mother? Both homosexual. Cannot marry despite so-called “same-sex marriage” emphasis on homosexuality.
Don’t worry they promise not have sex and they won’t procreate either. But they have children in their care. And they love each other deeply, just not in the way you might want to stereotype.
If you think those examples are too far-fetched, then substitute first cousins and explain how some related people would be eligible but not all related people. Does it have something to do with legal requirements to define the core meaning of “gay marriage”?
Love, commitment, sure. But love is not such a limited thing and you haven’t said what kind of love. Besides, there is no legal requirement for it anyway.
* * *
Thanks for admitting that you find SSM argumentation absurd and ridiculous.
If you find thinking about that too hard, or too absurd, then, you have some idea of how absurd and empty of meaning is your complaint about marriage supposedly excluding people based on your emphasis on sexual orientation.
The thinking you have thusfar displayed is superficial. My questions about “gay marriage” are simply mirroring back to you the superficial assertions of SSM argumentation.
If you find these questions and related assertions are absurd, then, you admit that SSM argumentation is absurd.
I know what marriage is, Dan, and have exlained its core to you. You reject that core and reject marriage. You want something else in its place.
Whatever its merits and demerits, you still need to plainly state what “gay marriage” actually is. Thusfar you have offered only vagueness that fits a very wide range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relaitonsips.
Why can you not narrow it down?
* * *
Your remarks about public schools is your confirmation that the Yes-on-8 side was right about that subject.
Dan said: “throughout history gay men have married straight women and lesbians have married straight men. ”
So the man-woman criterion did not bar those men from marriage.
You agree with On Lawn on that point.
Dan said: “Every gay person alive knows someone who was once married to an opposite sex partner”
And, if that is so, then, such gay persons who complain about the marriage law knowingly push a falsehood.
To whit, according to the SSM argumentation, the man-woman basis of marriage law discriminates against gay people who’d enter the social institution. You just admitted this is false.
* * *
If someone chooses to form a one-sexed arrangement, based on sexual attraction and sexual behavior, they are free to do so. It is not marriage. But their choice is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
Now, if you say there is some special societal significance to The Homosexual Relationship, or “gay union”, then explain that.
You could choose to make that explaination without attacking the meaning of marriage. But you attack without explaining the meaning of the relationship type you have in mind.
That’s either due to incompetence or willful negligence on your part.
You are armong many SSMers who display incompetence or negligence of that sort.
* * *
I’ll leave you to discuss further with On Lawn and others here. I don’t think you’ve shown yourself prepared to grapple with the actual disagreement on marriage, Dan, and that speaks volumes — and more loudly — than the drum you keep banging for your gaycentric identity politics.
Defending traditional marriage is a moral and ethical act. Homosexuality is a perversion that till 30 years was considered a mental health disease and there was on going treatment for the disease.
Like a cancer, Homosexuality has grown and now is trying to attack the core of our society. The proponents of this perversion are trying to frame this as a civil right argument of it being a Inborn status? IF this is an inborn, then it is a birth defect and needs to have a cure. Other wise it a mental disorder, like other mental health diseases, and there needs to be a cure.
I will issue this challenge, IF there has been a child born by the act of homosexuality, then step forward and I will support the marriage of TWO same sex people. (artificial insemination/fertilization is disqualified.)
Chairm, I don’t know how clearly I can say it, so that your brain will accept my explanation. I’ve said it over and over and over and over. SSM is (or soon will be) equal to straight marriage in every respect. That’s all we want. We want male-male marriage and female-female marriage to be equal to male-female marriage. That is the core meaning of marriage. A union between two consenting adults, that has legal and societal recognition. There are limitations place on this, of course. People who are related cannot enter into marriage (unless they are first cousins, which is allowed in certain states), and minor are not allowed to marry (however, this has changed throughout history, because in our grandparent’s day people could marry as early as 14, maybe even earlier. In today’s law that is considered statutory rape. Why did this change? You’d have to research that, because I don’t have an answer for you…). So, I have answered it many times over, and it gets tiresome. There is NO distinction between my same sex marriage in October to my parent’s marriage of 50 years, other than the fact that they get Federal benefits and I don’t (but, hopefully Obama will fix this). Am I clear yet? SSM equal OSM… The core meaning of heterosexual marriage is the same as the core meaning of homosexual marriage…. Stop harping on nomenclature, and get to the “core” issues…. Can you now answer the question I’ve asked you twice on another thread, PLEASE?
Would you have favored the Brigg’s Intitiative when it was up for a vote in CA? It basically banned gay people from teaching in public schools…. Please answer, as this is germane to our argument. I’ve answer your question more times than I care to count…
To On Lawn (post 46 on my thread, but these seem to change): You just went over my head with the mind reading thing. Sorry… I’m not gettin it…
No, I think you misunderstood me about gay people getting into heterosexual marriages. Just put yourself in a gay person’s shoes for a minute, if you can. Imagine growing up, as most of us do, in a world that venerates the heterosexual lifestyle, and indeed adores and worships the union of male and female. We see images of men and women interracting sexually and in a flirtatious manner in about 8 of 10 commericals on TV (don’t believe me? Sit and watch some night and count. I’ve done it many times). Now, how many positive images of same sex couples will you see in this same evening? Let me guess: NONE. That’s right, we grow up thinking we are flawed, or worse, we don’t exist. That’s just a small part of the heterocentricity that we live with. Couple this with the abuse that gay people face on a daily basis, starting from our youngest years in school, and going all the way through till death. OK, are you following me yet? So, imagine growing up with this image of yourself. You are flawed. You are not good enough. You need to change, because you are a sinner, etc.. As you reach adulthood, you are confronted with pressures from your family (often your mother, especially if you are Jewish! which I’m not), pressures from your peers (most of whom are likely straight), pressures from your co-workers, and pressures from society in general to conform and marry an opposite sex person. Given all of this, do you think you’d choose to be gay? I would imagine not. So, throughout history from the beginning of time, homosexuls have masked their true identities. Most often gays were able to hide by getting married to an opposite sex partner. This is called “masking” their true identity. You seem to advocate for that approach. Do you think this is a healthy environment for a child or for the spouse of this gay person, once their true identity is learned? It has been my personal experience that these individuals sneak behind the backs of their spouses (wives, since I’m talking about the many men I’ve known through the years), and secretly have homosexual relationships, whether they be one time, or on-going relationships. Would you advocate for this? These men live tortured lives because they are not who they pretend to be. In the 1950s the trend was for men like this to remain in their marriages and not create problems for anyone. As divorce became more acceptable, these men often left their wives, and lived openly as gay men. I was not saying that the government should regulate this (how could they?). But, what I am saying is that once SSM becomes a possible legal option, and people stop feeling stigmatized for something they have no control over (one doesn’t choose one’s sexual orientation. I don’t care what your bible told you, it doesn’t happen as a choice), then these people will hopefully have the courage (and it takes tremendous courage, self-respect and lots of support of friends/family), to be who they are on the inside and hopefully meet a partner of their dreams and settle down with them. I have to pat myself on the back, because, although I grew up in an extremely hostile environment (when it comes to being gay), I knew I wasn’t flawed, and that I would never pretend to be something I wasn’t by living a lie. Maybe a time or two I hid the fact that I was gay, or that I had a partner, but I never lived as a heterosexual in order to hide myself. I had girlfriends in high school, but this was inescapable growing up in the midwest with all the pressures we had to fit in…
So, Chairm, do you advocate that gay men marry straight women and have children with them? It seems to me that this is what you are promoting. If so, you are advocating for an inevibility that the children in this family will be harmed. There are no two ways around it. Let’s say the gay man decides to remain married, and yet has sex with men behind the back of his wife. Is this a healthy environment for the wife or the children? I would hope your answer would be no… So, just because you can’t seem to comprehend that two men or two women can form a marriage, it doesn’t that we don’t. I can’t comprehend myself being married to a woman. it is repugnant to my very being… I would imagine the thought of you having a marriage with a man is equally repugnant, correct? Is that so difficult to understand?
I think that the Catholic Church, for all its failings, has a far more enlightened approach than the Mormon or mainstream Evangelical Churches on the issue of homosexuality. They recognize, quite rightly, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. At the same time, they quote the bible, and say that homosexuality is a sin. The Catholic Church officially recommends that gay people remain celebate, and have no relationships of any kind. They recognize that homosexuals who attempt heterosexual marriages are ruining the lives of many people, and not just their own lives. I know that Mormons would like to force gays into heterosexual marriages, but the damage done by this is irreparable and permanent. I applaud the Catholic Church for at least having the wisdom to realize that sexual orienation cannot and should not be changed. I disagree about living a celibate life, as I think it is pyschologically damaging to live such a life without human sexual contact…
To all of those who disagree with the NOM ideals and views, marriage is between a man and a woman, this is how you came into this world, by God’s blessing in a man and a women and making them able to have children, something that can not happen between same sex couples, MARRIAGE was created by God and it is not for same sex.
Dan,
Thanks for explaining the motivation behind neutering marriage and gay pain.
I feel sorry for you, in that you have been promised a world where by neutering marriage every pain you’ve felt in relation to being gay will go away.
You need to stop and consider two things…
1) People do know and understand your pain though they are not gay. And they are ready to support your freedom of association.
2) You may not yet understand the pain caused by heterosexuals who think their marriages are no more or less responsible than a gay relationship.
This is not a world where heterosexuality is venerated. You have, (in your pain I think) mistaken marriage as “heterosexuality” just as you’ve mistaken “same-sex” for homosexuality.
And what is worse, you’ve mistaken marriage (since you simply see it as heterosexuality) as the same thing as homosexuality.
This paradigm is common, Many social studies (well in the doxens) have been produced which equate heterosexual parenting to homosexual parenting. Yet at the same time many studies (into the thousands) have been produced which show that children do best in a low-conflict in-tact family situation. I think this describes the two paradigms pretty well.
They are both comparing against the same (general) group of people. The single-moms with live-in boyfriends, the divorced Dads who carouse every weekend, the co-habiting man and woman who are not married, and the step-families of divorce. Only, one compares favorable to this group, and one compares equally with them.
But this group of heterosexuals are not venerated, though many step-families and single parents are doing the best they can and had no part in the circumstances they are in now, the venerated lifestyle is marriage — a commitment for life.
Marriage is something much more than you are contemplating. It requires much more commitment, and has much more responsibility. It is an institution where you need to do two things….
1) Love honor and cherish the person you combine with to create children
2) support each other and the children in recognizing their rights that only you can observe.
And that is for the sake of the children, it is easily their best environment and chance at life if you do that.
If you want to equalize things by taking that away, you are robbing children to pay yourself. You are assuaging your gay pain with what will cause more pain in children and the parents who hold to those ideals while the partner believes their relationship is no more accountable than a gay or lesbian relationship.
Dan, marriage unites the sexes.
A relationship type that excludes one sex does not do that.
Marriage provides for responsible procreation — see the marital presumption of paternity based on the opposite-sex sexual relationship type.
A living arrangement that lacks one of the sexes cannot do that.
So you point at nonmarriage. You say there are no differences when in fact there are core differnces.
You mean you wish that society, through government, will be blind to the core meaning of marriage. That way you can equate, falsely, marriage with your nonmarital idea of issuing marriage licenses.
You emphasize sexual orientation even thought there is no sexual orientation requirement in the marriage law. The man-woman basis is at the core of marriage. You to abolish that.
Do you also want to abolish the marital presumptin of paternity? It seems like you do since you have derided the public/sexual aspect of marriage.
Minus the core of marriage, what do you propose is the justification for any of the lines drawn around marriage?
If there is no core around which the lines are drawn, then, those lines are unsustainable.
Related people, previously married people, and even underaged people are ineligible based on the public/sexual relationship type that you have denigrated for the sake of identity politics.
How those lines are drawn is variable, but not the core. You have offered no core meaning for “marriage” except some vague talk of commitment and love.
That vague stuff does NOT distinguish marriage from arrangements that are ineligible.
That is YOUR problem, Dan, as an advocate of a change in the marriage law. You seek to gut the core but you have nothing nto sustain the lines around the core. So without the core, the lines become arbitrary.
You just went on and on about equality. Yet you also acknowledged that some people are not eligible to marry. But you can offer no good reason for drawing those lines.
Except arbitrary power. That is hypocritical of you, as an SSMer.
By the way, Dan, your complaint about so-called inequality has now been revealed, in your own words, as a complain based on a false equivalence.
This is not merely nomenclature but it goes to the profound problem of your complaint. You are not so much interested in justice but you are obsessessed in the gaycentric view that harps on your obsession “in just use”.
You fail on all points to justify the fiction that your false equivalencies amount to an expansion of marriage. You are arguing for the abolition of the the societal significance of marriage as a scial institution.
That’s what your many comments boildown to. It is anti-marriage and anti-social.
But stripped of the gaycentric identity politics, the complaint that is left amounts to a call for protection equality for all families outside of marriage.
There are four statuses in the law for arrangements or relationshps. Those which are outlawed due to categorical harms. Those which are tolerated, but not encouraged. Those which are protected, based on certain vulnerablities, but not encuraged. And those which are preferrred, and encouraged, based on core meaning’s societal signficance.
I’ve give you the benefit of the doubt. What is the special societal significance of the core meaning of the relationshp type that you hav ein mind when you say “gay marriage”?
Identify the essentials of that type of relationship, or arrangement, so that it is visible to the Law. Name the legal reqirements that define its core meaning.
I’ve done it for marriage. You do it for The Homosexual Relationshp type.
As it stands, what you have offered still places that type of relationship in the nonmarital category.
Is there something of great societal significance in arrangements that exclude one or the other sex? Will there be a gay requirement or not? If not, then, that eliminates your own concern about gayness.
Is there something of over-riding importance to society that means eliminating the societal preference for responsible procreation (which unites fatherhood and motherhood)? It must be extraordinary for such a hostile move against marriage.
Will there be a legal requirement that those who SSM will engage in third party procreation? If not, then, your talk about children implodes on itself.
The problems are legion with the circular thinking of SSM argumentation.
You keep making it obvious that you wish to legislate your morality and impose your gaycentric identity politics on all of society. But SSMa rgumentation has derided public morality as insufficient to defend the man-woman basis of marital status in the law.
You can’t now depend on the relatively modern tradition of romance since SSM argumentation has derided tradition as insufficient, as well.
You can’t invoke social taboo when it comes the drawing lines of eligibility, since SSM argumentation has emphasized destroying one particular social taboo.
You can’t breathe new life into a public-sexual aspect that you have derided as irrelevant to marriage.
All you have is the raw arbitrariness of identity politics. You’d have the Government arbitarily issue licenses for a relationshp type that is now defined by the limitations of … well … you have not said. You have not given the basic answer to the most basic question of all.
What is marriage? What is gay marriage? Identify the essentials.
Sure, you can deconstruct marriage, in theory, but you haven’t put anything in its place. Like I said, that is anti-social and anti-marriage.
You are not fighting for marriag.e You are fighting for something else.
Dan, you have conceded that sexual orientation is not a bar against forming a union of husband and wife. You have conceded that this is an undisputed fact.
But now, in your question to me, you have proposed, dogmatically, that society introduce your emphasis on sexual orientation.
Maybe you would impose a new restriction in the law that tests for sexual orientation where there has been no such intrusion before. Maybe you would not go that far. You tell me.
Your own description of “gay marriage” has removed the gay part and your own assertions about marriage would abolish the public-sexual part.
So why would you still emphasize what you have discarded already?
Seriously, why?
* * *
You want to impose a social taboo that prohibits “mixed orientation marriage” (let’s call it that for the sake of discussion). So you are not as inclusive as you pretend to be. You’d promote yet more segregation, this time based on sexual orientation.
In addition, you talk as if you know more about the relationships of these people than they know themselves. Depending on stereotypes is supposed to be oh-so-passe, according to your own SSM argumentation.
Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that “gay marriage” is government regualtion of “love” (that’s about all you have specified), then, maybe you can explain how that would work in the scenario you asked me about. You can’t now resurrect the public-sexual aspect that you discarded earlier.
Maybe this reveals that when you referred to “love” you really used code for same-sex sexual behavior and same-sex sexual attraction. But there are no legal requirements for that. So you have run back to square one with your circular thinking on this subject.
* * *
Protections for nonmarital families would be based on certain vulnerabilities and have zilch to do with rewarding sexual behavior or sexual attraction or … given your emphasis .. gayness.
Are you prepared to prohibit such families based on the gayness factor — a factor that is not in the law?
Even if you’d rely solely on a social taboo, why would you be against protection equality?
Why would you hope to exclude two “straight” people from these protections that you are claiming for “gay” people?
And furthermore, why would you presume that I would be repulsed by forming an arrangement like that with another man — one of my sons, for example, or a brother? Or a good friend? This is not defined by some sexual aspect, as per your own argumentation which discraded such a public meaning.
Dan, I know you are earnest in your claims for “gay marriage”, or you would not go on and on like this.
But your thinking is profoundly flawed. Your conjuring up these implicit rules that you refuse to make explicit in the law or anyplace else.
Gaycentric identity politics might serve some public purpose in alleviating particular vulnrabilities experienced by people who self-identify as gay, but attacking marriage for that nonmarriage purpose is unjust and an awful approach to take in influencing society.
You need to reset and recalibrate your thinking, quite frankly. Else, you will be destined to crash and burn when your license to SSM is eventually recognized as just a piece of paper with little, if any, significant meaning. You have offered no core meaning. So that makes it even more tragic, I think, in the sense of a classical Greek tragedy.
* * *
I would promote the reaffirmation of the core meaning of marriage in our culture and in our laws.
Social institutions do influence behavior — and in the case of marriage it does so in a relatively non-coercive way.
Marriage influences behavior both within it and outside of it. It is given preference for highly significant social concerns about uniting the sexes, providing for responsible procreation, and encouraging the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.
This happens through the culture primarily. The role of the law and government is to support the essentials of marriage when drawing lines around its core meaning.
This means it is of great importance that people understand what marriage entails. They need to provide informed consent when they say “I do” to the unity of husband and wife, to the marital presumption of paternity, and to the non-coercive influence of a foundational social institution.
SSM argumenation derides all of that. It deconstructs the public understanding of marriage that helps people sort out for themselves whether or not they are cut-out for forming an enduring conjugal relationship of man and woman.
If you’re trying so hard to keep marriage a holy, eternal thing between a woman and a man, why don’t you go on and start making divorce illegal?
I feel that would enhance the quality of my marriage improve significantly.
Forbidding other people to marry so your own marriage will be better - that’s a really logical approach.
And hey, while you’re at it, you could forbid (insert minority of your choice) to eat chocolate, so your own chocolate eating will not fall off in quality .
A ha, now I see that Chairm is bullshitting me. He does know that gay is a substitute word for “homosexual.” In fact, he made up his own word: gaycentric identity politics, based on this word… Let me ask you something, Chairm, did you learn this word “identity politics” at your Mormon anti-gay marriage training center? You sure seem to obsess on it a lot (identity politics). You remind me of cult members that use words that their leaders like to brainwash them with. I’ve never been trained at such a place, and have no interest in joining a cult or religious group of any kind, because I can see the damage it does. One only has to read the replies of Chairm and On Lawn to understand what I’m talking about.
Chairm, you talk in circles, and try to skirt the fundamental questions I’ve asked you.
Can you please, once get off your pulpit, and answer my very simple question? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE?
Do you favor banning gays (aka homosexuals) and lesbians (aka homosexual females) from teaching in public schools? Yes, or No. No speeches and no analyses of what makes a gay, or what makes a lesbian. A simple yes or no will do. Once you answer that question, then we can talk. Until then, I’m through with your nonsense.
I hope you will answer it, but if not, goodbye and good luck with your crusade of hate against people of the homosexual orientation who wish to marry. You are going to lose this fight, and eventually you will live amongst same sex couples who are married and enjoy every right that you take for granted. Whether you can accept it or not is your problem. But, in fact the government will accept it, and that’s all that counts, isn’t it? You will be helpless to do anything about it. How does that make you feel? Will it end marriage forever? No, it actually will strengthen it, because there will be more people entering into this fine institution, and I, for one, believe in it, and will foster and nurture my own marriage. Your desparation to prevent others from marriage is nothing short than mindboggling. It exhibits an underlying homophobia that you should really get taken care of. Who knows, Chairm could snap some day and go into a gay (that means homosexual) bar and shoot up the place. I wouldn’t put it past him. His hatred is that profound…
tch-tch, Dan, it seems your mind reading can now detect brainwashing. I seem to remember a plot like this in “The Second Foundation” by Isaac Asimov. Are you a golden-age science fiction fan also?
But back to the discussion at hand, days ago he denied that the term “identity politics” meant anything at all, and today all it means is someone must be brainwashed.
Okay, maybe instead of lamenting this exit from intelligent adult conversation, I hope I can provide an re-entrance path. Perhaps, Dan, you can tell us which concern is nothing more than a brainwashing, nothing more than an imaginary case of being duped by the Mormons.
1) The concern for equality in marriage being in the quality of representation of each gender in each marriage?
2) The concern for children to be considered as primary stake holders in recognitions of the rights and responsibilities associated with creating them?
3) The undermining of equality that exists when people tragically relate their own stories of intolerance of others (specifically the person they combined to create children with) as if they themselves are the victims (e.g. Identity Politics)?
Lets add this gem to Dan’s greatest hits along with the “brainwashing” accusation above…
Can you please, once get off your pulpit, and answer my very simple question? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE?
Do you favor banning gays (aka homosexuals) and lesbians (aka homosexual females) from teaching in public schools?
This discussion does involve marriage, education, and homosexuals. I had no idea that their ability to teach in schools was threatened at all by marriage expecting equal gender representation.
Could you elaborate on that point for us Dan?
Although, I feel i have defined marriage and SSM many times over, Chairn does not accept my definition. I would like to offer you this excerpt from a book entitled: “Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” by John Boswell. Unfortunately, my computer does not have a Greek alphabet, so I’ll leave Greek words out.
It is nearly impossible to formulate in a precise and generally acceptable way what is meant by “marriage,” either by modern speakers or in ancient texts. There can be no single answer to the question, what does marriage mean; each cultrue must seek its own answer. Greek terminology regarding marriage was so fluid that it is nearly impossible to infer the precise nature of a relationship from words alone. (Greek word here) was the most common legal term for a wedding, and by extension for marriage, but as Redfield observes, “:Gamos is the name, in its primary significance, not of a ceremony but of the sexual act itself…. Civil marriage, which is (Greek word), is placed in contrast with the (Greek word) contracted with prostitutes and with the (Greek word)….
It is my understanding (Boswell’s) that most modern speakers of English understand the term “marriage” to refer to what the partners expect to be a permanent and exclusive union between two people, which would produce legitimate children if they chose to have children, and which creates mutual rights and responsibilities, legal, economic, and moral, although these vary by couple and juristiction. Certainly a union that entailed no change in rights or responsibilities for either party would not be considered a marriage by most people.
Such a relationship is both more and less than any variety of heterosexual coupling in the ancient world, most of which were property arrangements-except those of concubine and lover; few were based on emotional or affective considerations or hopes.
In this study, “marriage,” “matrimony,” “nupital,” “conjugal,” and comparable terms have been applied to premodern couplings according to the definition that would have applied at the time, rather than in their familiar modern meanings. A few exceptions to this, involving a deliberate comparison of ancient and medieval patterns with modern categories, are clealy identified. Because my aim has been in large measure to dtermine whether forms of premodern same-sex couplings consituted “marriages,” and since there is no historical reason to suppose they could not-much as personal distates or prejudice (such as On Lawn and Chairm exhibit) might predispose some individuals to believe the contrary- I have on the one hand employed the most general phraseology I could (”union,” “coupling,” etc.) and on the other not shrunk from applying “marriage” or related terms when it has seemed the most accurate description.
This lengthy book, which took twelve years to write, is illuminating for anyone interested in the history of same sex unions. It will surprise you to find out that same sex unions have been around for a very long time. This phenomenon is by no means a recent development.
I believe Carrie Prejean, is living proof that as a child grows and matures, their idea’s of right and wrong, good and bad,. change drastically. When we think of all the sexualization that children are indoctrinated into, it is not hard to understand why they could see nothing wrong with abortion, breast implants, homosexuality and other dangerous behaviors and changes to their bodies, that do affect their decision making and outcomes of their lives. That is why when we grow and become adults, we have something to compare with, what is right and what is wrong. Putting children at risk of sexual assaults and danger, because people claim a right to parade their sexual practices in the public square is quite disgraceful and despicable. The brave new world is nothing more than porn for everyone. No more morals, principals and values weigh the minds of innocent children, because they are victims of political correctness and a society in the toilet.
Boswell wasted twelve years and anyone who spends a few hours to read his ahistorical and unprincipled account will have wasted time better spent. But to each his own, I guess.
Dan I have answered the question you asked about teachers. See one of the other comment sections in which you repeated the question.
Dan you contradict yourself:
1. “against people of the homosexual orientation who wish to marry”
2. “throughout history gay men have married straight women and lesbians have married straight men. ”
3. “Every gay person alive knows someone who was once married to an opposite sex partner”
Then you repeat your dependance on arbitrariness and contradict your own complaint about supposed arbitrariness:
4. “the government will accept it, and that’s all that counts, isn’t it?”
* * *
You said: “more people entering into this fine institution”
What institution is that, Dan, since you seek to replace marriage recognition with recognitin of something else? Please point to the distinctive features of that institution. You know, the essentials that make it different from the range of nonmarital relationship types and the like.
Also, point of fact, the merger of SSM with marriage has not increased the number of huband and wife marriages. In places like Canada and Holland, the participation rates have continued to decline.
Indeed, participation rates in SSM, under whatever name, remain low and declining. If participation rates is important to you argument, Dan, you just just shot yourself in the foot with your latest assertion.
* * *
Careful Dan with your violent rhetoric. You are going way over the line especialy in light of your previous remarks about wishing death on on those with whom you disagree here at the NOM blogsite. Cut back the foolish hyperbole and be more responsible, please.
Yeah, Boswell really crossed the streams there in that book when he started with the premise that any recognized permanent relationship is marriage, and then found many recognized relationship types as marriage. Again garbage in, garbage out.
For instance he concluded that the ceremony between Saints Serge and Saint Baccus had a same-sex marriage. Well, no it was a blood-brothers type ceremony which had social recognition and responsibilities but was definitely not considered marriage at all. It was more a case where people had known about this all along, but it was simply Boswell’s newfound eyes of what he felt marriage meant that he could compound the conflation in the first place.
Consider this exchange…
Gamos is the name, in its primary significance, not of a ceremony but of the sexual act itself…
Actually it is more than a recreational sexual act. It is specifically the mating act, which is why even today we still call the male and female organelles “gametes”. It is a specifically reproductive or mating element.
Similarly, the fact that Gamos describes marriage to the Greeks imports the core of the meaning to what marriage is. Conjugal is the same, it means a specific act but that it is used to describe marriage gives real context as to what marriage is meant to do. That is somehow lost (or avoided) in Boswell’s analysis. Perhaps he only tiptoes up to the fact in “prejudice” of his prejudice or pre-formed conclusion
Also he does have a point in that the purely monogamous committed marriage, or rather the regulatory expectation of it, is not the only kind of marriage we’ve seen. However, its European roots are in the Germanic tribes (which by pre-Roman constituted a region from Alsace to Slovenia) which pre-dated Roman and Greek influence.
Oddly enough, it was woman’s rights or marriage equality which brought about the expectation of commitment in marriage. Women were tired of primarily being abandoned by their husbands to raise the children in a way that compromised their ability to make an adequate wage.
Hence what marriage equality really means in recognizing and supporting each gender in their rights and responsibilities in mating for each marriage.
Is that so wrong that you have to be so anti-marriage equality and redefine it to mean something entirely contrary — the same-sex union that entirely bans the other gender from the relationship with prejudice?
On Lawn,
One question for you:
Do you have a life?
I mean why this obesession with same sex marriage? Really, why?
As I’ve stated over and over, it affects MY life, not yours. You will not be impacted in ANY way by my legal recognition of my union. The only possible way I seeing it affecting you is the fact that the government will get fewer tax dollars now that I am married.
You analyze to death on points that are just not interesting nor compelling in the least.
In case you haven’t noticed, gay couples have children. Those children need and deserve the protection of the government. Whether those children are produced through artificial insemination or through adoption is a moot point. The point is you advocate harming those children because you don’t want their parents to have legal protection. Why is this such a big deal to you? Really, please explain YOUR personal obession with gays and lesbiand gaining marriage equality. Will civilization end once and for all? Will you be prevented from a heterosexual marriage simply because gays can marry? Ask any Canadian if they’ve seen any difference in their lives as heterosexuals from homosexuals being allowed to marry. I can guarantee you the ordinary Canadian hardly notices any difference. It is you and people such as NOM that have kept this an issue. You are actually doing the gay rights movement a tremendous service by continuing to debate and go on TV and fight it. Young people are learning about gay relationships, and we are on the radar screen as never before. THANK YOU! I can relate a story to illustrate this point. When the Prop 8 folks were on their campaign here in CA they put an ad on TV showing a lesbian couple getting married and the supposedly frightened faces of school children witnessing this wonderful event. I have a friend whose young granddaughter was watching it, and she asked her mother what gay marriage was. The girl told her that these were two women who were in love and were getting married, and that there were “bad” people (her words) who were trying to prevent this from happening. The girl repeated her mother “bad people.” This girl would have never had any exposure to gay marriage without the Prop 8 commercial. It gave the mother an opportunity to educate her eight year old daughter about SSM.
All I have left to say is, get a life, get over it, because gay marriage WILL be the law one day. It might take twenty years, but hopefully it won’t take as long as it took women to get the right to vote. Just get used to it, because it’s here to stay… If you cannot tolerate living amongst us married same sex couples, then there are Islamic countries that might welcome you into their fold.
All in the name of Jesus….
NOM is all about destroying religious liberties. Many Christian churches already marry same-sex loving couples before God, it’s only the state that doesn’t acknowledge the union. God already has. And many churches do too. NOM wants to tell churches “play it our way or you can’t play at all!”
@Rob in post 14
Same-sex couples want the exact same thing you want Rob. A solid family unit that is respected by society as a whole whether they agree with it or not. Also Rob, people don’t choose to be gay. People are born within a sexual spectrum that ranges from totally straight, through bisexuality, to totally homosexual. The only choice that is made is does the person accept it and live their life the way they are made to be or do they deny that and try to live a life based on the perceived norm.
@Seculiar Heritic in post 16
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times throughout human history. Even other species have examples of same-sex mated pairs.
Chairm:
“Cut back the foolish hyperbole and be more responsible, please.”
Please, please, please, please take your own advice. Otherwise pot kettle black does apply here.
You choose to ignore basic arguments, argue based off of incorrect assumptions, lie if it fits, and argue minute points, believe that you yourself know why marriage was “created” and that is the only true way. And that all of civilization will be destroyed, including marriage, if SSM passes.
Please, please, please take your own advice.
And if you’d like to call me on the “your” hyperbole comment:
You claimed a death threat against an organization.
When an organization dies, it ends. It is more of a metaphor. NOM wants same sex marriage to end, or, “die” in this same context. Perhaps NOM should stop the death threats first? Or perhaps you should cut out the hyperbole and stop being so foolish.
Chairm:
Please explain your concept of integrating the sexes, and why intersexed people(basically, people who are born integrated) should not have the rights of marriage above and beyond those of married people, and why intersexed people should not be the sole people to get married?
Marriage is about a stable, loving, family unit of two, possibly with children. If children were the primary factor, then children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.
Marriage is about the public recognition of such unions(see: Newspaper announcements, Weddings(!), wedding parties, etc). If this were not the case, and the world as cold as you make it, there would be no such thing, it would merely be a contract that is signed, perhaps with a small party to come later, and rarely would a vacation be called for. There is clearly something else being celebrated here… Ah, love.
Joey,
NOM wants to tell churches “play it our way or you can’t play at all!” [...] NOM wants same sex marriage to end, or, “die” in this same context.
Actually there is no supposed control over what churches preach as doctrine contemplated in marriage policy.
No one is assigning police to break up these ceremonies, no one is being arrested for having such a ceremony or teaching that is what marriage is.
But good use of rhetorical excess, none-the-less. Its one thing to ban something, and another to simply not recognize it. I for one am glad that the state does not give carte blanche to religions to state that anything they call a marriage is a marriage. Just as I don’t think the state should call anything a religion considers a law to be a law.
Consider the implications then of forcing religions to perform same-sex ceremonies as marriage even though it violates their doctrine. Quite a different item to contemplate altogether.
should not have the rights of marriage above and beyond those of married people, and why intersexed people should not be the sole people to get married?
I’ll be happy to field it. I happen to agree. Gays should be able to marry if they want to, and so should lesbians. So tell me, if a gay decides he wants to marry a woman, who will stand in his way? If a lesbian wants to marry a man, who will stand in his way?
Because the government certainly doesn’t.
What really is limiting gays from marrying, please explain in full so we can see where this oppression is coming from.
Marriage is about a stable, loving, family unit of two, possibly with children.
Marriage is about encouraging all parties involved in the human act of mating to recognize each other’s rights and entitlements to support.
That involves ensuring stability, and mating involves “two” so I won’t disagree with you. I just think your statement of what marriage is lacks very critical humanitarian concerns to our society.
If children were the primary factor, then children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.
Children are the primary factor. It is about securing the responsibility for the child before the acts are engaged in that will bring about that child.
Another system where we seek to ensure responsibility for acts which might happen is car insurance. Imagine if they found out that because every primary purpose must be required to be met, that people needed to be required to have car accidents to fulfill the primary purpose of having car insurance.
@6 John — Death threats? Are you so desperate for any argument that you have to misconstrue what was a reference to an article harbinging the demise of your cause as a death threat? That’s pretty pathetic, and argues more in favor of the opposition.
@10 On Lawn — Your argument reminds me of the pope trying to object to the “blending of gender roles” in contemporary society while trying to avoid appearing sexist and out of touch. Men and women may have biological differences, but we’ve long since established (if not fully achieved) that they should not have legal or social differences.
Regarding children, it is demonstrated time and again that sometimes a child’s biological parents are, in fact, not the ideal candidates to be responsible for their upbringing. Children are frequently born to the destitute, the drug-addicted or the severely insane, and any opportunity that removes these children from dysfunctional households, foster care or institutional care and into loving families is a good thing. There is no actual evidence that children are better served, all other factors being equal, by being in a family of their own blood, or in a family that is comprised of one male and one female.
You also seem to believe that gay marriage would be a counterfeit form of “real marriage”. It wouldn’t be. There’s no rational reason (as much as NOM struggles to search for one) to differentiate between relationships based on the genders of its parts.
In the meantime, your use of the term “humanitarian” seems to be misplaced. NOM has no interest in providing relief from suffering, in fact seeks to discriminate against families that do not conform to its Procrustean standards.
@11 Jack — Your use of “queer marriage” aside makes you sound as if you’ll be climbing the nearest clocktower with a high-powered rifle as soon as gay marriage is legitimized in your area. If you care about your arguments actually being regarded, you might want to stick to “gay marriage” or the more clinical “same-sex marriage.” By your argument, though, marriage is already discriminatory, and adding to the number of couples (or groups) that can be wed will only reduce the degree to which it discriminates.
@14 Rob — I seriously doubt the acceptance of gay marriage in our nation is going to increase the chances that your kids will “decide to become gay” (more accurately, they’ll discover they are gay, exactly the way I discovered I was left-handed). The normalization of homosexuality in our nation will increase the chances that you can continue to have an open, communicative relationship with them, should they realize the non-mainstream nature of their sexual orientation.
@16 Secular Heretic — (I assume you regard yourself heretical to secularism?). The American Anthropological Association disagrees with you, that the contemporary sectarian definitions of marriage: that it must be only between a man and a woman, or women; that polygyny is accepted by some but polyandry is not; are not representative of all functional marriages throughout archeologically unearthed history.
@17 Gerry — Silence by force? Is argumentum ad baculum that to which you have to resort when confronted with reason? That’s pretty fracking desperate. The difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll is that the former follows logic backed by data, and the latter depends on inflammatory comments. It sounds like you suffer from pretty extreme attitude polarization.
@20, 21, 22, etc. Chairm — Technically, while women are not a physical minority (there are actually more women in the US than men) they remain an oppressed social minority, considering they are still paid lower mean wage compared to their male colleagues. The fact that the pope and the Southern Baptist Convention still insist that wives should “graciously submit” to their husbands doesn’t help to narrow this inequality. These examples are the true face of gender segregation, not the normalization of gays (which would not, as you seem to believe, de-normalize straights).
You ask for an explanation of “emphasis on gay identity” yet I haven’t seen anyone else use the term on this page except yourself (and me, just now).
I think it would be awesome if there were, as you put it, “just marriage” but DOMA changed that, and now there are differences. If we removed DOMA, we’d be back to just marriage again.
But to answer your question, the public significance of a marriage between a gay couple is exactly the same as that between a heterosexual couple. Marriage is a definition of a trusted partnership. The establishment of a sexual relationship, or the intent to raise children, are seperate entities altogether. So the premise of the lion’s share of your argument is based on an erroneous presumption.
This, by the way, answers your request for the “core meaning of a gay marriage” Incidentally, its the precedent set by Turner v. Safley that defines marriage as extraneous to procreation, not just stray opinion. And still gays can reproduce with limited medical assistance. Soon, gays will be able to reproduce with their partners, even, with a touch more medical assistance.
Disagreement is not bigotry, but intolerance is, and activism towards denying rights to a specific sect of the populace is a stronger act of intolerance than the mere expression of an opinion. It’s not axiomatic, dude, it’s logically derived.
Some of us who pursue equal human rights might be inclined to disparage biblical scripture because it is the sole obstacle to the normalization of gays (or of fringe religions, or of the non-religious, for that matter). The dependence and loyalty to arbitrary mores dictated by (presumed) divine command, rather than derived from reason, has proved to be an impediment to equality at every step.
Joey, I can rely on the anthropological record and historical record for the core meaning of marriage. It is not just my opinion.
Also, it is good that you sense the rules of SSM argumentation are not very constructive. That’s the larger point I am making when I use those rules that SSMers use when they attack the centrality of procreation in marriage. If those rules destroy the meaning of “gay marriage”, then, SSMers are stuck on stupid for depending on rules that are self-defeating.
Do you agree that there is no core meaning for “gay marriage”? The vague meaning that some have given would fit the vast range of nonmarital types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements. Marriage does have a core meaning.
It is not arbitrary. That stands in sharp contrast with “gay marriage”.
It is unreasonable to say that NOM seeks the “death” of SSM. NOM’s stated goal is to conserve and strenghten marriage qua marriage.
SSMers seek to abolish from our culture the core meaning of marriage. But I wouldn’t call that a death threat.
* * *
Dan said: “Your days are numbered, and you might as well try to desperately muster up support before you are completely dead…”
That is not benign rhetoric. Nor was the later overtly violent remark.
On Lawn: You would support replacing marriage with insurance? As we’ve seen, marriage is no insurance. Divorce, poverty, etc… all can destroy a marriage.
“Consider the implications then of forcing religions to perform same-sex ceremonies as marriage even though it violates their doctrine. Quite a different item to contemplate altogether.”
I disagree, but your use of rhetoric here is well played as well. It’s not that “this simply doesn’t exist” it’s that a church doctrine of marriage is being banned. And yes, police have in fact been used.
“What really is limiting gays from marrying, please explain in full so we can see where this oppression is coming from.”
This has been said many times. The oppression here(your word) is based in love and a desire to provide a stable family unit. A gay man cannot marry who he loves, even if he can marry a woman. And vice-versa. That is where the oppression(your word) is coming from.
I am all for not forcing churches to do something they do not wish to do, several have refused to marry anybody until marriage under God can be seen equally by the government, instead of giving preferential treatment to opposite-sex couples who love each other, children or not, sterile or not.
That is where it is coming from.
“So tell me, if a gay decides he wants to marry a woman, who will stand in his way? If a lesbian wants to marry a man, who will stand in his way?”
Are you really bringing this “argument” back up? Again and again, time after time. There is an aspect of love. Forgive me for disagreeing with you but children should not be raised in a hateful home, physical violent abuse typically occurs. As does sexual abuse, and divorce becomes inevitable.
Vast,
Same-sex couples want the exact same thing you want Rob.
I believe they want some of the same entitlements, but they don’t want the same thing that people who commit to marriage want.
I committed to my wife because I realized that she was more deserving of my love than anyone else in the world, as the mother of my children.
I committed to marriage because my children deserved it.
I committed to my wife because she deserved to not be stranded by the wayside with the responsibilities of the children unequally.
I committed to marriage because my children deserve to know their heritage, the heritage we both share. It is a great heritage full of unique capacity and its own skeletons that I am in a unique position to school them in.
I am committed to marriage because I know my children share their identity with me and my wife. And they relate to both, and my best gift to them is to show how much I value that identity with commitment and selfless giving to my wife.
I believe same-sex couples have many noble qualities they share with me in providing mutual support, and they should be recognized. But the true model that they are basing it on is only complete and fully recognizable in the triad of concern for spouse and children you have with that spouse. It is moored into our common humanity and the practice of mating. A moore that same-sex couples need to, but would eradicate in flattening the differences in concerns between the two couples.
Chairm: I think you’ll find marriage was a way to control women, not for children at that point, and much of the rest of your argument does fall apart.
A “core meaning” of gay marriage is the same as the “core meaning” of heterosexual marriage is. And that is when two people in love wish to form a bond, with witnesses, and protections. This could be the future for a family, or it may not be. This is the same for heterosexual marriage as it is for gay marriage.
The core meaning for heterosexual marriage could also fit a wide variety of living arrangements and nonmarital agreements. The difference is the love and the desire to have witnesses see a deep commitment. Again, if this were not the case a wedding would be laughed out of marriage in a heartbeat.
I disagree, NOM seeks the death of SSM and the SSM movement. If Dan’s original argument was a death threat, NOM is more than guilty of that. “Your days are numbered” is easily a reference to the polls and the growing acceptance of marriage.
Joey,
You would support replacing marriage with insurance?
I think you misunderstand. Marriage and insurance seek to assign responsibility to citizens for the actions they cause. That doesn’t mean they are interchangeable, except perhaps in displaying why the presumption that one has to have a child or an accident to justify the purpose of the institution
It’s not that “this simply doesn’t exist” it’s that a church doctrine of marriage is being banned. And yes, police have in fact been used.
I’m calling your bluff. Same sex ceremonies have existed well into the 70’s with no contemplation of police action to ban the ‘doctrine’.
A gay man cannot marry who he loves, even if he can marry a woman.
[...]
Forgive me for disagreeing with you but children should not be raised in a hateful home, physical violent abuse typically occurs. As does sexual abuse, and divorce becomes inevitable.
So you are saying that a gay man cannot love, honor, and cherish a woman in any meaningfully marital way? It causes violence?
Please explain further.
NOM should either allow comments from all readers (provided they’re not indecent) or close comments on blog posts completely. If NOM is so confident in it’s position than it should have no issue with posing comments that present arguments against it.
A “core meaning” of gay marriage is the same as the “core meaning” of heterosexual marriage is.
Please review my recent comment to Vast. I wish it were the case, and I see many noble causes behind their relationships. But alas if they wanted the same thing, they would do the same thing. In choosing someone of the same gender, they aren’t even trying to mate.
Joey said: “why intersexed people(basically, people who are born integrated) should not have the rights of marriage above and beyond those of married people, and why intersexed people should not be the sole people to get married?”
Hang on.
Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that an individual is integrated, as you just said, due to being “intersexed”.
Then that person does not need a social institution to do what is done at birth.
Marriage unites the two distinct sexes of humankind. This social integration is a social construct, and not something that is done to the individual at birth.
Fatherhood and Motherhood are united in marriage. That is the main example of this integration. It takes place before a child is born; it continues during gestation and long after birth. That’s the aspiration of marriage, a social institution, even if individuals fall short sometimes.
SSMers usually reveal an absolutist approach to marriage law when they deride the centrality of responsible procreation and sex integration.
But when that same absolutist approach is turned on “gay marriage” they cry foul.
Excluding one sex does not provide equality of the sexes within the arrangement.
Dividing fatherhood and motherhood in an arrangement does not provide for responsible procreation. That is so no matter the sexual orientation of the adults.
A sad and tragic example of this is found in the nonmarital trends that have been increasing these past decades.
The contributing factors that are measurable? Divorce. Out-of-wedlock childbearing. More people postponing or eschewing marriage. These are related to social pathologies in every society that experiences rapid increases — or a steady high plateau — in nonmarital trends. With this we see more sex segregation and less responsible procreation. Social cohesion declines and Government intrusions become deeper and more widespread.
An example that is glaring: some places have enacted statutory provisons for unwed presumption of paternity. Very intrusive. And the reliability of such a presumption is far lower outside of marriage than within marriage.
On Lawn, in responding to Vast, you again leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt. Your point falls apart.
In fact, traditional marriage, is about the support you list in your first paragraph on why.
“I committed to my wife because I realized that she was more deserving of my love than anyone else in the world, as the mother of my children.”
If you remove “the mother of my children”
For example, take some traditional wedding vows:
“I promise you my deepest love, my fullest devotion, my tenderest care.”
Do you ____ take ____ to be your wife Do you promise to love her, comfort her in sickness and in health. Forsaking all others for as long as you both shall live?
Many wedding vows and ceremonies do not mention children at all, and those that do are typically quite recent.
If you married someone because they are the mother of your children, did you have children before hand? Would you then not support children requirement to marry?
If you merely planned, did you have her tested for sterility? Were you? Would you have divorced her if she was unable to carry children?
–
Forgive me, it’s hard to take a personal standpoint that you have made and not make any rebuttal seem personal. In truth I wish the best for you and yours and for all your children. I am both happy that you have been able to have children(even if we disagree here) and happy that you have stayed together (both for your children and for each other). It is hard for a rebuttal to not be personal, and I do not wish any ill tidings to you and your family, but merely pointing out some differences in traditional christian weddings, vows, and what you claim marriage to completely encompass. I disagree children are a requirement of marriage, and many gay couples do adopt, married(in states where it is legal or under the eyes of God and before witnesses or not).
Chairm: I believe we are at a disagreement. I do not agree that marriage is for a primary purpose of procreation, nor do I believe a mother and father are required to raise children.
If you believe it is, and an individual falls short sometimes(such as sterility) should the other one marry someone else? Even this is not in traditional Christian marriage(where divorce is not allowed).
I also disagree that marriage is also for the primary “integration of the sexes” for social reasons. Many living arrangements and nonmarital agreements could handle this. Weddings would be laughed out. It would merely be a “he must live with she” and there would be little to no connection.
I would also point out that if one man and one woman are to be representatives for the entirety of their gender in marriage, then even minor differences in personalities on either side cause this to fail miserably. I believe a town or city provides a better social cohesion for what you are looking for(integration of the sexes) while also providing some other things(integration of age/race/personalities/quirks/sports preferences/shopping preferences) all of which are represented in marriage but in too small of a unit to be any use to society.
Joey said: ” marriage was a way to control women, not for children at that point”
At what point?
Joey said: “The difference is the love and the desire to have witnesses see a deep commitment.”
What kind of love? Is there a legal requirement?
I think you are using “love” euphemistically.
Sure, love is important in human affairs, including the relationship of husband and wife, but your being so vague as to render the law meaningless.
A man may have a deep commitment based on love with his siblings, his adult children, his close friends, and yet his relationship with his wife is distinctive — culturally, socially, and in the law as well.
Joey said: “If children were the primary factor, then children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.”
Well, in some cultures a marriage is publicly binding when children are born of the man and wife.
But what you are proposing is that the Government require premarital sexual relations and premarital childbearing. That pattern has shown itself to undermine marriages and the marriage culture. You have things upside down, Joey.
In fact, your rhetoric is rapidly moving toward radical extremism.
Joey said: “leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt”
You have now invoked the special rules of SSM argumentation. Your assertions about “gay marriage” are now clearly subject to your own stated standards.
Do you agree?
On Lawn, in responding to Vast, you again leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt. Your point falls apart.
Adopting a child isn’t a marriage. It is the outcome of people who couldn’t (for whatever reason) fulfill the promises of their own marriage.
Also for sterile couples, that is a disability. Is homosexuality a disability too? I mean if we allow sterile couples to marry because we like to support people obtaining everything they can in spite of a disability, are you going to put homosexuals in that same line for the same consideration?
Come to think of it, when you say that …
.. it certainly sounds like you are claiming a disability for them. Is that so?
And Joey, rest assured if I really thought that marriage would exist unaltered as a same-sex and other-sex enterprise I wouldn’t be in this. I have nothing against committed homosexual relationships that want to be recognized for their mutual trust and commitment. I have nothing against a mother-daughter pair who want the same either.
But marriage is something more. And for all of the ways you slice and dice marriage ignoring its angle of responsible procreation, you are simply ignoring it rather than proving it doesn’t exist.
Chairm:
Medieval times, and before, marriage was to control a woman. Biblical times as well.
No, there is no legal requirement for love anymore. That is what was provided by the church and ceremony. The deep commitment, under the eyes of God, before family and friends(witnesses).
At a time there was a legal requirement for love(married in a church only). Currently there is none, for heterosexual or same sex couples.
The law is nearly rendered meaningless in the way it is now.
“A man may have a deep commitment based on love with his siblings, his adult children, his close friends, and yet his relationship with his wife is distinctive — culturally, socially, and in the law as well.”
Yes, but the love of his wife is a choosing he partakes, and a love deeper than the others. Culturally, socially this would apply to same sex marriage. I do say if a man loves his wife as he loves his brother or close friend, then perhaps that is not the right woman.
I’m afraid sterility tests are still a simple move, what you are proposing is the government would divorce anyone who is incapable of producing children, as children are a primary motivator for marriage, no? I believe it is not I who has it upside down(in fact, I was merely pointing that out, rather than demanding it) but you who have it mistaken. I think that is one place we are far different.
I’m sorry if my rhetoric is upsetting you, but I do believe it is only radical extremism from your point of view, rather than anything else. When I was growing up we were taught that when two people love each other very very much they get married. Children were not involved in that(in fact, we were merely children at the time).
Joey said: “I do not agree that marriage is for a primary purpose of procreation, nor do I believe a mother and father are required to raise children.”
I said responsible procreation. The provisoin for responsible procreation. And I said it is combined with sex integration. You can disagree all you like but these are among the universal features of the social institution of marriage.
Now, do you agree that marriage is a foundational social institution of civilization? If yes, what would make it so, in your view?
* * *
Joey said: “Many living arrangements and nonmarital agreements could handle this [sex integration].”
Again, you have invoked a special rule of SSM argumentation. Your view of “gay marriage” is subject to this stated standard.
Do you agree?
Chairm:
“Joey said: “leave out sterile couples and couples who adopt”
You have now invoked the special rules of SSM argumentation. Your assertions about “gay marriage” are now clearly subject to your own stated standards.
Do you agree?”
No, in fact, I disagree. I am pointing out the logical conclusion of what you are proposing with your definition of marriage. I believe marriage is a loving commitment between two people where you disagree, by adding to that “who will have children.”
You are reinterpreting what I have written.
On Lawn: I still disagree that it is for the primary purpose of “responsible procreation.” I believe it provides a valid vessel for that, as well as for raising a family via adoption or other means. I believe you are taking the purpose to a more extremist point than what it is intended for.
Joey said: “The law is nearly rendered meaningless in the way it is now.”
Is meaningless in the marriage law a good or a bad thing, do you think?
Joey said: “the love of his wife is a choosing he partakes, and a love deeper than the others”
Well that is your sentimental view, of course, but the law is not sentimental. A man can choose to love his siblings, his adult children, his close friends. Deeply or not. As deeply as he does his wife but in a different way perhaps.
You said love distinguished marriage and now you say something even more vague about love. It is a problem for SSM argumentation to depend on such subjectivity that is boundless.
* * *
Joey said: ” the government would divorce anyone who is incapable of producing children”
This is another invocation of a speciala pro-SSM rule of argumentation. This stated standard is applicable to your view of “gay marriage”. Do you agree?
Chairm:
“Again, you have invoked a special rule of SSM argumentation. Your view of “gay marriage” is subject to this stated standard.
Do you agree?”
Again, you have reinterpreted, misled, and taken out of context. It merely points out something that you have missed and taken it to mean something I vehemently stand for, which is incorrect.
Do you agree?
But yes, the integration of the sexes exists just fine in civilization without marriage. In fact, I dispute that marriage is capable of handling this, and I dispute that it has.
Joey said: ” if my rhetoric is upsetting you”
Heh. Not upsetting, Joey. It takes a great deal more than that to upset me, really.
I observed your rhetoric becoming increasing radical. And your subsequent remarks have borne that out.
I’m off for some supper and entertainment. I’ll check back later to see about those stated standards of yours.
Joey, if your stated standards are shifty and do not apply to “gay marriage” then the jig is up before we even got started.
I’ll specify the special rules you have invoked when I come back later.
Chairm: “Well that is your sentimental view, of course, but the law is not sentimental. ”
I disagree, the law is sentimental by providing marriage without children, and for providing marriage with children.
Yes, deeply in a different way, a commitment of stability for a family unit.
The problem with arguing simply “with the existing law” is that you can use your rhetoric back at people, claiming things are vague and what not.
I have specified that the people need to make a loving commitment, with deep love, in front of friends and family to each other. Siblings, brothers, do not do this. Because you decide that “all love must be vague” you are using a “special rule” here.
“Joey said: ” the government would divorce anyone who is incapable of producing children”
This is another invocation of a speciala pro-SSM rule of argumentation. This stated standard is applicable to your view of “gay marriage”. Do you agree?”
I do not believe I have gotten more vague about love. Do you not believe that between a husband and wife there is a different kind of love than siblings, friends, parents? Do you not believe that it is something to be cherished? That is the love I am speaking about. If you are incapable of feeling it I truly feel sorry for you. That is the love that is enshrined in marriage.
Again, I am asking if you agree. You are using the special rules here I’m afraid. I’m stating this is the logical conclusion of your argument. I do not agree, as I do not agree with many of your arguments.
Chairm:
“Joey, if your stated standards are shifty and do not apply to “gay marriage” then the jig is up before we even got started.”
These are your standards, from the logical conclusion of your argument. I’m sorry you see me pointing out the logical conclusions of your argument as mine being “shifty” but perhaps you need to do some learning and some thinking.
These are your unstated standards, even if you refuse to admit them. You are using special rules here.
If marriage is all about children as you state it is, I think we both agree that divorce should be automatic if children are impossible, and sterile poeple should not be able to get married. I am pointing out what you agree with, even if you refuse to comment.
I believe marriage is a sacred commitment between two people.
The jig is not up, you are just ignoring things I say so that you can say the jig is up. Perhaps, the jig is up, but for you. Marriage isn’t about children but it is? People who can’t have children should be able to be married but also shouldn’t?
In fact, I do believe the jig is up, and as they say, “gotcha.”
On Lawn:
“So you are saying that a gay man cannot love, honor, and cherish a woman in any meaningfully marital way? It causes violence?
Please explain further.”
Nope, you have used one of Chairm’s “special rules” and completely misread. I am saying that removing love and respect from marriage altogether can cause violence. I am not saying a gay person cannot love a woman in a certain way, but not a marital way. And if that is your definition of marital love, I do believe you need to find a deeper connection with your wife. However, I do not believe that is the case, I believe you are trying to mislead.
On Lawn: I guess you differ from Chairm here, where it is no longer a “preferential treatment” but an “equal treatment” with your disability argument?
If you do believe it is about equality, and allowing those who can not obtain it for one reason or another (disability or not), then are you for gay marriage then?
Or do you believe it is about equal treatment, but not for gay couples, and that is the truth coming out?
On Lawn:
Oh, and thank you for the reaching out despite our differences with this:
“And Joey, rest assured if I really thought that marriage would exist unaltered as a same-sex and other-sex enterprise I wouldn’t be in this. I have nothing against committed homosexual relationships that want to be recognized for their mutual trust and commitment. I have nothing against a mother-daughter pair who want the same either.”
I do not believe it would affect opposite-sex marriage, and that is where we disagree. But the respect you show is quite honorable.
Despite our differences and disagreements I do wish the best for you and yours, and hope that any accidental personal attack is not seen as such, these debates can be so taxing.
Just wanted to say thanks, not to confuse you or stop you from replying to anything else I’ve said, just as an aside acknowledging and thanking.
Chairm: I wonder, for all times you said, “Do you agree?” I ask, do you? It is the logical conclusion of your statement, special rules or not, used by me or you, I do want to know. If that is what marriage is about and ends up being if all of this is ever “said and done” then yes, I agree. It is not what I believe marriage is, so I do not agree. But if marriage is what you say it is, I do agree. The problems are our fundamental disagreement in what marriage truly is.
@On Lawn in post 74
I want to be able to get married for many of those same reasons. My partner and I have been together for 11 years. We are a loving and committed couple. While we may not be able to have kids together biologically we could certainly adopt. Having a strong committed relationship bound in marriage would be the best way to raise that child. Same sex couples are just as capable of raising children and do so just as well as heterosexual couples. The only difference is in the biology. It’s not all about biology. If it was then there would laws against single parents.
Chairm: Sorry for the followup, however, please read my last post.
I do believe your “special rules” will be a “if you say it then it must apply to gay marriages as well” hypothetical. If this is the case, my last post should help you understand what is going on pretty easily as well as provide you with my answer.
Hypotheticals are what is required, and turning the quesiton back around and claiming some “rule” neither dismisses the point, nor eliminates it. Nor is it a double standard. If marriage becomes solely about childbearing then yes, those things need to be put into effect. If that is not true, they would not be put into effect, and you may disagree with them.
The reason those are brought up are to determine what exactly you believe marriage to be and how radical you are about it, not some artificial constraint I want put on it for only heterosexual marriages.
Because I believe marriage is very different from what you believe it is, there is no reason for those. And thusly, for my definition of marriage, I do not want it to be, for yours, I do think it would be required, and I do believe you support it even if you claim you do not, as it is the logical end of your point.. As you say, “the law is not sentimental” or is it?
I’m afraid the “here is the rule easy dismissal” doesn’t quite work in practice. :/
@Vast 98: 100% with you there. These people’s reasons against seem to be constantly moving targets. It’s not about children, not about families, not about commitments, it’s about fear, that’s all they are trying to spread it seems, while hiding under the guise of being for “traditional” values.
It’s all about preferential treatment, calling it a choice, claiming it’s wrong, all of which has been disappearing with more people in the open showing that there is nothing to fear and nothing is wrong with it. Desperately trying to cling on to reasons to keep it separate.
Even one of the board members(?) or other position in NOM wants homosexuality re-criminalized.
What seems to be missing here is that homosexual, heterosexual what is that, we are all children of the God most High, He Has Created Life, and marriage is also His Creation. Did He not make a Man, Did He not make a woman, Did He not say What God has brought together let no Man put asunder? All humans have gifts and talents created by God. Humans are the highest form of life, God gave us domination over the earth. God is The Creator of All things, and all things work for Good in God’s Order. God’s Law is His and His alone. Be mindful and seek his mercy and His Grace, because He Loves us and we are His Children.
Chairm, You say that some invoke a “special rule of SSM argumentation”. Do tell, what special rule is that? The presumption that gays should be social equals to straights, or that gay couples should be legally equal to straight couples? Without that presumption are straight couples not given special treatment?
To what “anthropological record and historical record” do you refer to affirm your “core meaning” of marriage. As I mentioned before, the American Anthropological Association seems to have a more diverse idea regarding the meaning of marriage, and the role of marriage in society. That said, exactly how do SSMers seek to abolish from our culture the core meaning of marriage
And by “SSMers”, I assume you mean those of us who are proponents of gay marriage, including those of us who regard gay rights as a subset of equal human rights. You seem to like to categorize us into a set as if we could be corralled into a single-minded pen. If you must, then, I’d prefer if you go ahead and refer to us in the largest of those sets as “human rights advocates,” thank you, as we have already extended you the courtesy of not pigeonholing opponents to gay marriage as “exclusionists.” or “wingnuts.”
Not that I would expect you to give two rats’ whiskers, but sex is not exactly as clear cut, emotionally or biologically, as XX and XY, hence the idea that marriage is meant to “unites the two distinct sexes of humankind” is absurd, unless your intent is to exclude everyone who doesn’t fit into your idyllic mold of what people, families and communities should be. Gay marriage is only the first step towards inclusion and normalization of many kinds of individuals, to date restricted by your ilk to the fringes, into the mid-ranges of society. These are not people who choose to be nonconformist because it is fashionable, but who are intrinsically different.
It was only during the twentieth century that marriage for love became an ideal, once the industrial age removed enough of the populace from their agrarian roots. Before that, almost all marriages were arranged (exceptions mostly being in the basest salt of the earth serfs, when few cared). Children were welcomed regardless of their paternity due to a continuous labor shortage and their brutal mortality rate. Furthermore, the nuclear family, also a product of industrial urbanization, became only an accepted family model in the late 20th century, based on the media at the time. (Contemporary anthropology suggests children are meant to have a tribe of adults as models, not just mom and dad.) So the issue of paternity for anyone other than nobility is a rather new development.
On Lawn, your diatribe on your commitment to your wife, while, perhaps, intended to be endearing, does imply you believe you can be more committed to your wife and children than a gay man can be to his spouse and children. To me that seems outright narcissistic, and derisive of families headed by gay couples. All things being equal, a family with the same number of children, a couple who are emotionally devoted to each other, and so on, what is to say your family is better, or deserves preferred treatment just because the other family is headed by two women (who are also committed, devoted and in love with each other) rather than you and your wife?
In the end, the Equal Protection clause of constitutions will make same-sex marriage legal in all the states. You can delay it, you can keep making the process painful for everyone involved… but you can’t stop it.
All you’re doing is prolonging the pain and suffering of people who just want to enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. You, NOM, are the ones playing “identity politics” by trying to keep them separate from you, keeping yourself identified as Something Apart from these people you consider unclean, immoral outcasts.
They just want to come home. To be PART of society, and not pushed out to the fringes like unwanted lepers.
Let them in. Even if it means the downfall of civilization, even if it means “redefining marriage…” set your righteous indignation aside, open your heart and let them come home.
Amen brothers Joey and Vast! Keep up the good fight.
We’ve been waiting for an explanation of how a doctor’s fertility treatment has anything to do with SSM or religious freedoms. She can still worship as she pleases. Does this also mean the doctor would not treat a Jewish person if she happens to be Christian? Are her beliefs compromised for giving medical treatment to people of different faiths? It’s balderdash…
And, gay marriage won’t change the fact that gay couples have families (whether married or not), and they go to school, and deserve to have their families discussed at school. SSM has NO impact on what is taught in public schools. It should be left out of this discussion.
So, NOM, what are your core arguments, considering you fail at convincing anybody with your failed logic and nonsensical fear tactics? You are the butt of jokes on youtube, just in case you weren’t aware of it, there are dozens of parodies of your lame commercial. The most important demographic group (people under 30) you should be reaching with your message of fear is laughing at you, not with you…
I just read through this thread and realized that NOM equates marriage with procreation and nothing more (at least Chairm does and On Lawn as well). So, I think they should find another institution for this, rather than hijack marriage. How about getting “procreation” licenses? When we were married, the vows we took made no mention of children whatsoever, and I’ve never been to a wedding where this was the case. Has anyone out there heard a reference to procreation during a wedding ceremony?
The vows we took were an agreement between the two of us. Now, perhaps you can make an argument saying that it is “understood” that children are a part of marriage, but, in fact this is not explicitly stated in any wedding vows I know of…
Can someone clarify this point? Why is there no mention of procreation at weddings, if this is the core purpose of marriage?
There’s apparently at least two types of equal in this discussion?
One equality described as, “Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences.”
The other is described as, “I cannot fully love someone of the other gender so the government needs to change its institution to accept my discrimination against them.”
Children place a real value and importance on their parentage. They learn real value from seeing the parents they identify with showing each other the true value of their identities in currency of commitment, love and support.
I’m not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres?
And when you answer that question, you find that this isn’t a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender’s participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
I’m perfectly aware that to teach the value of responsible procreation and equal gender representation to certain segments of society is about as fruitful as teaching slave owners the humanitarian problems of slavery. Their lives and very identities they have built for themselves are based on the ability to recognize their own needs, but not others.
I just read through this thread and realized that NOM equates marriage with procreation and nothing more
So disjointed and misconstrued, Dan. For someone who claims to be misunderstood a lot, you sure don’t take much time to understand others.
To sum up for your sake and others…
1. Marriage is institution of human mating.
2. The citizens, using the agency of government, are best served having laws that explicitly focus marriage to encourage those engaged in the human mating practice to recognize the rights and responsibilities of all involved in said practice.
I think the arguments raised here for considering the homosexual arguments are valid — for setting up a program to respect their mutual assignment of trust.
I don’t see the reason to remove what marriage has when a better more focused program based on mutual trust can help gays as well as “marriage” without the downside, and can even be used to help any two people not just gays.
Hmmm, Ms. Carrie Prejean has some Skeletons in HER Closet, such a shame for someone so young.
Sourpuss Maggie Srivastav (Gallagher) has goofed again.
Carrie has pictures here:
http://thedirty.com/?p=157850
Carrie has got some explaining to do…
Will NOM put up a new commercial?
On Lawn,
Clearly we disagree about the core, fundamental meaning of marriage. In my view, and the view of some people, marriage is not about mating and never has been primarily for that. No, marriage and mating are two separate topics. I will use another personal example. My sister and her husband decided early in their marriage that they would not have children. For ten years they believed that there were too many people on the planet already and they would do the “right” thing (in their view) and not procreate. I was very proud of them for this stance, because I happened to agree them. Surprisingly, my parents, whose only option for grandchildren was them (at the time I was too young to consider having a child, even if I were straight), did not pressure them in any way, and stood by their decision. For some unknown reason, ten years later they decided to have one child (and one child only). They had always felt that people who have many children (more than two) are selfish, and are doing the world more harm than good by bringing in so many more people to our planet. This could have been because my brother-in-law was from a large family of ten children, and he saw the harm this did to himself, and the tremendous burden it placed on his already economically challenged parents.
So, are you saying to me that because the did not agree with your “core” meaning of marriage (in other words, it’s primary function is procreation), that they were not fulfilling their promise to procreate? I find that offensive, frankly. People who don’t procreate are doing us all a favor. The Dalai Lama said as much in a PBS show I saw just an hour ago. He said that there are too many of us here for us to be comfortable. Don’t forget he lives in one of the most crowded countries on earth, India… So, even if I were to accept your “core” meaning of marriage as procreation, I would be on a campaign to redefine marriage, so that people would not feel “compelled” to procreate. Gays will save the planet, yet…!
I’m sorry if this has been answered in a straightforward way already, there are many posts here and it’s 3 am and I’m going cross eyed trying to read them all. Telling me that I am about to invoke some “special cases” here is not good enough, because I have no clue what those special cases are.
I want clear, straight forward reasons as to why these people can get married, when your definition of marriage includes children:
1. Elderly heterosexual couples who can’t have kids anymore.
2. Infertile heterosexual couples.
3. Heterosexual couples who simply do not want children.
So marriage is riddled with these “special cases” that are never going to meet your “core” meaning of marriage.
Yet you’re going to exclude homosexual couples who CAN have children that are biologically one of theirs, or can adopt a child, and CAN very much form a family that is good for the children.
In browsing through the thread I came across some interesting points;
On Lawn you said that when a homosexual can not fully love a person of the opposite sex they are “discriminating” against them. So when someone can not fully love someone of the same sex they are discriminating against them too?
I’ve seen it brought up far too many times that gay people can get married to the opposite sex, yet I’ve seen NO concern for the person that they are married to. Do you really advocate doing that to someone? I think that it completely unfair to the partner.
And inter sexed people have been brought up as well, but I don’t think it’s been asked, according to you, what gender are they suppose to marry? Or, are they also not allowed to marry?
When a society allows the meaning and the characteristics of marriage to be lessened and changed, then we are headed on that slippery slope, full speed ahead with no return.Because of the breakdown of it’s foundation, it is subject to all types of abuse. Our Lawmakers and courts believe that they are helping society, just as when they told both parents they could work and have bigger cars, better houses and vacations. But the breakdown of the family unit, was the result , Children became latch key kid’s, parents bought items for children instead of giving children, direction and discipline. Children had to grow fast, so they lacked the skilled parents that learn and grow as a result of direct parenting. Society took on an approach of village mentality, the sharing of parental duties and then left them up to the educational institutions. These schools quickly became overwhelmed and the cycle of push the kid’s become adult burdened, leaving their childhood and growing stages completely out of the picture.The children were cheated out of their developmental stages and push into many adult issues and concerns, without proper instruction, time to grow and mature. Children were hung out to dry, being put on drugs and going trough life with adults that were interested in silencing their needs. Now they attempt to silence them at schools with indoctrinations, programs to replace parental responsibilities and rights. Our children are being pushed through a system, and that is NOT PERSONAL FREEDOM, NOR RESPONSIBILITY.
You’ve got it all wrong Dan. Marriage is about children. Some are unable to have them but overall the whole concept of a committed husband and wife provides the ideal situation to raise children.
The purpose of intercourse is to have children and unite the spouses. Marriage provides a foundation for responsible procreation.
This is what marriage is Dan. Same sex unions can never be marriages because sexual intimacy is always sterile and only ever involves one sex.
They’re right. We should protect religious freedom.
As such, those people whose religion freedom allows them to get marriage to a same-sex partner should do so.
This is the problem with arguments such as what NOM puts out. They say things that, on the face, seem perfectly reasonable (such as demanding religious freedom). But, then, you look and you notice that they want to prevent others from having their freedom.
Carrie should have the right to not get married to a woman. But why should another women be prevented, on the grounds of HER religious freedom, to get married?
Secular Heritic:
If that was the case (that marriage is about children), then shouldn’t we nullify any heterosexual marriage that doesn’t produce children? There are plenty of people that can’t or won’t have children, yet are granted marriages. Why?
How much money and effort has NOM put forth to fight heterosexual marriages without children? The answer is 0, which means that their mission isn’t about enforcing marriage as a child-rearing institution. It’s about gays and only gays.
Once NOM starts putting money towards getting rid of childless heterosexual marriages, I’ll buy your argument.
So, NOM: when are we going to see a glitzy and expensive ad that condemns married couples that choose not to have children? When are you going to call for a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as including at least one child? When are you going to put on your website a public condemnation to anyone that’s married and has no kids?
For some reason it seems that many have no real understanding of the real history of marriage.
Here a few sites that have some decent information on the subject.
www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
(obviously wikipedia isn’t the best source but there are links to several better sources in the notes section.)
Chairm…are you gay?..lesbian?…
Marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman - you don’t change God’s law.
Secular Heritic, you once again got it totally wrong. Marriage is NOT about procreation. Have you ever attended a wedding where the vows mention procreation or children? Are people allowed to be parents without being married? Are married people allowed to choose not to have children? If so, it blows your argument out of the water. Children are irrelevant to marriage. No wonder your tiny brain can’t comprehend same sex marriage. Now, there are probably people who view this differently from me, and still approve of SSM. That’s fine, this is merely my opinion. Marriage and procreation are two entirely different topics and should not be confused or mixed. There are plenty of heterosexual married couples who have no intention of breeding. If this isn’t proof of my point, then I don’t know what to tell you to make you believe me.
I’d like to address what this thread is supposed to be about. Can someone please explain to me how religious liberty is threatened by the two examples that NOM provides in their ads? As of yet, I have not been able to see any connect to religious liberty and the claims in their brilliant “Gathering Storm” ad.
How is a doctor’s religious liberty impacted by her dilemma of giving fertility treatment to a lesbian patient? First of all, there is no mention of the marital status of the lesbian, and this is germane to the topic at hand, which is SSM, need I remind you? The woman’s marital status is complely unrelated to her request for fertility treatment, so this should have no part in the commercial, since it is unrelated to marriage. Secondly, let’s say we buy the argument that the doctor’s cannot give fertility treatment because it violates her personal religious beliefs. If this is so, I thought that the aspect of religious freedom meant that ALL of us have religious freedom to believe as we wish, not the doctor imposing her beliefs on others. Isn’t the point of Christianity that you accept Jesus as your personal savior? That means you do not project this belief onto others, right? So, how is it a violation of her beliefs to participate in infertility treatments of another individual. The doctor is not doing anything to herself, she is performing a proceedure on someone else. Meaning it really isn’t about the doctor to begin with. Lame, lame…
Now, as for the New Jersey religious liberty claim. The Chairm of this blog has admitted previously that the lesbians who wanted to use the church pavilion were refused this because the pavilion was for recreational or conservation purposes only. Their commitment ceremony (not marriage) was for non-recreational purposes, and thus did not fit the criteria for useage of the facility. Therefore they were denied the use of it. Now, the mysterious part is how did the lesbians view this as a case of discrimination? This is what I don’t understand, and maybe someone else has an answer. But, it is a giant leap for NOM to accuse the lesbians of attempting to interfere with religious liberty, when this case had to do with recreational versus non-recreational purposes. Furthermore, it is mindboggling that they could associate this with gay marriage or religious freedoms. Was anyone in the church forced to change their reliigous views simply because this lesbian couple wanted to use a public facility for a commitment ceremony?
You have to come up with something better than that NOM for us to believe that religious freedoms will be impacted. Don’t forget that each and every state that allows same sex marriage also has the very clear stipulation that no religious groups will be forced to partcipate in same sex marriages. They are protected legally from any suits that might arise, as has always been the case. This is currently the law. No Christian minister can be forced to marry a Jewish couple, and clergy are even protected from marrying previously divorced people. It seems to me that the religious freedom argument should be made in favor of same sex marriage, because there are many denominations and congregations that will perform same sex marriage. There are even clergy who are homosexual themselves. This is a violation of their religious freedoms to disallow them to marry a same sex partner.
Marriage is NOT about procreation. Have you ever attended a wedding where the vows mention procreation or children?
Fallacy of division, Dan. Your ability to create snapshots around marriage that don’t have children in them does not prove that marriage is “NOT about procreation”.
The purpose of marriage is so resplendant in our society that it even comes up in children’s rhymes…
“First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes…?”
I know everyone here can finish that sentence.
I know you’ve seen it too, but have filed these allusions to procreation into the dustbin of some supposed heterosexist veneration.
You can do that for yourself, that is no problem. But to ask society to do that (through the government jackboot on the necks of schools, churches, fertility clinics, etc…) is exactly what others are worried about.
You don’t see value in marriage’s humanitarian concerns, so you don’t want society to either. That just means neglect and heartache.
On lawn has it exactly right. Perhaps, marriage isn’t about children to some people. But that is a choice individuals make.
When you sever children from marriage by definition, it means a lot about how we organize our society.
If children are born, they deserve to have their right to a mom and a dad honored.
Marriage is one way we can honor this right.
As a bonus to society, it helps in a calm organized perpetuation of its existence. We see the problems of the break down in the family everyday. We should be more focused on children’s needs, and not adult wants.
Geez, that troll takes up a lot of space. I’m sure it and others pushing same-sex pseudo-marriage are proud of the slimy attacks on Carrie Prejean. Fine. I’m delighted that the American people can now see you as you truly are.
On Lawn, I failed to mention to you one other aspect of black women and their vote against marriage equality. I found out that unwed black mothers account for up to 68 percent of all births in the black community! That’s astounding to me, and shows that, at least in the black community, fertility and marriage are two different concepts. But, the aspect I didn’t mention was about a common phenomenon in the black community that is so prevalent that Oprah recently did a show about it. It’s about black married men who have sex with other men behind the backs of their wives. This is known as “being on the down-low.” One of her guests, when asked where he met his potential male sex partners, commented that he met them at church! So, when black women have to put up with this in their own marriages, is it any surprise that they would vote against SSM?
I don’t blame them in any way for feeling that black men have let them down. They clearly have. This is yet another reason that great black men, such as Obama, should give us hope.
Gerry, how about contributing something of importance to the topic, instead of just attacking people? You don’t have to read what I write, do you? I have yet to hear anything constructive coming from you, accept attacks… We’re having an adult conversation here. Want to join?
So, On Lawn, back to our discussion (for which we were rudely interrupted by the bully named Gerry), let’s assume you are correct and that marriage is “all about the children.” If this is so, then why would you not want children of homosexual relationships (whether they be adopted, or biological children) to have the protection of marriage? Would you prefer those kids to have NO protection legally? It seems to me that’s what you’re saying…
Gerry, I have a suggestion. Since you seem to love bullying and beating up on people for their opinions, why not join a thread that supports gay marriage? I purposely came on the NOM blog to defend my marriage, and to explain why I think SSM is a good thing and will strengthen marriage. If the best you can do is cut people down and try to silence them, it speaks volumes for why same sex marriage should never be up for a vote. The majority will always squash the minority. Is this any surprise? It’s also the reason all of the important civil rights decisions in our history were decided by the executive, judicial or legislative branches of government. The people did NOT vote on them, and they shouldn’t, because they usually get it wrong…
I found out that unwed black mothers account for up to 68 percent of all births in the black community!
Yep, and that number is on the rise since the 50’s. Its sad, really.
Gerry, how about contributing something of importance to the topic, instead of just attacking people?
As I read it, he is saying the same thing you just did to him but in a more specific way
let’s assume you are correct and that marriage is “all about the children.”
Interesting choice of words, and interesting that you put it in quotes. Could you please tell me where you got that quote from?
Here’s what I’ve actually said about the subject so you can pull more accurate quotes…
I purposely came on the NOM blog to defend my marriage
Hmm, lets see some of these defensive statements…
It looks like, Dan, you are trying to tear down what others value in marriage more than anything else. Why tear down the value society places on marriage as an institution which seeks to ensure recognition of all involved in our human mating practice? You said, “should not be confused or mixed”…. hmm….
I will be glad when Carrie Prejean begins her campaign for marriage between a man and a woman. If there is a time for morals, and values, and ethical support for love between a man and a woman, It Is Now. Carrie Prejean will not loose, because the powers of Heaven are on her side.
Just want you to know that I am not against marriage. I am definitely for it. Just the the way that GOD intended for it to me between a man and a woman. When God created us he created Adam & Eve as husband & wife. He didn’t create us to marry the same sex. (Opposittes attract!) If you will read the bible in Genesis chapter 19 you will see that part of the reason God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah was the fact that homosexuality was rampant in those towns.
I’d say I’m sorry for hurting anyone’s feelings but I’m not. Like I said I am definitely for marriage. And as for Carrie Prejean’s comment at the Miss USA pageant, she was taking a stand for God. WHCH IS WHAT SHE SHOULD BE DOING NO MATTER WHO’S WATCHING OR LISTENING!
As she said on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, winning the contest apparently wasn’t what God had planned for her life. But it seems to me that is was another step toward fulfilling his plan in her life.
Homosexuals should stop and ask themselves why a child, even adopted children, will spend a lifetime searching for their biological parents. Because as humans we always ask where did I come from, who are my parents. This is a question that has always been sought not only as a child, but even grown adults look for family. Homosexuals must ask this question and many more, will my child hate me for what I have done, taken them away from the true nature of humanity. We cannot fix people brains so they can’t think and feel for themselves. Most natural parents worry if they are not mature enough to give children all the emotional nurturing they need to grow sound and healthy, homosexuals don’t worry about putting children in strange and un-natural, abnormal homes. Remember every single person has a heart and a mind, and when they ponder life’s mysteries. they don’t always feel the way we predict.
I posted a few days ago, but no one responded. I really am interested to hear what the mostly Christian traditional marriage movement has to say on this topic:
Both religions and governments are free to define marriage however they choose. Marriage recognized by the state is not a Christian institution. If it were, then why do we give marriage licenses to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc? Also, there are numerous religions (some Christian sects, Unitarians, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc) in the US that allow gays to marry. It is unconstitutional for the government to recognize one religions’ marriages, but not other religions’ marriages (where consenting adults are involved).
If 2 brothers or 2 sisters will be willing to get married in state where the homosexual marriage is legal on what ground it can be denied by state? Will the ban of marriage between close relatives be used?. But this ban is suppose to be based on the theory that the children of such union will be somehow genetically inferior, but in this case no children are involved. So this union must be allowed. In this case we will have clear discrimination based on sex of the person. If the sex of the participant will be different then the marriage will be prohibited. So according to the legal arguments of the proponents of the same sex marriage - it is clear violation of the equal protection clause. This is the proof that if homosexual marriage is legal, then any kind of marriage must be legal too on the same ground.
Stefanie,
The other side of that coin is the government giving carte blanche that whatever a religion thought was marriage is marriage.
I like how it works now. The state says what marriage it will recognize, and allows religions to either perform them or not.
Joey,
You have invoked special rules.
These are not my rules.
SSMers use these rules to attack the core meaning of marriage. But, like you, they disown them when the table is turned and the rules are used to test the notion of SSM.
Your stated standards defeat the complaint about the marriage laws and your own demand for so-called “same-sex” or “gay” marriage.
If you won’t agree to adhere to the standards you have stated upfront in your earlier remarks, then, it is fair to say you have argued in bad faith.
To be clear, I will make explicit the rules that your remarks have invoked.
Joey you have repeatedly referred to requirements. You do so as a test of the core meaning of marriage, as I have described it.
For example you have said:
1. “children would be a requirement instead of something to come later.”
2. “nor do I believe a mother and father are required to raise children.”
3. “divorce should be automatic if children are impossible”
Your insistence on requirements is not unique. The rule that is invoked:
If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, then, it is not an essential of marriage.
* * *
Of course, the equal participation of the sexes is a legal requirement that SSM argumentation seeks to abolish.
Also consent is a legal requirement. People consent to the marital presumption of paternity when they enter the most pro-child social institution we have.
The man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes. The presumption of paternity stands for the provision for responsible procreation. This is intrinsically a sexual type of relationship. It has a profoundly personal and private aspect, of course, and this is protected; but it also has a profoundly public aspect and this too is protected and secured. But marriage is a type of relationship. It is public. It is sexual. It is two-sexed.
The core meaning of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social institution) that is foundational to civil society.
Point number three is very important. Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution. It does have a core. Society delegates to government the job of regulating the parameters around that core. So marriage law does not create marriage; it merely recognizes the social institution of marriage.
There are other legal requirements that point directly at the universal features of this social institution. But these two suffice for this discussion, I think.
SSMers would abolish the sex-integration requirement and would profoundly diminish or even abolish the presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage.
Why?
Because these do not fit the one-sexed scenario. Now, such a scenario may or may not be sexualized. Wherever “gay marriage” (under whatever name) has been imposed or enacted, it has not required same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, nor same-sex sexual romance.
But even if it did entail love, commitment, mutual caretaking, deep and abiding emotional bonds, and the rest, the same-sex scenario is not intrinsically a sexualized type of relationship nor is it a sexualized kind of living arrangement. Not in the law. Not without legal requirements making the sexualization both public and mandatory.
If the legal requirement test is the slamdunk that SSM argumentation pretends it is, then, it defeats SSM and reinforces the man-woman basis of marriage.
Joey you invoked another rule that SSM argumentation has used to attack the core meaning of marriage.
1. “Many living arrangements and nonmarital agreements could handle this [sex integration].”
2. “integration of the sexes exists just fine in civilization without marriage.”
Again, your remarks are not unique. Other SSMers will say that unwed procreation occurs. And that sexual relations between men and women is not exlusive to marriage. Like your remarks, these invoke the following rule:
If (fill-in the blank) can and does occur outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.
* * *
Name an essential of the type of one-sexed relationship or arrangement that you have in mind — something that does not occur outside of it.
What distinguishing that relationship type from the rest?
Joey and Dan, you have not accurately represented what I have said about procreation.
I have not said it is the sole reason that people marry. I have not said it is the primary reason that people choose to marry.
On the other hand, people make commitments with love. People make love with commitments. People provide mutual caretaking without mutual sexual attraction. Peole engage in sexual behavior without such attraction. People have such attractions that are unrequitted.
If you want to argue in such a reductive way, then, the tables can be turned without much effort.
I think the rules you invoked do not really serve the purpose of making a strong case for what you wish to promote.
If you think that society ought to reward same-sex sexual behavior that is directly associated with some level of commitment, to which you demand the public also be a party, then you do need to explain the societeal signficiance of the same-sex sexual aspect that defines the relationship type you have in mind.
Thusfar you have not distinguished it from the vast range of nonmarital arrangements — some of which do merit protections — protections that you apepar to demand solely on the basis of gay identity politics.
Whatever the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind, plainly state it so that its merits and demerits can be fairly assessed.
How the lines would be drawn, and sustained, around that core meaning is another important matter that SSM argumentation itself has emphasized.
SSM is about redrawing lines. So let’s start with the core around which such lines can be drawn justly, and not arbitrarily.
SSM argumentation has derided social taboo and public morality. So you won’t have that to guide your choice of where to mark the boundaries. Nor would you have tradition. Nor the “it has always been that way” line of thought.
SSM argumentation has done so much to deconstruct the fundamentals of lawmaking, that it seems to have rendered SSM itself rather meaningless and vague and indistinguishable. But that has become your burden due to the stated standards you have introduced.
Typo corrections:
On the other hand, people make commitments with and without love. People feel land make love with and without commitments. People provide mutual caretaking with and without mutual sexual attraction. People engage in sexual behavior with and without such attraction. People have such attractions that are requitted and unrequitted. People love deeply and not so deeply. People vow lots of things they don’t live up to. And live up to vows they never made.
On Lawn: The state already does decide what marriages it will recognize and which it will not. The government chooses not to recognize polygamy, but people practice it anyways.
On the Lawn, you still didn’t answer my question. Why does the government let atheists and other religious sects have marriages licenses?
Chairm, I don’t understand this argument: “SSMers would abolish the sex-integration requirement and would profoundly diminish or even abolish the presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage.
Why?
Because these do not fit the one-sexed scenario.”
You didn’t give a reason for how government recognition of same-sex marriage would make all children bastards. Please explain.
I like how NOM is letting all people post their views. Unlike the communist far left k ooks over at the Huffington post. Every time I post something that criticizes and exposes the absurdity of gay marriage and the intolerance of those on the far left my posts mysteriously vanish or don’t go through at all. I have no profanity in them or anything, however they continue to allow homosexuals to post and drop F-Bombs all over the place.
Keep up the good work NOM, you don’t know how happy your organization makes me. It feels like me and my friends/family finally have voice.
I see they are attacking Carrie non stop now, I don’t like it, but on the bright side this just exposes them for who they truly are. Don’t give up Carrie, you know who you are don’t allow these haters to define you and never give up we got your BACK!
p.s I’m and AA against Gay marriage and i find it insulting how homos like to compare their “struggle” to that of those of fought for civil rights. I find it disgusting and insulting there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. Rev. Bernice King is against Gay marriage.
I like how NOM is letting all people post their views. Unlike the communist far left k ooks over at the Huffington post. Every time I post something that criticizes and exposes the absurdity of gay marriage and the intolerance of those on the far left my posts mysteriously vanish or don’t go through at all. I have no profanity in them or anything, however they continue to allow homosexuals to post and drop F-Bombs all over the place.
Keep up the good work NOM, you don’t know how happy your organization makes me. It feels like me and my friends/family finally have voice.
I see they are attacking Carrie non stop now, I don’t like it, but on the bright side this just exposes them for who they truly are. Don’t give up Carrie, you know who you are don’t allow these haters to define you and never give up WE GOT YOUR BACK!
p.s I’m an AA against Gay marriage and i find it insulting how homos like to compare their “struggle” to that of those who fought for civil rights. I find it disgusting and insulting there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. Rev. Bernice King is against Gay marriage.
On Lawn, I noticed we got rid of Gerry nicely. That was simple, as the commercial for Staples says!
I don’t know why having SSM marriage tears down anything. We are trying to participate in something that we’ve traditionally been excluded from. As I’ve said many time over, I’m very much pro-marriage. I want to enjoy this marvelous institution, and quite frankly never thought I’d be able to. Our kind was excluded, and there are those that are still trying to exclude us (NOM, et al). It was a tremendous gift to marry my wonderful partner of seven years in Oct. That being said, can you imagine the heartwrenching experience we had to go through when our neighbors voted on our marriage? How would you like to have complete strangers voting on whether you could marry your wife? It’s disgusting, humiliating, and something nobody should have to ever go through again. It would have been better if we had not been able to marry in the first place, rather than face the fact that our neighbors could, on a whim, divorce us. Fortunately, it looks very likely that the CA Supreme Court will uphold our union, even if they retain Prop 8 as law. They have the power to do this, and I watched the entire three hour proceeding (it was THAT important to me personally, so that I cancelled my appointments that day), and every judge expressed the same discomfort, and even near anger in some cases, when Ken Starr was suggesting that they invalidate existing same sex marriages. There was not a single judge that was supportive of his arguments. All of the legal experts are saying we are safe. But, who knows until the decision is brought forth with in the next month? In the meantime, I’m enjoying every day of being married. It’s nice to have health insurance, too!
I still stand by what I say. Marriage contracts are between two adults ONLY. Children can come into this family unit, and often do, and the laws that protect the married couple also protect the children. But, your leap from two people to the absolute necessity to have children is something I will never agree with. It smacks of, dare I say it, identity politics. I have no idea of your religious background, and it’s none of my business. But, it is clear that certain religious groups (namely Mormons and Catholics) equate marriage with procreation. I was raised Evangelical Christian, and no such connection was made regarding marriage. There is no assumption made that marriage must lead to procreation, as I’ve outlined before. My own sister was adamant about not having children after she was married, but later changed her mind.
Now, On Lawn, I do appreciate that you are civil and mostly responsive to my questions, but it seems you have artfully dodged my most pressing question regarding SSM and children. Do you feel that children who live in homes with same sex parents are not entitled to government benefits? Do you feel that the children should suffer because their parents are not opposite sexed? This seems like a reasonable question. I should let you answer first. But, if your answer is Yes, they should not have the protection of the government, because they happen to have had the misfortune (no fault of theirs) of being born, or living in homes where their parents are of the same sex. Are you following where I’m going with this? Reading my mind?
Should children be penalized because their parents are not of the opposite sex?
Why did this thread turn into a discussion of procreation and childbearing, when the topic was same sex marriage? Identity politics is rearing its ugly head again.. Marriage and procreation are separate issues, folks…
Chairm, one thing you’ve never acknowledged is that people marry for different reasons. All of those reasons are valid if it has meaning to the person(s) involved. Some women are golddiggers and marry men three times their age just to get to the money involved. If that’s their “core” meaning, so be it. If it works for both parties involved, who are we to judge it? Some people marry in order to please their parents, because their parents picked their mates. Who are we to judge? Some people, following your approach, marry in order to procreate. Great, I hope they have a wonderful life. Some people mary because they love their partner, and want to spend the rest of their lives with them (that’s my case, and like that I get health insurance, and a huge tax break). Just because you seem to think that procreation is the “core” meaning of marriage, doesn’t mean that marriage requires this of everyone. It’s your Mormon identity politics raising its ugly head again.
Let’s face it, people are waking up to the fact that your arguments are stale, and without merit. Just today Maine, and Washington, DC made strides forward towards marriage equality. You cannot stop this trend, and you will soon be in a position where your idea of marriage being only opposite sexed and only for procreation will be history. All this fussing you are going through now won’t mean a thing in ten years or less. Same sex couples will be married, you will still have the same opportunity to be married and raise kids, and the children with same sex parents will be protected. It’s a win win situation for everyone. You cannot leglislate morality. I know you’d like to, but you cannot impose your personal distaste for homosexuality and personal religious views on us all.
My mantra:
Same sex marriage affects MY life, and not yours. So, what can you do now?
Religious liberty is not threatened. Religious hegemony is prevented. You guys really ought to mind your own business. And, by the way, you brought Miss CA into the fray; now she is fair game. That’s the way it is.
Stephanie: Polygamy is not a religion. It is like homosexuality a way of life. And as far as I know if a man has more than one wife, he is legally married to one of them. On the subject of same sex marriage - that’s not the way God intended for it to be. We can’t change God’s law!
On Lawn, I noticed we got rid of Gerry nicely
A very odd and chilling thing for you to celebrate. Gerry made a very valid point, one you seemed to agree with (though hypocritically felt above the need to follow it yourself).
I don’t know why having SSM marriage tears down anything. [... in a later comment ...] Marriage and procreation are separate issues, folks…
Ponder that contradiction, and perhaps the path of understanding will open up to you
How would you like to have complete strangers voting on whether you could marry your wife?
Or on the same token, I know what it feels like to have my marriage, my concern for the very person I created children with and the rights of those children I created ‘voted’ into annihilation.
You are showing your own intolerance for those ideals. It would be a shame to enshrine that intolerance in the government by re-defining marriage away from its very humanitarian and self-less value of others rights and needs. Others including the most innocent and helpless among us, the children.
Marriage contracts are between two adults ONLY.
Ans that again shows what you wish to tear away from marriage. You needn’t make marriage into just ‘contracts [...] between two adults ONLY’. Contracts already do that.
So obviously there is something more to marriage that it exists at all. Marriage is more than a contract, and it involves more than two people.
Its a shame that in your own self-identity filled zeal that you wish to tear away from others what you yourself simply don’t care for.
your leap from two people to the absolute necessity to have children is something I will never agree with.
This misrepresentation should have already been corrected, should it not? Why do you persist in this lie about what other’s have said? What about your position requires this lie about what others are saying that you propagate it so blatantly?
I wonder. Hmmm…..
The history of homosexual mental illness, in 1973 The Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality, as a mental disorder, through much temper tantrums and vile harassment from the homosexual community. Also George Sarros, funded millions and millions of cash. So the law makers are cashing in on what they know full well is a very sick joke, to push all of society into the toilet because of their lustful greed of money and power.
Uriel-238,
On Lawn — Your argument reminds me of the pope trying to object to the “blending of gender roles” in contemporary society while trying to avoid appearing sexist and out of touch.
I actually agree with this point (of which i quote only part). I feel no need to protect gender roles, those are social abstracts which often seem interchangeable.
However, marriage equality can only be achieved if we place equal value on both gender’s differences — in each marriage.
I don’t see that in conflict with your understanding of social recognition and needs. Both men and women equally share the responsibility to ensure the rights of the children they directly create. Both men and women equally share the need to support each other in their gendered biological differences and how they combine to create and sustain life.
That equality, marriage equality, is only ensured through equal gender representation and support in marriage.
Regarding children, it is demonstrated time and again that sometimes a child’s biological parents are, in fact, not the ideal candidates to be responsible for their upbringing.
True, and why is that? You mention one common factor in every circumstance — neglect. They neglected their own responsibilities towards their children.
Now, you tell me. Which ideal of marriage will help people recognize their unique and special role they can and should have with their children.
Or the one I present,
Dan,
Now, On Lawn, I do appreciate that you are civil and mostly responsive to my questions, but it seems you have artfully dodged my most pressing question regarding SSM and children. Do you feel that children who live in homes with same sex parents are not entitled to government benefits? Do you feel that the children should suffer because their parents are not opposite sexed? This seems like a reasonable question.
Oh, I believe I have. But I will again.
Allow me to answer by slightly altering the question…
1) Do [I] feel that children who live in homes with [[committed guardians giving them care] are not entitled to government benefits?
Yes. But where you are narrowly focused on yourself and those who share your identity, I see that much more broadly. I support a program where simply by the virtue of freedom of association that any small group of people can band together for mutual support and commitment. That is what you view marriage as, and I see no reason it should be limited to homosexuals (as Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are).
I mean really. Consider that homosexual activists, after decrying marriage as too exclusive are given a chance to rectify the situation with a government program to recognize others with benefits. What do they do? They immediately instill their program with the same exclusivity.
What hypocrites.
Now, as you know my view of marriage is much more involved than just two people with reciprocal trust. That is a subset of marriage, just part of it. An important part, but too narrow. So we keep marriage to help families stay in-tact, and we have
Reciprocal beneficiaries to help people band together the best they can outside of that.
Everyone.
Not just those who see the world revolving around their sexual orientation.
2) Do you feel that the children should suffer because their parents are not opposite sexed?
They already suffer the tragedy of losing one or both parents. Do you think they should suffer such a consequence by nothing more than the self-centered choice of the adults involved?
It is the hallmark of the homosexuals to always without fail have lies and deceit in their thoughts and statements. They always say how will my marriage affect your marriage or your life, at the same breathe they say we can adopt, and be as good parents, as it gets. What they don’t say is if the D.S.S. takes children away from parents that might be ill or troubled, then they can give them to homosexual people. The Catholic Church has already stopped do adoptions because their faith does not permit homosexuals to adopt children. They skirt many issues in an attempt to deceive.
Many times D.S.S. in my home town deliberately give children to homosexual couples, I have meet woman whom are in conflict about this very issue.
SSM argumentation has fossilized. SSMers elide the actual disagreement about marriage.
This, I think, is because marriage is being used like a political vehicle for some purpose that is not about marriage itself.
The low participation rates in SSM (under whatever name) strongly suggest that it would be a very inefficient vehicle for delivery of government bennies to the self-identified homosexual segement of the population. The low rates and the decreasing trends in participation in places that have had SSM for several years also suggest that that segment of the population is disinterested in registering private relationships with the Government.
If marriage had these kinds of low and declining participation rates, the social pathologies would cause all of society to suffer — from generation to generation. This is evident where the nonmarital trends are about even with marital trends so we can foresee deeper problems if the nonmarital trends became predominant.
What’s the point of SSM argumentation, when you get right down to the basics?
A call for protection equality outside of marriage. Fair enough. But that would not require touching marrige law. Provision for designated beneficiaries has long existed and can be repackaged to improve affordability and accessibilty, if these are actual problems. There is far wider consensus on such provision based on actual need rather than on showing political preference for identity politics.
Thanks for answering my question. I missed it earlier.
Here’s a wonderful statement by Maine’s governor which beautifully spells out why marriage equality is important, and other forms of gay rights consessions will not do:
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.
“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”
Faithful, I have no idea what age you are, but you remind me very much of my grandfather. During the civil rights struggle of blacks I remember very clearly him using the words “those colored people” repeatedly. For every time you say “those homosexuals” you paint yourself in a very, very unpleasant light. Just thought you’d like to know….
Governor Baldacci notes the problems, albeit in his own way, in Civil Unions. Not marriage.
Maine has decided against the future, to pamper the here and now. They have done something that will, in time, be recognized alongside legalizing slavery as one of the most oppressive things one segment of society has done to another.
You celebrate what gives you what you want.
I cannot celebrate what robs from children and spouses their rights.
Dan,
That has got to be one of the most transparent attempts to paint someone else as a racist.
So tell me, if you believe in the Civil Rights movement why you celebrate the equivalent of establishing all-white and all-black schools — in the very name of equality?
Marriage is equality is ensured in integrating, not segregating the sexes. Children’s rights are recognized by targeting marriage explicitly on the relationship which creates them.
I know it is like telling slave owners that they are being selfish in not considering the rights of others to tell you that, but even if you don’t recognize it — future generations most undoubtedly will.
My last posts took over 36 hours “awaiting moderation”. If that is the frequency with which I get to post (compared to, say Chairm, or On Lawn, who appear to post at will) it’s going to be difficult for me to be an active participant in this dialogue. I’d like to think this is a matter of moderation rules too strict, or a moderator that has too little time, but one cannot help suspect when voices of dissent are silenced while those who speak the party line talk freely.
I fail to see what you appear to regard as axiomatic, that marriage has to do with gender at all, let alone “place value on each gender’s differences”, especially considering what I said to which you claimed to agree, that society is evolving beyond social or legal differences in gender roles.
Saying that children require a “mom” (read: female parent) and a “dad” (male parent) is expressing a social differentiation. And that is inappropriate in contemporary society.
At the same time, I reiterate, I see the relationship to marriage in late modern and contemporary times as incidental. More people are *choosing* to have children out of wedlock, and gays are perfectly capable of having children (albeit with medical assistance, but no more than that to which heterosexual couples often resort), so restricting marriage to gays because they cannot have children is fallacious.
Regarding cases of neglect, by trying to legislate in order to force people to take care of their own children, you fail to consider the circumstances of the parents involved, and the children are ultimately the ones who suffer for your intent. Those who are capable of recognizing their “unique and special role” already do. Those that are not so capable will not get the message via your legislative agenda.
As I was saying:
At the same time, I reiterate, I see the relationship between children and marriage in late modern and contemporary times as incidental…
Just to let everyone know for a fact, I am not racist and my daughter is married to a black man, but not just a black man, he is one of the best husbands and father that I have ever encountered. I love him very much and I love him more because he loves his wife and his children, and he love God.
Uriel,
Saying that children require a “mom” (read: female parent) and a “dad” (male parent) is expressing a social differentiation. And that is inappropriate in contemporary society.
Saying to create children you require a Mom and Dad, is expressing a biological fact. And ignoring that is inappropriate in any society.
Ignoring the fact that those parents mean something to the child is inappropriate in any society.
Ignoring that marriage is focused on recognizing the rights of all involved (especially children) in the human practice of procreation is something that people do at the detriment of those humanitarian concerns.
Faithful, I was NOT trying to paint you as a racist. If you got that impression, I apologize. Congratulations on your family, too! No, I was painting you as a homophobe. There’s a difference. You still believe in discriminating against us, so, unfortunately, I must call you what you are. Incidentally, what would have happened had your daughter been a lesbian? Would you have been equally proud of her and her partner?
On Lawn,
Speaking of anthropology, here’s a little known fact. Since you are intent on giving the false impression that gay marriage is a new concept, I’d like to point out to you that the indigenous people of Hawaii had same sex couples who were partnered for life (I don’t think they used the term marriage even for heterosexual pairings in their culture). These relationships were accepted as normal. That is, until the missionaries came in, and effectively stopped this from happening. It is yet another historical account of how religions can dominate and crush another culture’s values. Shame on them… So, when same sex marriage was being discussed in Hawaii, the native islanders had no problem with it. Guess who operated the rally against it? That’s right, Mr. On Lawn, the Mormons! If you’ve ever been to Oahu you may have visited the Polynesian Cultural Center. It is operated by the LDS cult…
Sorry, I meant Oauhu… Aloha to my Hawaiian friends!
The lesbian couple is not doing the same thing her daughter did.
The lesbian couple isn’t even trying to do the same thing. That is an important difference.
As noted earlier…
Now, you tell me. Which ideal of marriage will help people recognize their unique and special role they can and should have with their children.
Or the one Faithful presents,
Let marriage be marriage, and let Dan have the relationship he wants and we will also assume the lesbians in his scenario wants.
Neither happen at the expense of the other, unless you try to call them both by the same name.
I’d like to point out to you that the indigenous people of Hawaii had same sex couples who were partnered for life
I’m not against same-sex couples partnering for life. By demanding the government jackboot stamp out any differences between them by calling them the same name harms our ability to recognize the humanitarian concerns behind the human mating practice.
If you support such an organization as Hawaii has, then you can easily support the organization they now have… Reciprocal Beneficiaries for every committed adult relationship that wants it and marriage for those concerned with the rights and responsibilities behind their creating children.
OK, Lawn, thanks for supporting equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. Now what about their kids? And, will you enact legislation to eliminate rights for those heterosexual couples who cannot or will not procreate? You are climbing a very slippery slop, my friend, and we see through you, Mr. Cellophane… You want to single out gays and lesbians, let’s face it, and treat us differently from heterosexuals. Your argument has never been about mating and children. Your argument against SSM marriage pertains to homosexuality (public sex, or whatever you want to call it). You mask your homophobia behind the needs of children, and forget that homosexuals have children too (and some of those children ARE biological). Oh, let me guess, you are also against allowing previously divorced heterosexual couples with children from remarrying, because those children are not a result of the “mating” of the couple who is about to be remarried. Is that right? They shouldn’t have rights either, because those children are not a biological result of the marriage? You had better be careful what you advocate for….
You also seem to forget that SSM is about the same sex couple and not about YOU. You act like we’re stealing your candy. This isn’t the playground. When blacks were granted equality in housing, did whites lose anything? When women were granted the right to vote, did men lose something? This is why I keep harping on the fact that SSM affects me, and NOT you nor your children (unless one of them is gay). So, why do you want to impose on my life? I’m not imposing on you, nor taking any rights from you. But, you are trying to impose on ME and make sure that I don’t have those rights you enjoy…. You are a hypocrite, because you don’t really favor the rights of children. You want to take away rights from children, or make sure those rights aren’t granted if their parents happen to be a same sex couple. I am emphatically pro-marriage. You are emphatically anti-children and anti-marriage. Isn’t that clear?
Oh, and your poem to Mary is offensive to those of us who were raised in protestant environments. We were taught that to worship Mary, as the Catholics do, is a sin. I think you have offended nearly half the country with that poem. It’s embarrassing, and doesn’t live up to your normally respecatable standards… Can you remove that, in order to save face, since you clearly are a NOM representative? You’ve carefully avoided any religious references so far, and despite the fact the Chairm admitted his LDS membership, you haven’t yet revealed your Catholicism, until now…
Dan I am not a Catholic, nor do I go to Church, except occasionally with with my husbands family, which are Catholic. But I do pray to Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner of the worst kind, and I try hard to repent. I have the Holy Spirit in me and God’s Spirit keeps me blessed under His Son’s Blood, Jesus. I understand the bible as this wisdom is a gift from God. Personally I don’t care if it is a sin, to pray to Mother Mary, because the times I do she gives me the principals that have blessed me as a mother. And the protections are very real. I feel the Spirit of God, I feel a comfort that is even more wonderful than making love with my husband, which is tremendously wonderful. But God’s Love is so whole, in body spirit and mind. It a kind of love that is inside of me and out. Protected, Blessed and Heavenly. God told me people are not born homosexual, and I believe him, because I went to Him, with that question I only post because I love all of humanity and people, All of God’s Children. We all lose our way, believe things that we feel good about and make us feel good, believe it or not, we do feel spiritually sound and healthy and blessed by our heavenly father, when we do HIs Will, It’s not easy to change our mindset and our views, but when you accept Jesus, in your baby steps of Christianity, He guards us, making sure it is not impossible, but the evil one will try to attack you and confuse you into not believing, that is when we need to Call out to God the most, Yell Loud Jesus!!! Help me Lord, and we find peace, Well I just wanted to let you know I love all of you, and I want you with us, the body of Christ, the family of God. Praise Jesus, Amen!!!
OK, Lawn, thanks for supporting equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Heh. Why does that narrow focus in regards of equality remind me so much of Animal Farm.
I remember, wasn’t that the book that coined the phrase “some are more equal than others”. With a narrow focus on how you equalize, true equality goes out the window.
Please equally consider the concerns of all involved, not just gays and lesbians.
Your commentary response to my raising the concerns has been dismissal of their existence. How is that equality?
Amazing
Oh so imagine the hilarity to see you accuse…
You want to single out gays and lesbians, let’s face it, and treat us differently from heterosexuals.
By having a program meet the needs of everyone in committed relationships, that is singling out gays and lesbians.
Call me Mr Cellophane, and my plan would have worked too if it weren’t for your insight
As I marked earlier, you’ve abandoned pretense of reality and the results are disappointing in a humanitarian sense but not without entertainment value.
You mask your homophobia behind the needs of children, and forget that homosexuals have children too (and some of those children ARE biological).
They are. Which means they have discriminated against the other person they created the child with, and thrown the child’s other half of the identity under the bus. Its sad, really. Its even more sad that when one points that out, you think of homophobia rather than validate and treat equally the feelings of the others involved.
You also seem to forget that SSM is about the same sex couple and not about YOU.
And there you have it straight from Dan. Its their institution, not anyone else’s.
Some are more equal than others, and the revolution continues…
Oh, and your poem to Mary is offensive
Oh my, in his effort to stir controversy Dan has now taken a swipe at John Lenin of the Beatles.
The entertainment continues.
From the article “This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.”
The state has an interest in and can take away parental rights. The courts do not always make the best decisions, were only human and we are all fallible.
On Lawn, you keep using that word, *Humanitarian*. To quote Inigo Montoya (more accurately, William Goldberg), I don’t think it means what you think it means. Your concern here, namely the denial of rights to gay couples is anything but humanitarian.
You seem to be under the belief that only those who can create children should be allowed to raise them. Is this so? Does this mean you oppose all forms of adoption, fostership or fertility treatment?
We have far more incidents of children being raised in homes other than those of the same blood that do not involve gay partners than those that do. And we have plenty of gay couples that are already raising children who are of their own blood . The only thing that differentiates these families from other straight couples is their sexual orientation. So the terms by which you would deny them their rights have nothing to do with either the ability to sire, or raise kids.
And all of this will likely be moot in the next twenty years. We’ve already developed ectogenesis tanks for the gestation of non-human ebryos. It would be one small step (and potentially the end of the abortion controversy) when we allow the same technology to be used to bear human children. And we’re already developing the ability to create male eggs or female sperm. Once gay couples *are* capable of having children between them, will you *then* accept that it’s okay for gays to get married?
I get the feeling you just don’t like gays.
On Lawn, When you ask us to “equally consider the concerns of all involved” it makes me think of the backwater families that would get frightened when someone of dark skin trotted their way on the same sidewalk. Our nation is, by its inherent conception, a pluralism, and part of living in this nation is acceptance that some people think, act and believe differently than you do, and tolerance to that effect.
You have no right to a gay-free community, or to privileges to which gays do not, any more than the Jewish community has a right to ban the pork industry, or to outlaw cheesesteak sandwiches. (Mmmm….cheesesteak.)
I’ve yet to see a secular reason gays should not be normalized in society, that gay couples should have less than all the rights that straight couples do. And purely sectarian laws are ruled out due to the Lemon Test.
Incidentally, Dan, I also wanted to add that the biblical bans against gay activity (which is implied to be specificly about ritualistic sodomy) may be a device to differentiate the hebrew practices from those of Mithras, whose doctrine dictated (much like El’s) that women were soulless creatures, hence only men could marry out of love. Compare this to the preclusion of mixing the meat of a calf in its mother’s milk, part of a recipe for an Asheran wedding feast. The god of the bible was a right bastard, and lost a lot of followers for it, hence His policy was to slaughter the infidels and preclude their practices. My point being, much like the meat-and-cheese thing being an inflation of a specific code, so, likely, are the ones now interpreted to be against homosexuality as an orientation.
Not that the more conservative faithful would care; they seem to be more invested in their contemporary, comfortable interpretation of scripture, rather than truth, or spirituality.
Thank you Miss California for speaking for many, many Americans. Stand tall and proud.
Regarding homosexuality, in my opinion it is a mental illness (similar to alcoholism, OCD, etc.). We should be compassionate and loving to individuals who have same-sex attracts and help them understand the root of their behavior and explore the feelings behind it. That doesn’t mean we have to accept the behavior. My uncle could be an alcoholic. He can love alcohol and see nothing unhealthy with his behavior. I can help him on his journey to recover BUT his acceptance of alcohol doesn’t mean that he’s living a healthy life.
For decades the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a illness with a cure… until the gay movement forced them to change their stance. This is the same movement that is trying to get everyone to support same-sex sex.
Mary, I beg to differ with you. Most people (in the U.S. anyways) who practice polygamy do so because of religious beliefs. You may not think those beliefs are valid, but that doesn’t erase the fact that those people do it because of their religious beliefs.
Mary, also, you state, “We can’t change God’s law!” Which God? Christians claim to praise the same God, but even they can’t agree on what the Bible means. What about the other religions who believe their God thinks gays aren’t an evil abomination?
On Lawn, you keep using that word, *Humanitarian*.
I use it to describe the cause that looks after the rights of the innocent and helpless equally with the powerful and selfish.
It seems you don’t like me using that word because, “the denial of rights to gay couples is anything but humanitarian.”
What a narrow view of the world.
Besides, I’m not denying anyone their rights. I’m fully in support of homosexual couples getting government recognition along with any two mutually committed adults.
Uriel,
On Lawn, your diatribe on your commitment to your wife, while, perhaps, intended to be endearing, does imply you believe you can be more committed to your wife and children than a gay man can be to his spouse and children.
Oh my. The comment intended to be endearing.
I don’t want anyone to miss the point.
I’m not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres? And when you answer that question, you find that this isn’t a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender’s participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
Homosexuality doesn’t have to tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage. But it does if they find marriage’s equality in equal gender participation an affront to their own understanding of themselves.
Having set the stage, I’ll answer another question that popped up recently…
Lily,
On Lawn you said that when a homosexual can not fully love a person of the opposite sex they are “discriminating” against them. So when someone can not fully love someone of the same sex they are discriminating against them too?
The point is who you show your love and devotion to. That is what marriage is meant to encourage, for the sake of the children and spouse you combined with to create them. Can you love that person with your whole life, or can you not? Seems like it takes more than the alibi of identity to excuse one from that obligation in marriage.
Kate,
All you’re doing is prolonging the pain and suffering of people who just want to enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. [...]
Let them in. Even if it means the downfall of civilization, even if it means “redefining marriage…” set your righteous indignation aside, open your heart and let them come home.
If they really wanted the same benefits, they’d do the same thing we do to get it — love, honor and cherish the person you potentially will combine with to create children.
If a gay man wanted to marry a woman, not because he wanted to avoid being homosexual but because he believed in what marriage really is, would you ‘let them in’ to your congratulations and support?
Just curious…
Uriel,
On Lawn, When you ask us to “equally consider the concerns of all involved” it makes me think of the backwater families [...]
Oh my!
And your case for having everyone forgo our concerns for all who have a stake in the process of human mating (children, etc…) to re-define equality around the adult centered “males-only” and “females-only” adult trust relationships, is what again?
No, I think we know who is really asking people to consider their own discrimination for their own kind above others…
On Lawn, I really don’t understand what this statement means…
“II’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres?”
You also say this, “The point is who you show your love and devotion to. That is what marriage is meant to encourage, for the sake of the children and spouse you combined with to create them. Can you love that person with your whole life, or can you not? Seems like it takes more than the alibi of identity to excuse one from that obligation in marriage.”
I am a straight, married woman and my husband and I don’t want kids. Are you saying our marriage isn’t a marriage? Are you saying it is lesser than a marriage with children? Would you like to take away my right to marriage because we’ve chosen to not engage in what you claim is an “obligation” of marriage. Children are not an “obligation” of marriage. Last time I checked people were free to have children or not have children.
You can continue to claim that children are the soul purpose that marriage exists, but it just isn’t true.
On Lawn
Regarding the question you post: “Who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create there’s?”
I assume you mean by that, “For the sake of one’s own children, who is the best person to keep as a partner than their other progenitor [on the basis both will stay together to raise said children]?” Do I have that right?
Your question is confusing. I don’t necessarily see (as you seem to do) that sexual intercourse is a “combining of identities”, nor is it the (complete) process by which a child’s identity is forged. (This is probably because I give significantly more weight to the nurture side of the equation than you do). Hence I reworded your question for clarity.
To answer this question, all things being equal and ideal, it would be more natural, though not necessary, that the child’s own parents raise the children, within a larger open community (i.e. not an isolated nuclear family). But it wouldn’t necessarily be better. The parents need not necessarily stay together as a couple so much as be able to regard each other fairly. Not all historical societies fell in line with the nuclear family model or even the extended family model. Ultimately, it wouldn’t make much of a difference if the parents personally raised the chidren in contrast to a) the state raising all the children (as happened in classical Sparta) or b) children were collectively raised by the community (as happens in a number of African tribes). The idea that it *takes a village* has been an anthopological theory for some time now.
So, even if the answer were the one for which you were begging (mommy and daddy, of course), how would this be a reason to deny marriage to gays? You do know that gays can already adopt, correct? Exactly how are they and their families less entitled to the benefits of marriage, just because they aren’t biologically “mommy” and “daddy”? And what of heterosexual adopters? How are they so entitled that same-sex couples are not?
How does allowing gay couples to marry “tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage?” While you’re at it, what, specifically, do you mean by the phrase to “tear down the humanitarian concerns of marriage?”
You haven’t yet addressed that gays can have their own kids, and that straight parents often neglect theirs. You have acknowledged that it happens, but seem to ignore that this runs contrary to this belief of yours that the biological mother and father are best suited for raising a child. Allowing gays to marry benefits these neglected children. It also benefits the children gays have.
Exactly how does gay marriage “re-define equality” at all (let alone to a gay-centric slant)? Tradition is not equality. Status quo is not equality. Equality is about balance. Or you believe straights are intrinsically more equal than gays, until I move the bar to include them as first class citizens in society?
I assume you are more reasonable than to believe that, should gays be normalized, everyone will turn gay and the US will depopulate. Yes? If you don’t, what is the outcome that you fear (other than seeing grown men kissing by the water fountain)?
So far, I’m only seeing semantic obfuscation from you. Can you specify who is going to suffer due to the legitimization of gay marriage and how? I asserrt that by far, more children will benefit. Or do you imagine the naturalization of homosexuality in society as intrinsically malicious? Do you?
And FYI, I’m not discriminating “for my own kind” except the human race. I happen to be quite straight, thank you. No, I won’t get to push for equal rights for “my kind” until gays have theirs, then transgender folk, then alternative sexualities, then fringe races, then fringe religions, and then atheists and agnostics, since the US would rather have a militant radical sectarian for a president before allowing a humanist naturalist into the same office.
So this isn’t about “my kind” v. “your kind.” My pursuit is in favor of equal human rights, even when the rights I seek to secure aren’t mine. I’m pushing to make the United States the pluralism it is meant to be. It is you who are the one pushing to maintain the elitist status quo for your kind.
On Lawn, as much as I’ve enjoyed your “entertainment,” I think I can rely on the new blog members to fight it out with you. Has anyone else noticed that, while we’ve been discussing SSM, all of the states that are listed as potential targets for NOM have no approved same sex marriage? You guys are a little late now, aren’t you? But, I say keep your umbrellas handy, because the storm has just begun. I’m willing to take bets, but I wager that New York and New Jersey are next. Still haven’t heard what’s going on in Rhode Island. Anyone know? It seems like New England is a clean sweep for marriage equality. Let’s wait until New Hampshire’s governor signs it into law.
On Lawn, if your entire case against SSM is because we cannot procreate (with our spouses), then why don’t you make this the central argument against SSM? It seems to me that all of the other scare tactics you are employing (loss of religious freedoms, SSM marriage taught in schools, doctors loosing the right to refuse treatment to people who are homosexuals), are simply hollow, and rather than actually scare people they have become the butt of jokes.
If you really believe in your argument, it seems to me that you would put that forth and let people decide for themselves (that includes activist judges and out of control legislative bodies). I, for one, have no sympathy for your point of view, because I view marriage and procreation as separate issues… But, to each his own. Keep your umbrella out and ready to go…
Faithful, I was sincerely touched by your reaching out to me (seriously, I’m not trying to give you a hard time). You are clearly an exemplary mother and a woman who truly “cares” about people. This is why I’m reaching out to you on a personal level and telling you why same sex marriage is so important in MY life. It will have no impact on your life, despite what NOM says. Ask any Canadian, and they will tell you that they haven’t noticed any change since they’ve had same sex marriage. It is a myth that this will come into your life, unless you have a gay child or grandchild. Now, you probably didn’t know that I am the son of an Evangelical minister, did you? I went through the first 18 years of my life being indoctrinated (more like brainwashing) in Jesus, so I know exactly where you are coming from. I know you say this out of love, and I appreciate and accept this. However, as a teenager I could see that there was something wrong with what I was being taught. Namely, it didn’t make any logical sense. I figured out rather early on that the bible’s account of the “creation” story was not believable. I played along as if I believed it, but inside I had rejected it for years before I told my parents this. When I learned in school that the earth was millions of years old, and documented humans have been on earth for 1.5 million years, I realized that the account of Adam and Eve being created 6,000 years ago was not possible nor credible. So, my belief in the bible begins and ends with the very first verse. “in the beginning God created….etc….” So, as much as I would like to believe it, I can see that the bible is a man-made book written thousands of years ago, and it has little or nothing to do with my life today. In addition to this, I have travelled around the world, and visited every continent except Africa and Antartica. If you were to see the rest of the world,, too, you’d realize that religion and culture intermix. Each culture has created their own god and built their belief systems around that god. So, I view god as man-made not vice versa. Anyway, didn’t mean to preach to you, but this is why I will not sit back and let others tell me that I have to live by their religion. If this is what they want, then the Middle East is a better place for them to live, because our country was based on freedom of and from religion. The pilgrims came here to escape a government that wanted to impose its religion on all people. We seem to forget this. Also, our founding fathers were mostly Deists, and not Christians. This has also been forgotten… Anyway, this was meant for you Faithful, and I also want to send my warmest regards to you and your family. In the meantime, just remember that your daughter’s boyfriend (or is it husband?) could have been put in jail in some states because of his love for a white woman just a few decades ago, within recent memory. Also, did you know that the majority of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage until just a few years ago (something after 2000)? That means that if we had voted on your daughter’s relationship, as mine was voted on in Nov, your daughter would not have been legally allowed to be with a black man. Shocking, isn’t it? So, just remember that the laws that now protect their relationship are very similar to the protection same sex couples are looking for…. It is no different. Maybe your religion tells you that homosexuality is a sin, but just remember I don’t share your beliefs. So, do I have to live by YOUR rules? It doesn’t make sense, nor is it fair…
For you marriage equality supporters, you might find hope and encouragement in this great NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
I have a question for the spokesperson,s of the homosexual community. As The foundation of marriage , is the home of the man and woman, Mr. and Mrs. Husband & Wife, the father and the mother and life from generation to generation. And our children ask zillions of questions about who they are, how they came to be and what the purpose of life is. What the mysteries of life are all about. How do you present these answers to children of homosexuals? As children grow they learn understanding of life’s principals, morals and values, when considerate, loving parents give thoughtful, truthful and direct answers, children learn about the riches that family has and how everything grows naturally from it’s foundation, it’s roots and it’s core. How do homosexuals give children the facts of homosexuality as a flourishing and sustaining force in life. Because marriage is the foundation of humanity that keeps it protected for all of its, growing years, bonding and promise of life. So I would like you to tell me how homosexuality fits as the profoundness of the process of it’s life and it’s growth.
One thing that I taught my children at a very young age is fear is part of life, it is a good measure to consider to keep them safe from harm, if a child learns to ride a bike and has fear, a parent goes along to hold them up and guides the bike to teach children balance. This teaches a child that fear is good, parents protect their children, standing by their side because that is a duty of the parent, a responsibility and the right of that parent to protect them. When children learn balance they can learn to protect themselves, as the hurdles of life can get pretty scary, but with instruction and discipline they can grow confident about their own abilities. That is why parent teach children and prepare them for life. So the fear of homosexuality is a healthy fear. I will always protect children and teach them facts in life. Because it is not only a right of a parent, but it is a responsibility , As it protects them from harm.
God loves variety, he Created the Heavens and the earth, He created all the forms of the life, in all colors, shapes, sizes and creeds. He is God Most High- So He created a man and a woman, so we all know that His plan for mankind is too be fruitful and multiply, Without that elemental and fundamental principal, Life could not thrive and grow. We should stop, LOOK at the facts and draw logical and factual conclusions that represent the reality of it’s proof.
Uriel,
Your question is confusing. I don’t necessarily see (as you seem to do) that sexual intercourse is a “combining of identities”,
… Sex is more than intercourse. I realize some people are having trouble in this discussion seeing past their own noses. It is an amazing discourse, to me, of the narrow-minded future of marriage if it is neutered.
For me, I may suffer from the same short sightedness, but my nose then is at least long enough to fathom sex in completeness. It is something that describes the combination of gametes, as well as body parts.
So allow me to rephrase….
“sex is a “combining of identities”
… nor is it the (complete) process by which a child’s identity is forged. (This is probably because I give significantly more weight to the nurture side of the equation than you do). Hence I reworded your question for clarity.
You are right, it is not the complete process. Hence the need to realize that what you do in sex can have life-long repercussions.
Computer programmers have a saying, “programming is like sex, one mistake and you wind up supporting it for your life”.
A gay couple feels like a marriage is what makes two people kin. No, that is not right. Two people who divorce after having children are still considered kin. Marriage recognizes the kinship created when two people combine their identity to form a new human being. It is a post-facto blood relationship.
You can either recognize and deal with that relationship, or deny it has any importance. The latter only causes heart-ache at the expense of the most innocent and helpless among us.
People who ask us to ignore that from state recognition are asking for an increase in the social malady of neglect and abandonment.
Neutering marriage (removing its explicit expectation of both gender’s participation) is one of the most oppressive selfish things we as adults can do.
Does Homosexuality confuse innocent children? Do they not see friend with a father and a mother, Children that look like their parents, does a child not wonder at some point if homosexuality is right or wrong, they do have that right to ponder their own viewpoint, with their own heart and mind.I know, cause I know children that do just that. Remember you can’t fix someone’s mind and heart to feel the way you would like, many times children will search to find out the mysteries of life, with their own heart. Will homosexuals strike those children down, visit http://www.massresistance,org. See what they do to churches that help people whom have make the choice to return to heterosexuality, It is totally insane. Freedom to Choose, Not according to Homosexual Activist. According to them you were born that way and cannot change.
You haven’t yet addressed that gays can have their own kids, and that straight parents often neglect theirs.
Your statement here is another good example of the harm people wish to do with marriage.
I agree you are having trouble seeing it, but for all of your special pleading of ignorance I know that others do. Its up to you to catch up to them.
Speaking of special pleadings, I do believe gays and lesbians can have kids. But kids are only created in heterosexual combinations. You tell me are they denying who they are when they have kids, as Dan and Vast have proposed here?
You claim that you are out for your own in the whole human family, but it is intrinsic to our humanity in how we procreate. Yet to deny that in favor of a special pleading for homosexuality is exactly the kind of special treatment that I find repugnant in the current GLBT pamphleteering.
Gays and lesbians can have kids. And then to assert their own identity, act like ex-gov McGreevey who left his wife and children in a shambles of a broken family. Only, we hear from the same people who wish to neuter marriage that his first marriage was the sham, the lie, the false marriage. The special pleading is that because he is gay everything is different. If he were any other adulterer, it would not have been so venerable to leave his family.
So you tell me how you are looking out for the human family, instead of just gays and lesbian special pleadings…
For more information of the pitfalls of homosexuality and the selfishness that hurts children, goggle Lesbian sues lover for child support. It list several cases.
Faithful, I by no means claim to be “the” representative for the homosexual community. I happen to be a straight, married woman. However, I don’t see life or marriage the same way you do at all. I’ve always thought about what I would/will teach my children if/when I have them.
The foundation of marriage to me is love, respect, equality, and compromise. Yes, having children is a beautiful thing. However, having children is just one way humankind expresses itself and its creativity. I put just as much value in other creative human pursuits, such as developments in science, philosophy, and art. To put the emphasis solely on children and ignore the rest of what humanity has to offer the world is lopsided and sad.
You’re also ignoring the fact that gays can raise children and pass on values and ideals just as easily as straight people can. It’s not like a baby pops out and it automatically believes what the parent does. It’s the time spent with children and the parents living up to their values that teach children values.
What you’re suggesting is that if someone adopts a child, then they can’t possibly teach them the value of creation and I think that’s a highly offensive assumption to many people, not just gays. It means you think that if you aren’t a biological parent, then you have nothing to offer children and society.
You ask how “homosexuality fits as the profoundness of the process of it’s life” and here’s my opinion. Most species have a segment of the population that engages in homosexuality. I see at as a part of nature. Some of these homosexual animals have been found to pair-bond and raise young together. Maybe homosexuality is nature’s way of allowing for unwanted young to be cared for without the possibility of creating an excess of more young. Like I said, that’s just my opinion. I haven’t done any scientific studies or anything, but it seems just as valid an opinion as the one that says “God said so.”
Faithful, one reason why I’m straight, but such a strong advocate for gays is because my parents had many gay friends when I was growing up. I’m 34 now.
I can tell you from my own experience that homosexuality didn’t confuse me as a child. My mom always told me that they loved each other like mommy and daddy and that was it. However, I didn’t even need her to tell me that. I saw their love for each other in the way they treated each other. Are you really that narrow minded that you can’t see that?
You say, “Does a child not wonder at some point if homosexuality is right or wrong” and I say, well children are definitely apt to think it wrong if they hear their parents talk about how evil gays are. My parents never did that so I never thought it was wrong. These gay friends of my parents were very kind to me, my parents and each other. I never had any reason to see them as evil and against nature.
Faithful, please explain how homosexuality is a choice. Knowing that most animals have a segment of their population that engages in homosexuality, please explain how and why an animal (not humans) choose to be gay? I think this blows the “gay is a choice” theory out of the water. How can an animal choose to be gay and why?
On Lawn, you keep saying “kids are only created in heterosexual combinations.” DUH! It takes a man and a woman’s genes to make a baby yes. However, it doesn’t take a man and a woman to raise a healthy child. I’ve seen healthy children come out of single parent homes, gay homes, adopted homes, etc…. I’ve also seen plenty of unhealthy children come out of straight homes.
Are you claiming if gay marriage is recognized by law that somehow men and women will stop having babies? Please explain how this would happen.
However, it doesn’t take a man and a woman to raise a healthy child.
The point isn’t who can raise a child. But that the child is best served when those that created them take the care and responsibility to raise them.
That is the single best way to ensure everyone’s rights are met in the practice of human mating.
And recognizing that is by no means oppressive to anyone.
Are you claiming if gay marriage is recognized by law that somehow men and women will stop having babies?
Worse. People will have babies, but say things like we’ve seen here. That their marriage is only about their own sexual attraction and nothing about the spouse they created the children with or the children themselves.
On Lawn, you say, “the child is best served when those that created them take the care and responsibility to raise them.”
So a sexually abusive biological parent is better than an adoptive parent because the abusive parent is the biological one. POPPYCOCK!
Your argument doesn’t hold any water. There are many instances when a child is better off without its biological parents. Plus, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gays being allowed to marry won’t stop you from getting married, having children and raising them!
Well, this is a new one, “People will have babies, but say things like we’ve seen here. That their marriage is only about their own sexual attraction and nothing about the spouse they created the children with or the children themselves.” I don’t see this happening. If anything, the government is legitimizing more responsible, committed child-rearers.
With or without gays, we already have a variety of marriages. Marriage is a contract of duties and benefits. For some marriages that includes children for some it doesn’t. You are making a claim about marriage that doesn’t exist and that claim is that children are the only reason people should have marriage licenses.
If I was Mormon, I’d happily sayso. But I am not.
Too many SSMers depend on negative stereotypes and far too many SSMers standby mutely as the bigoted remarks are made in the name of the SSM campaign. That seems to be a direct contradiction of the stated standards of the SSM campaign and its much vaunted argumenation.
As was the said by JFK at the Berlin Wall, as was said at the closing of the film Spartacus, marriage defenders (religius or irreligious) the spirit of solidarity among marriage defenders can be given voice when we stand to say, we are all Mormons now.
Stafanie, God created man with the highest intelligence of all other in creation, He gave man domination over all the earth, His Creation is the Creation of life, that being He created A man and A woman, with the propose of being fruitful and multiplying. This is His gift to mankind, and His plan. It is a sin for unmarried people to have sex, so we can guess, or my my case be positive that He does not want homosexual to have any kind of sex, nor marry.
See the damage that they do
wwww.massresistance.org
Goggle Boston Children’s Hospital Sex Change Clinic
Goggle Lesbians sue lovers for child support
Also they sue sperm donations, the man
Learn the facts and then apply them
Faithful, I was taught the same nonsense you are have taught your progeny. I saw through the lies, and was able to understand that they taught the fear of homosexuality based on their own ignorance and the fact that they couldn’t find any truth in the world that was not based on the bible. As I’ve told you, the bible has no say in my life whatsoever. It’s fine if you believe, it’s great if it gives you comfort, you can teach your children the biblical principles and laws. I don’t want to take any of that from you. But, it’s NOT fine to impose those beliefs on those of us who have “chosen” not to believe it. Is that clear? I don’t know how else to express it without offending you. Religion is a personal choice. Sexual orientation is no more a choice than gender, or ethnicity. Did your daughter’s black boyfriend (husband?) choose to be black? And, yet, to this day there are people in America who would say that your daughter is going against the bible for having a mate who is not of her race. By the way, there are plenty of gay Christians out there, so I don’t speak for them. There are gay Evangelical ministers, and I know one personally. So, are you saying to them that they are going against god? I’d like you to sit down and talk with them in person and tell them this to their face.
Faithful, marriage recognized by the state is not a Christian institution. Are you suggesting that atheists, Buddhist, Muslims, Wiccans, and people of many other religions shouldn’t be allowed to have marriage licenses because they don’t believe in the Christian God?
Also, you didn’t answer my question, how can an animal (not a human) choose to be gay and why?
WHEN MAN STRIKES AGAINST NATURE
NATURE WILL STRIKE AGAINST MAN!!!
LOOK AROUND SEE THE SIGNS
THE EARTH IS BECOMING POLLUTED
THE AIR, THE WATER AND MAN
BE MINDFUL OF GOD
FOR HE IS LORD!!!
PRAISE JESUS!!! AMEN!!!
Faithful, you are not answering my questions. Is that because you don’t have an answer?
Are you suggesting that atheists, Buddhist, Muslims, Wiccans, and people of many other religions shouldn’t be allowed to have marriage licenses because they don’t believe in the Christian God?
Also, you didn’t answer my question, how can an animal (not a human) choose to be gay and why?
Re: Stefanie’s post…
Anyone can create a scenario where a bad version of one side is better than a good version of another. that is itself a rather cheap debate tactic to try to lessen the value of good values and hope that bad values can be seen on the same level.
But it takes a new level of determination in that dishonesty when someone attempts to do that even when good examples of good values are given.
For example Stefanie just said that “when those that created them take the care and responsibility to raise them” that meant even a “a sexually abusive biological parent”. No, you can’t have that. When someone takes the care and responsibility to raise someone, they don’t abuse them.
Oh well. Such is the dishonesty we have to catch and clarify every day.
So let me explain it, and perhaps Stefanie if acting out of ignorance can be helped, but she is action out of malignancy — nothing can.
A child doesn’t choose who creates them, and the parents don’t choose whether or not there is a relationship with the child they choose.
Given that fact, marriage seeks to have each party involved recognize their relationship and obligation to each other. The hope is that with such equal recognition of rights and support required of each person in the combination, no one will be sexually abusive.
But if they worship their own sexual lifestyle as an identity, then who knows what can happen.
On Lawn, I’m not being dishonest and I’m not ignorant, but thanks for name calling!
“A child doesn’t choose who creates them” TRUE
“Parents don’t choose whether or not there is a relationship with the child they choose” FALSE
Parents do choose whether or not to have a relationship with their children. People do it all the time. Fathers walk out on mothers. Mothers walk out on fathers. Women don’t tell the father that they’re pregnant.
You also add a link to a gay family that took their children to a gay pride fest. We have laws that protect children from certain experiences. Any parent (gay or straight) who breaks those laws can be punished.
Are you claiming all gay parents hold the same values? I know plenty of gay people wouldn’t do something like that and I know plenty of straight people who do inappropriate things in front of their children.
On Lawn, I’m not being dishonest and I’m not ignorant, but thanks for name calling!
Somehow, I think that was less than sincere
Sorry, you were caught. You can chalk that error to ignorance or malice, I don’t care, if you ask me though. Even more important is that I believe you can do better and hope you will in the future.
Parents do choose whether or not to have a relationship with their children.
Parents choose whether or not their relationship involved personal interaction or not, and the quality of that interaction.
However, they are always the “bio-dad” or whatever you want to call them. There is no possible way to erase that part of their identity. And because of that they have a unique capacity to be the care-giver of the child in sharing heritage, identity, and showing through their commitment to the spouse that shared the identity to create that child, the real value of the child’s identity.
Lets stay on this point until you completely understand what I’m saying, no?
On Lawn, “sorry, you were caught. You can chalk that error to ignorance or malice, I don’t care, if you ask me though. Even more important is that I believe you can do better and hope you will in the future.”
I still don’t understand what you think I’ve been “caught” doing. However, your tone of voice in your writing has become very condescending. Keep it up, it just makes you look bad and it doesn’t really add to getting to a better understanding of where the other person is coming from.
” the “bio-dad” or whatever you want to call them. There is no possible way to erase that part of their identity.” TRUE
“And because of that they have a unique capacity to be the care-giver of the child in sharing heritage, identity, and showing through their commitment to the spouse that shared the identity to create that child, the real value of the child’s identity.”
I don’t have a problem with that at all. Unlike you however, I don’t see what this has to do with allowing gays to marry. Like I told Chairm, you see marriage as a social institution with one core meaning. I see marriage as a social institution with several meanings. Yes, this institution to protect and promote children and bio parents. It also protects and promotes committed relationships and other forms of child rearing (adoption, including gay adoption, single parent in-vitro, gay in-vitro, etc…)
I think I understand what you’re saying. I just disagree.
Faithful, as much as I love you, I pray for Jesus to return soon and take his people with him. The earth would be a far more pleasant place. Less crowded, fewer wars, fewer guns, and homosexuals could live in peace. Peace to all!
However, your tone of voice in your writing has become very condescending. Keep it up, it just makes you look bad [...]
Well I can agree. In that fragment the condescension makes the author look self-contradictory, even silly.
However, as for myself, I was just pointing out a blatant error. You can read it again to see what that error was
Unlike you however, I don’t see what this has to do with allowing gays to marry.
Well, then that means there is yet something important that I see that you still need to understand? From that standpoint, it is hard not to sound condescending
To start this path, I want to note I have nothing against gays getting married.
I do have a problem with the definition of marriage being neutered, because they want to have their relationship all of a sudden called marriage. That in and of itself is no big deal, but it is what is removed from marriage to accommodate their relationship which makes all the difference.
And what is removed is the governments ability to encourage the concerns people have in ensuring the recognition and rights of all involved when having kids. Because it doesn’t fit their model of a relationship.
To say it another way this lowest common denominator logic really tears down everything to the lowest common denominator. And kids rights happen to be one of the humanitarian concerns on ready to be removed because they involve recognizing the unique capacity the people who combined to create them have in their lives. Why? Because combining to create the child is a heterosexual act we have to remove/reduce it away. How sad.
Stefanie: “adoption, single parent in-vitro”
Here you introduce adoptin and third party procreation (i.e. use of “donor” gametes).
Both require parental relinquishment (or loss) and government intervention to assign a replacement adult as parent.
That is the virtual inverse of the marital presumption of paternity.
Adoption does not bestow marital status. Indeed, marital status is a legitimate basis for prioritizing adoptors because of the preference for providing children with homes that have integrated fatherhood and motherhood.
Adoption is clearly not at the core of SSM.
The use of “donors” is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. This typically requires that the husand explicitly agree with the impregnation of his wife by this procedure. But before that can occur, the “donor” must pre-emptively relinquish parental status.
That said, less than one-third of one percent of the child population were conceived via third party procreation methods like IVF and ARTs.
For one-sexed scenarios, gay or not, 100% go outside of the scenario to use the gametes of the other sex.
That said, most of the children living in same-sex households, by far, migrated there from the previously procreative relationships of thier moms and dads (i.e. marriages). That is, these children have both mom and dad, it is just that one or the other is not resident.
The presumption of paternity protects these children and their mom/dad parents.
Meanwhile, maybe 4% of the children in same-sex households were attained through adoption; and maybe 1% through third party procreation.
Across the board these scenarios segregate fatherhood and motherhood.
Of the adult openly homosexual population in the USA, perhaps 11% live in same-sex households (which includes those registered with government and those not registered). Of the adult homosexual population perahps 3% reside in such households with children.
Okay, so of the child population living in the households of that small subset of the homosexual population, an very tiny portion were attained via adoption and/or IVF/ARTs.
Meanwhile almost all married people have children. Indeed, more than half of the relatively few who experience infertility already have at least one child.
The context provides perspective that often goes missing in SSM argumentation’s emphasis on the adult relationship. The child-parent relationship might be directly established through adoption, but not through SSM.
See the prerequisites that are the virtual inverse of the marital presumption that a husband is the father of his wife’s children. That presumption is vigorously enforced in our legal system. It is highy reliable, too. Government interventin is not the default but rather the rarity. Again, that is the inverse of the SSM scenario. SSM depends on the government because its lack of a core emaning makes it very fragile.
How about a comment actually related to the post? The latest tactic of the hatemongers fighting for same-sex pseudo-marriage is to delve into the divorce records of Carrie Prejean’s parents. In case anyone had any doubt, here’s more evidence that just when you think they can’t sink any lower, they do.
Attention trolls: Your constant use of ad hominem attacks on Carrie Prejean only highlights the truth: You sniveling cowards don’t want to debate - you just want to silence the defenders of marriage. It’s not going to work, punks.
I will just tell you myself as having 10 brothers and 3 sisters, we know what family really is. It is the sharing and caring, the parents mom and dad that instruct us, teach us manners, principals, morals and value. We all struggle and prosper because of the love that is the driving force, the notion that we would ever want to see a man acting as if he wanted another man, is just plain downright against all that family is about. It is about the most disgraceful, and I mean despicable, useless act that any sane, loving person can imagine. And why would we want to imagine that, to make us as children afraid of what kind of sickness or deviancy lurks behind that mind, of what is suppose to be a man, a father, a husband?? That would set the heart, my heart in convulsions. Yes- It would and does make me sick, because thats not loving, nor respectful to my mom, my sisters, my brothers. It is an abomination to mankind and family. Sex is beautiful and brings with it the promise of love, life and family. Don’t ever tell me any different, because I have a heart and I love and protect children.
You can have your abortions, homosexuality, breast implants, sex change operations, women chopping off their breast, men minus their penis. you can have your sexual pride parades, you can have your hateful practices, that hurt everyone- Stand up show your
Pride***********
Are you getting enough, are you happy ???
Gee- Look at You- Who the -ell wants too?
Faithful, wow, what a little rant. You’re right about one thing, love is the driving force. Gays are fighting for marriage and family rights out of love.
Why don’t you stop ranting and engage in a dialogue with the people who disagree with you or are you afraid to?
I’m willing to answer any question you ask of me, but you have to be willing to answer any question I ask of you. I heard a recent statistic today that 46% of Americans approve of same sex marriage. That number is up from the year before and the year before that and the year before that. Pretty soon you will be in the minority.
If you’re not willing to even discuss the issue in a debate, how do you expect to possibly win people to your side? Not that I think you actually have a chance.
This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents:
My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Gays are fighting for marriage and family rights out of love.
They want to change marriage into their view of a relationship. If they wanted marriage they would get married. No one is served by this re-defined entity, especially those that think they are married because of it.
I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Does the 17 year old watches a minister try to make segregation from black people sound legitimate, and thinks that intollerance of the other gender (so marriage must change) will sound legitimate?
He has a few things left to learn, obviously.
Stefanie,
FOr the sake of discussion, let’s accept that statistic and let’s accept your prediction that the majority opinion will eventually favor the merger of SSM with marital status.
Majority rule is not tyrannical if it favors SSM, right?
If a majority on a court favors SSM, even if just by a single vote, that’s a good majority, right?
If the majority in a state legislature favors SSM, that, too, would be a good majority, right?
Would you agree that majorities in favore of the man-woman basis of marriage, in each of the above venues, would also be legitimate?
From my reading of the SSM arugments in courtrooms and in legislatures and in venues like this comment section, it seems to me that people who favor the SSM-merger are giving the right answer (equality) to the wrong question (why discriminate against homosexual people?).
And those who are defending marriage are asking the right question (what is marriage?) and being misconstrued when we give the right answer (see the core meaning).
Indeed, SSMers deny there is a core meaning which (contrary to dismissive remarks of some here who have misconstrued) can have several purposes that all link together coherently.
SSMers also talk alot about protections. And most people who support the man-woman basis of marriage, also agree with protection equality outside of marriage. But we recognize that marital status is a preferential status. And the reason it is so, and that it can be sustained as such, is its core meaning. A meaning that is deconstructed by SSM argumentation; unfortunately, that attempt to deconstruct leaves little for which SSMers can sustain SSM itself.
Hence, I say that SSMers tend to give the right answer (equality) for the wrong question (why leave out homosexual people).
Do you get a bettere sense of what I am talking about here?
“Indeed, SSMers deny there is a core meaning…”
Not necessarily. I’ll admit that the “traditional,” popular or even “intended” use of marriage is to create the idealistic male/female environment for raising children. And personally for myself, the word “marriage” implies a union of opposites, and the unique relationship that creates.
But…
The state doesn’t really require a “proper” motive for marriage when granting the civil institution. Yes, maybe it hopes and intends that couples will form a stable bond to raise children, but it doesn’t *require* that they do.
Best friends can marry for companionship; business partners could marry for the financial benefits; polyamorous partners could marry while maintaining an “open” marriage.
These relationships all “threaten” traditional marriage, yet the state doesn’t discriminate between those and more traditional motives. It merely requires consent for the civil institution, then leaves moral judgements to the various churches if a couple wishes a religious blessing. Some faiths and churches will bless a particular relationship, others won’t. In any case though, the state leaves the moral choice to the individual churches.
So I’m not sure why NOM presumes to speak for all faiths, all churches when it “opposes” SSM? I understand it’s concerns, but even if NOM is absolutely right with every objection, I still feel other churches deserve a chance to make the moral choice for themselves, this being the “price” we pay for enjoying the benefits of a pluralistic society.
Chairm, no I’m not in favor of majority rule on civil rights, but people like you usually are. I’m just pointing out you might soon be in the minority.
I had another thought on Chairm’s and On Lawn’s view of marriage equality. By your definition of marriage equality, it would seem that when we finally revoked laws that denied mixed race couples the right to marry that all the couples who engage in same race marriage are discriminating against people of color. How do you reconcile that?
Stefanie,
Now I understand why you wish no children, it is easier for you to stay a child, and I commend you on your admittance of that fact. Now same race marriage if typical as that is how life, is lived and learned, people of the same race, often produce life, with the same race. But then there is a man and a woman that may love someone of another race, and it may be that they want to marry and have children together, that also happens in what we call life, love and marriage, none the less as they can and do marry and have children, producing family from generation to generation. It is what we define as life and love and family,.
Stefanie, Why do largely homosexuals and others of the little value, or no value crowd do so much PreJean and Palin bashing, Maybe they are not like those that truly want to grow up and discover the facts of life, and leave the immaturity and carelessness that causes so many of the problems for themselves, their children and families. The maturity and thoughtfulness of grown adults goes a long way in life to curb alcohol, drug, sexual addictions and the like. When one matures and accepts personal responsibility for their actions and their bodies and minds, it gives a new life to old problems. That is what adults must understand, if they are to stop the insanity that causes so much confusion and depression of the human heart. There are normal behaviors that lead to good living and right actions. They are learned and taught by thoughtful parents, and sometimes the children themselves that see the awful lust and greed of others. To be truly giving and loving one must struggle to overcome their own demons. If there lucky enough to discover God and ask Him in, It is so much more clear and easier. It take determination and thoughtful consideration. Sorry for the rant.
Chairm, I find the historical irony amusing and disturbing that Mormons, in particular, would stand in favor of the oppression of other minorities as far as marriage was concerned. Even the Church of LDS, which has long since discontinued the practice of polygyny continues to be derided for it, and is regarded commonly as a false faith by its peer denominations. In the meantime the fundamentalists are still trading each other’s thirteen-year-old daughters as fresh chattel, and claiming it is God’s will by which they rape their child brides.
On Lawn, you seem to confuse habitual skeptic disclaimers for ignorance or lack of confidence. In fact, when I express that “I don’t see” your point of view, it is an opportunity to present evidence other than your own alleged anecdotal experience, or shut up about it.
I didn’t make a “special pleading of ignorance?” Special pleading has to do with saying one group is above a given rule due to special circumstances. I’m not arguing gays are a special case from the rule, I’m arguing your rule is bogus to begin with. I’m challenging what you regard as axiomatic as illegitimate.
So, on what do you base your presumption, say, that marriage has anything to do with procreation? Or that gay marriage will endanger children?
So far, you’ve only succeed in convincing me that your polarized view of marriage is immutable despite the facts. While I may not (according to you) be able to see much beyond my own nose, it appears (another skeptical disclaimer) you simply refuse to look at or consider what is plainly in front of yours. You take comfort in, if not desperately cling to, your delusional belief system.
The cultures in those countries that have already accepted gay marriage have suffered little for the change. The American Anthropological Association has posted an open statement that human families can take a wide variety of forms, including being headed by same-sex marital partnerships,
The evidence in nature conflicts with the beliefs to which you cling.
This isn’t surprising. Blind loyalty to allegedly divine command doctrine has proven an obstacle in the equalization of culture every step in the progress of civilization. In this country alone, it delayed the emancipation of slaves, the suffrage of women, the acceptance of religious denominations (or non-Abrahamic faiths), the legal equality of races, and so on. Every step of the way God’s wrath had been promised, should a change take place, and yet we are still here.
Should all of New England accept gay marriages, should Proposition 8 be overturned or repealed, should DOMA collapse, and the world move on, will you still harbinger the doom of civilization due to the inclusion of gays into the fold of society?
I bet you will.
Faithful, I have difficulty determining if your questions are rhetorical (you already have an answer you believe, and are not interested in ones that might differ from those beliefs) or stem from genuine interest, innocence and curiosity. But some of the questions you asked seem genuine and there are answers from those of us who propose gay rights.
Hey- If the whole world was homosexual? would that solve the world’s problems.Then they could all give each other what God gave to mankind???????????
Wrong, Wronger and Wrongest. Maybe aids and other s.t.d ’s is the cure for the problem. Or maybe just maybe a one man, one woman relationship, marriage solves, many of these demonic struggles. Homosexuality is not about humanity, it is the vulture that destroys humanity.
5/50 states have legalized same-sex marriage, you guys can’t hold out forever.
New United Nations Right of the Child will also give children rights in religion, so they will not have religious views pushed on them, which means that religion is going to die out. The world is getting more and more progressive, now you guys are behind the times.
Under A World of Sexual Lust and Deviance, It must Cease, For the Survival of Humanity, Wholeness and Righteousness. For The Lord, God Has Commanded It So.
Check out the urban dictionary, I guess this is what the educational institutions are educating our children with http://urbandictionary.com/define..php?term=swag. The marketing of our children’s value system. Disgraceful.
Faithful, now you’re resorting to personal attacks and putting words in my mouth that I never said.
“Now I understand why you wish no children, it is easier for you to stay a child, and I commend you on your admittance of that fact.”
When did I say I didn’t want kids so I could stay a child? Do you think all people who choose not to have children are childish? How would you feel if I said that anyone who has 15 children is selfish? I would never say that because I think people’s reproduction is their own business. It’s not my right to decide when and if people should have kids.
But if you’d like to know, my current reasons for not having children is that I’m currently working full time and going to night school to finish my degree. Personally, I think it would be selfish to have a child at this time when I’m so busy. Yeah, a hard working American with a full time job and going to night school makes me really childish doesn’t it?
I wasn’t directing the same-race comment at you. I should’ve stated it was for Chairm & On Lawn who claim that gay marriage would somehow hurt gender equality. If you feel the same way, then you really didn’t answer how same -race marriages are different from same-sex marriages in that respect.
Faithful, what does Sarah Palin have to do with anything? Did I ever say anything about Sarah Palin? Did I ever say anything about Carrie Prejean for that matter?
I think Carrie Prejean’s opinion is her opinion and I hate Perez Hilton, but not because he’s gay. He’s just rude to everyone.
“Why do largely homosexuals and others of the little value, or no value crowd do so much PreJean and Palin bashing”
Why do you claim people who disagree with you have no value? Does everyone have to agree with Carrie Prejean or Sarah Palin on every issue?
“Maybe they are not like those that truly want to grow up and discover the facts of life”
And who are these wonderful people who are right about everything and know everything?
“The maturity and thoughtfulness of grown adults goes a long way in life to curb alcohol, drug, sexual addictions and the like.”
Here’s another comment that comes out of left field. What does this have to do with anything we’ve been talking about. Yes, thoughtful and mature adults don’t have alcohol, drug, or sexual addictions. I don’t have much to argue with the rest of what you said either. I agree that people should be loving and strive to overcome their demons, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand.
Faithful, no one wants everyone to be homosexual. That’s ridiculous. Almost all species of animal have a segment of the population that engages in homosexual activity. It’s a part of nature. Maybe it’s for population control, maybe it has some other evolutionary purpose. I don’t know.
Why did God create homosexual animals (not humans)? If you believe being gay is a choice why and how does an animal choose to be gay?
“Maybe aids and other s.t.d ’s is the cure for the problem.”
“Homosexuality is not about humanity, it is the vulture that destroys humanity.”
You, and other right-wing Christians, say things like that you wonder why gays don’t like you? If anyone said anything remotely like God sent a disease to kill me and that I was destroying humanity I wouldn’t like you very much either. I’m not even gay and it makes me not like you.
Faithful, do you believe in freedom of religion? Should people be allowed to practice the religion of their choice in the U.S.?
Do you think our government should make laws based on religion?
If so, which religion? The Christian one? Then which sect of Christianity?
Stefanie, Go with Christianity, the belief that, the faith that Christ die for our sins.That He and He alone is the truth, the light and the Life. For everything works for good, in the order of God, Our Heavenly Father. There is a Father that is Righteous, that is pure, and that is the Truth. For He alone is the Creator, So look to Him and confess and repent, Ask Jesus Into your heart, take courage for He is our Rock, Our Salvation and our only hope for Heaven. How far is Heaven???
Praise Jesus!!!! Amen!!!
I don’t know what to tell you about your government, because I am governed by The Almighty. So may i suggest that maybe someone that has that government fill the seat at what they call is the white house? Because it sure doesn’t look white to me. Maybe a little less corruption, maybe a little more dignity for humanity. Maybe a little less waste and destruction of morally base foundation. Maybe a day without all the garbage that is being unloaded on the people. I don’t know what to tell you, as I don’t know much. But I do know Jesus, for He is my governor.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Just the mysteries of life, oh how they grow, what does your garden look like???
In The Garden Of Life
In the Garden of Life, Man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, coming together as one, to produce children, the family from generation to generation. Oh- What a passion, Oh what a truth, Oh what a faith, life flourishing in health, in mind, body and soul, What springs of the healing waters can bring, cleanliness, honesty, good nature and faith.
Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!
Faithful, there are 34,000 separate denominations of Christianity in this world. Is there any particular one you’d recommend over the others? Most of them preach “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, specific to their denomination. Which one do you think is the true faith that will gain its promise of Heaven? Do you believe the Catholics are true Christians? How about Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Unitarians? Unificationists? Gnostic Revivalists?
Do you believe the bible is a historical document (hence should be interpreted in context of its own history) or do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God?
Do you believe the beatifications are more or less important than the commandments? What about the golden rule? Are the red-letter scriptures more important than the doctrine of Paul, or of equal standing?
Do you believe women are lesser creatures than men and should not speak or prophecy in church? Do you believe children should be beaten in order to be disciplined? Do you believe we should dispense with democracy, and reinstate a monarchy? Do you believe non-Christians (i.e. Jews, Muslims, Neopagans, Heathens, Deists, Agnostics and Freethinkers) should be executed? Do you think freedom of religion as determined by the first amendment to the Constitution of the US is a crime against God?
Christianity as is practiced by some even in the US is an unforgiving, cruel faith, no matter how much is preached about love or forgiveness.
Uriel- I don’t know about all that, My Lord, keeps my mind focused on Him. I don’t go to Church, except the Church of God, because I pray in His Holy name, at home or where ever I may be. I know His Love and that is Certain. So I would no more harm you and yours, than I would my own. But there is a Judge that you can ask, in prayer that is yours alone, as your relationship with Jesus always is, But as for myself, Jesus is a part of me, and I speak His guidance, For I believe, and His Spirit, The Spirit of God is my Light, My Gift to share with all.
With mother’s Day approaching lets ponder on the meaning of The Fruit of the Womb, Ye- Shall Know them by their fruits.
Scattered Lives, Scattered Dreams, Confusing the facts with more of the same
One day I’ll write a book with all the nonsense I have learned.
Stefanie, Texas
“Faithful, no one wants everyone to be homosexual. That’s ridiculous. Almost all species of animal have a segment of the population that engages in homosexual activity. It’s a part of nature. Maybe it’s for population control, maybe it has some other evolutionary purpose. I don’t know.
Why did God create homosexual animals (not humans)? If you believe being gay is a choice why and how does an animal choose to be gay?”
@ Stefanie
According to your worldview, homosexuality among human being should be legal because that behavior is displayed in the animal kingdom
I have a few questions:
It’s natural for a lion to steal food from smaller animals. So, should we legalize theft?
It’s natural for a female praying mantis to eat her mate. So, should we legalize cannibalism?
It’s natural for a male Tasmanian devil to force a female to mate with him. So, should we legalize rape?
Just because animals engage in certain behavior does not make it moral or healthly for human society.
Jerusalem’s Cry
Can you hear Jerusalem’s Cry
Can you see the storm on the rise
Look around you can’t deny
This is the hour of heaven’s time
Armies gather in the East
For the war that’s soon to come
Death will march with the mark of the beast
So seek Light and Walk with The Son
Soon we’ll see His Wrath come down
And the Lord descending from the sky
When you hear the trumpet’s sound
God has answered Jerusalem’s Cry
When the sun goes black
And the moon blood red
And the stars fall from the sky
The Word of God in the Bible says
We’re living in the end times
Soon we’ll see His Wrath come down
And the Lord descending form the sky
When you hear the trumpet’s sound
God has answered Jerusalem’s Cry
Soon the dead in Christ will rise
And join Him in the sky
Even unbelivers will see
God has answered Jerusalem’s Cry
God has answered Jerusalem’s Cry
Dan wrote
“My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.”
There are two flaws with your arguments
First, God hates racism as demonstrated when He cursed Miriam for her bigotry against her brother Moses’ non-Jewish (Cushite) wife. Read Numbers 12
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2012;&version=47;
Thus, any Christian using the Bible to defend racial segregation is a hypocrite. True Christians like Martin Luther King fought against the evil of segregation.
Second, the Bible is QUITE clear that homosexuality is a sin that should be scorned instead of condoned. Here is a sample scripture:
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Thus, those Christians who condone homosexuality are just as hypocritical as pro-racism Christians of the past. The true Christians are those who preach that homosexuality is a sin, but one can be free from it through by being saved through Christ.
I hope that clears things up.
Three wooden crosses
A farmer and a teacher, a hooker and a preacher, ridin’ on a midnight bus bound from Mexico
One was headed for vacation, one for higher education, and two of them were searchin’ for lost souls
That driver never ever saw the stop sign
And eighteen wheeler can’t stop on a dime
There are three wooden crosses on the right side of the highway, why there’s not four of them
Heaven only knows
I guess it’s not what you take when you leave this world behind you
It’s what you leave behind you when you go
That farmer left a harvest, a home and eighty acres
The faith and love for growin’ things in his young son’s heart
And that teacher left her wisdom in the minds of lots of children, and did her best to give them all a better start
And that preacher whispered “Can’t you see the promise land? As he laid his blood stained Bible in that hookers hand
That’s the story that our preacher told us last Sunday, as he held that blood-stained Bible up, for all of us to see
He said, Bless the farmer, and the teacher, and the preacher; who give this bible to my mama, who read it to me
There are three wooden crosses on the right side of the highway, why there’s not four of them, now I guess we know
It ’s not what you take when you leave this world behind you, it’s what you leave behind you when you go
Faithful, you really have a hard time answering questions.
Do you believe in freedom of religion as granted to us in the U.S. Constitution?
It’s a simple yes or no question. No need to go off on some diatribe about the white house not being white. Is that suppose to be some remark about Obama being black? If so, what on earth does that have to do with this discussion.
Chairm and On Lawn can claim NOM’s reasoning is secular, but their followers prove otherwise. The U.S. Constitution gives us freedom of religion, not just freedom to practice your particular sect of Christianity.
Faithful, “I would no more harm you and yours, than I would my own.”
WHAT A LOAD OF B.S.
You hope disease strikes down gay people as a”cure for the problem” as you say. You also apparently being gay (and anyone who disagrees with you is) is in a “demonic struggle” and that “homosexuality is not about humanity, it is the vulture that destroys humanity.”
Yeah, you’re a really kind, compassionate person. Jesus would be so proud.
Faithful, speaking of fruits, do you really think your actions towards gays embody the fruits of the spirit.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22)
Fred, being gay doesn’t hurt anyone. The reasons those other behaviors are illegal is because they hurt someone. Behavior between consenting adults is none of my business or yours.
Fred, while we’re at it. Not even every behavior that hurts someone is illegal. With the exception of suicide, most behaviors that hurt ourselves only aren’t illegal. It’s called liberty Fred and it’s in the Declaration of Independence. You people seem to really hate this country and what it stands for.
Fred, do you want to take away the freedom of religion granted to us in the U.S. Constitution?
Yes or no?
If no, your Christian argument holds no water on this issue.
1. Marriage as recognized by the state is a civil contract. It has nothing to do with Christianity. If it did, then why do we let atheists have marriage licenses, or any other religion for that matter?
2. There are numerous religions that allow gays to marry (even some Christian sects). Why do you want to deny them their religious freedoms as granted to them in the Constitution?
Stefanie, I said homosexuality is the vulture that destroys humanity. That being said it is the behavior of the person, for thoughtful and loving people practice self-control, to preserve humanity. I have taken no action against homosexuals, except to defend the blood of Jesus, as His blood was shed for the sin of mankind. God, said be fruitful and multiply, the fruit of the womb, As He commanded Man and woman, Husband and wife, father and mother. I can’t condone homosexuality as it is against the nat