The Vermont legislature legalized same-sex marriage by overriding the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas (more here and here). Counterintuitively, what may be even more significant is the vote at the D.C. Council to recognize the gay marriage laws of other states. As the Washington Post reports, "The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress ..." And that debate would then raise questions in Congress surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allows states to refuse recognition of the same-sex marriages of another state.
I've written so much on this question, and sometimes I have to wonder: Maybe Rod Dreher's right - are traditionals indeed "on the losing side of this argument?"
Actually, I don't think so. The problem is that I'm not seeing enough conservative activism against the same-sex movement, or maybe I missed it?
In any case, let me share another section of Robert Bork's essay making the case for a Federal Marriage Amendment, "The Necessary Amendment." I often hear the question posed, well, "how does gay marriage even effect me?" Bork responds:
How does homosexual marriage affect me? What concern is it of mine or of anybody else what homosexuals do? The answer is that the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live.Now, just wait ... Pam Spaulding and other representatives of the nihilist hordes will no doubt be attacking me as "bigot" for even posting this.
Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz raise at least the inference that when there is a powerful (and ultimately successful) campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.
Homosexual marriage would prove harmful to individuals in other ways as well. By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life. Despite their use of the word “gay,” for many homosexuals life is anything but gay. Both physical and psychological disorders are far more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young.
There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangements that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: “Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.” Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory—sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future. Ten years ago, the idea of a marriage between two men seemed preposterous, not something we needed to concern ourselves with. With same-sex marriage a line is being crossed, and no other line to separate moral and immoral consensual sex will hold.
God, what is happening to this country?
37 comments:
Donald, you slay me.
This is one of the worst pieces of tripe on the whole gay marriage issue I've yet seen! Was this written in the 1950s? So incorrect on so many levels. You can tell this was written by a noted Puritan.
Here's some opposition discussion to chew on:
"The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well.
A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.
These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strenghtened it.
So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it?
Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to."
Read more here:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
This was pretty simplistic and anti-intellectual on so many levels. I won't call it homophobic as it's simply ill informed. There is a difference.
Thanks for passing this along, though. Every time you post something about gay marriage, you simply, although unintentionally, weaken your "arguments."
I urge everyone to go back to gay school and bone up on their issues.
Thanks.
Just because you don't agree with the traditional view of marriage doesn't mean Donald's post is "simplistic and anti-intellectual". Believing that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples does not mean you by default are an un-enlightened Neanderthal. Of course, it is typical arrogance of the left that assumes that if you disagree you are too dumb to understand the issue -- lest you would certainly be as "progressive" as they are.
I don't believe you can make an argument for same-sex marriage on the basis of it strengthening heterosexual marriages -- particularly if you use Europe as your example. Europe is in the throes of a self-inflicted population crisis created at least in part by a secular weakening of traditional marriage. The sanctioning of same-sex marriage has only reinforced the notion that marriage is no longer necessary for procreation, and that procreation is not necessarily a part of being married. The result is that birth rates are plunging (unless you are Muslim, and then your population is exploding. But that is another issue altogether).
In any event, the weakening of heterosexual marriage has all sorts of cultural and societal effects -- many of which are not easy to immediately discern. Rising rates of illegitimacy are the direct result of a cultural weakening of the place of marriage in our society. And there are many others.
Sanctioning same-sex marriage isn't a civil rights issue -- civil unions have taken care of that. It is, however, about protecting the tenuous hold that marriage has in the critical role of bringing up children in an environment that places a premium on intact nuclear families.
Kenneth, please read the points made in the link I supplied. He basically sums up the stuff you are saying, and summarily dismisses every one of them. The traditional arguments are way off base, ill informed, and cite silly examples to make their points. None of them hold up. For example, here in America, people are cohabiting much more as well. Nothing to do with gay marriage.
I'm not assuming anyone is dumb here, just woefully uninformed. Donald, for one, has taken a stand and will not budge primarily because he hates the logic that the left provides. He has none on this issue. If you can show me a strong logical argument I will listen. So far, Donald has failed. He falls back on arguments of traditionalism, et al. Weak sauce.
I happen to live on a street where we have had three very strong, long-standing gay couples. They don't have children, not that it matters. But they are pillars of the community. Again, why can't they marry?
The world is moving forward. You can move along, or stay behind.
Tim: This Bidstrip guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He says humans are the same as animals. 150 species engage in same-sex intercourse? Excuse me, but this guy is on drugs if he's willing to reduce humans to that of lower beings.
Don't insult me. You've not addressed Robert Bork's arguments, which on logical grounds alone are sound, much less moral right. If two men can get married, why not three men?
Donald: This blogger uses this as an example to show that homosexual behavior occurs in nature. This is one of the traditional arguments, that homosexuality is unnatural. To suggest we have no sort of tie to the animal kingdom whatsoever suggests a lack of knowledge about DNA, just for starters. But you are not a scientist, so I digress.
Stanley Kurtz, quoted by Bork, is a noted right-winger who contributes to right-wing publications like National Review. Am I supposed to take him seriously over a social scientist? Nope.
As for his talk of cohabiting couples, well that is a trend that started in many countries, including this one, totally without any regard to the very rare reality of gay marriage. This is a weak scapegoat for perhaps other issues. It's conflated with, as opposed to being shown as a direct result of, gay marriage.
As for the reductio ad absurdum of "then why can't I marry my dog, brother, car...etc." I will let Bidstrup do the talking, rather than repeat this:
"Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers."
Donald, there is no outcry and public support for polyamorous sanctification, marital threesomes or the like. These people amount to less than one 1,000th of 1 percent, not 10% of the population. I should not have to school you in the illogicality of your processes here. You took logic. Act like it.
Jeffrey Satinover, also quoted, is again a noted right-winger who has it out for homosexuals. Why should I trust their information?!! This is specious use of information that should not be entered into this discussion.
Donald: Bork has imposed a stringently biased right-wing view here. There is no real substance to it, which is why I am calling you out once again.
Bidstrup, who I don't know, merely sums up all the very, very poor arguments against. If you can refute them, please, be my guest!
Tim: Bidstrip is a red herring. Bork says nothing about bestiality. He simply says logic dictates marriage available to any pairing if it's made avaiable to two men or two women. You're not even attempting to make refute the points. All you're doing is citing some whacked out list of extremist objections from some guy no one's ever heard of...
Animals? God, that is too much.
We knew you were a bigot before you even posted it. Give yourself some credit!
OK, let me shoot this whole argument to hell. Where it belongs. Noted moral hypocrite William Bennett gives the "What's to stop so and so from marrying so and so" argument. Tired and inane in the extreme, but let's examine.
First, Mr. Bennett, I would like you to show me where the vast majority of Americans who say that same-sex couples should be accorded the same rights as married couples, even if they should not get married per se, also support the proposition that polyamorous couples, father/daughters, brother/brother, etc. should also be accorded those same rights.
Please, show me where there is an outcry, a denial of rights that has been tied to centuries of religious and bigoted persecution...show me the money. THIS is a red herring. This is shallow reasoning, claimed from the cesspool that is right-wing nuttery.
If not, then shut the hell up please Mr. Bennett. You long ago lost any moral clarity, because you are a liar and a hypocrite. (I have no problems with you gambling, but claiming moral high ground by writing books on morals is beyond the pale. Have you no shame, Mr. Bennett.)
Now, read the ridiculous quote from William Bennett again and remember, there is no outcry for this. None. No one boycotting, protesting, raising money...Several of these actions are not allowed by well-established law that no one is fighting to have overturned.
“Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.” Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory—sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future.
Boy, Tim, you are pretty tough: Bill Bennett is a moral hypocrite because he wrote a book about moral issues and happens to have a gambling problem? Would you say that if he was an alcoholic? Is having a gambling problem really a moral failing in your mind? I don't recall Bill Bennett ever claiming that gambling represents a moral failing. If so, with lotteries from state-to-state and the huge business that is Vegas, we really are a nation of moral laggards.
You say the "world is moving forward" and you can either accept gay marriage or "stay behind". Human civilization and heterosexual marriage has been around for a millenia at least. Why is this changing now? The answer is simple -- a very vocal gay lobby that comprises a tiny fraction of the nation's population has decided to make this a civil rights issue. It's an organized cabal. And it's very, very effective -- as witnessed by the furor over the passage of Prop 8 in California.
In then end, I go with Elton John. He says that marriage is for straight people, and that's ok with him. What's wrong with that?
I always find these discussions interesting, as I really want to understand the thought processes on both sides of the issue. But after reading Tim's last reply, I'm left extremely confused. Beyond personal attacks on William Bennett, I can't see a real argument. The original point was that, years ago, no one was calling for homosexual marriage - but that changed. Tim's point is that no one is calling for group marriage or marriage to animals - now.
Bidstrup's comment of "If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist?" would seem to have the obvious answer of no. There hasn't been enough time for that kind of cultural change.
I, for one, liked the post, and linked it here.
Ken, I have no problem with Bennett's problems and said as much. He's a simple right-wing hypocrite. A special kind, in my mind. Gambling, although legal, is not considered a virtue. Or am I missing something? I'm sure Jesus would approve of gambling though. Right? Because just think of all that money you wasted that could have actually gone to something like a charity. But nevermind...
The right of gay marriage is merely an extension, a recognition of gays in general that is the result of years of lobbying for gay rights. If you don't understand that aspect of the issue, perhaps you should read up on your history of gay suppression, gay-bashing, and the outlawing of homosexual behavior. It's a real eye opener.
The Bennett "argument" is not a true argument, because any logician will tell you that he is creating an argument where one does not exist. And it's not even a logical extension any more than to say that because gun owners can buy .50 caliber weapons, they will want to buy nuclear warheads as well. You can apply the Bennett/Douglas "logic" to anything.
So, start looking at gay marriage as an extension of gay rights in general, and you will begin to see some light.
Tim said "Kenneth, please read the points made in the link I supplied."
Then Tim said "Stanley Kurtz, quoted by Bork, is a noted right-winger who contributes to right-wing publications like National Review. Am I supposed to take him seriously over a social scientist? Nope."
You demand that others pay homage to your evidence, yet summarily dismiss what other post without even looking at it because it doesn't measure up to your elitist standards.
Tom: No, you missed the point as well. I'm asking for something that comes from perhaps a noted scientific paper, or study. Not from a noted right wing whacko who's whole view is pre-skewed. That was my point, and I apologize if that was unclear.
For the record, the Bidstrup comments merely refute the standard talking points, and do so very logically. The problem with the traditionalist argument towards marriage is that they are arguing from a position of emotion and supposition, rather than reality and logic.
Will someone please produce evidence that gay marriage will destroy my heterosexual marriage, or my children's potential future marriages.
Right now, the anti-gay marriage argument is about as logical, and sensical as a blue is better than green color argument.
I've asked someone to provide hard, non-biased evidence to support the "gay marriage end times" scenario, but so far none as arisen.
Again, the Talibangelicals will win some battles, but not the war. There is no evidence I can think of --except in Muslim countries like Iran, where being gay is a capital offense -- where the positive flow of human rights is successfully thwarted. Think South Africa, the American South, the Jews...Gays were also rounded up in Germany at the behest of Hitler. A smaller number, sure, but no less suppressed.
I have no long comment for you, Donald. All I can say is "Well Said."
Tim said, "A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex."
Uh, for years many have said Gays live a promicuous lifestyle, only to be shiouted down by the pro-gay side and told we are liars, homophobes, all ort od nefarious statements.
Now, you come along and say they should get married to discourage what just a couple years ago your side denied?
Sorry, Tim, but you cannot have it both ways.
Hey Lew. I never said gays weren't promiscuous. They are, they have been, they can be. No issue there. So can heterosexuals for that matter. To unfairly malign gays as promiscuous is wrong. I know plenty of heteros who fall under that.
Can I spin this question around on you though...Isn't it fair to say, to a heterosexual male, to "sow his wild oats," i.e. sleep around, while he is single. Then settle down and get married.
Why would that be any different with a gay person?
Sorry, Tim, promisuity in Heteros is condemned, not suggested as a reason them to get married to stop.
Likewise, marriage does not stop a promiscuous person from sleeping around.
So, how could it encourage gays to stop being promiscuous, which so many continually claim they are not (even if you don't)
Lew: Promiscuity cuts both ways. But somehow it's perceived as a worse thing if they are gay. If a person is hetero, then he is just "doin' his thing." Marriage does in fact act as a buffer to this behavior for a lot of people. Prior to marriage, it is acceptable, though. Like people who will binge before going on a diet. I'm not being judgmental here, just sayin'. It's not my place to condemn a person's sexual habits, unless they involve children or is against someone's will. I leave all the self-righteous condemnation to those on the right. Who would never, ever partake is such bad behavior in the first place.
If gay people are not promiscuous before they get married, then there really isn't an issue, except to say that the point is proven that not all gay people are promiscuous.
By the same token, Tim, not all hetero's are promiscuous either.
No one denies there are hetero's who sleep around and no, they are not considered to be "just doing their thing," they are looked upon as "cheaters!"
But, getting back to your argument, where has it ever been said that marriage discourages hetero's from promiscuity, like you say about Gays?
To make such a drastic change to society one should be able to show how that change will enhance society, not just a small segment. Your claim of discouraging promiscuity in the Gay community falls flat by your own words.
Gays want equal rights and have them, believe it or not. I may only marry a person of the opposite sex. They have that same right.
For legal benefits many agreed to Civil Unions which initially was sought, but now isn't good enough.
After the California Supreme Courts twisting Civil Unions to force Gay Marriage on the community, support for that has dried up, as was seen by the Proposition 8 vote.
When the public is allowed to vote they continually reject the notion overwhelmingly. So, pro-gay factions get activist judges to okay the same-sex marriages or get pro-gay legislators to do it, the "Will of the People" be damned.
If the issue is against the overwhelming desires of the people, surely you can see that forcing it upon them is of no benefit to society, just appeasing a small group.
Oh yes, adultry in heterosexual society is grounds for divorce with the offending party often losing a lot more than they may desire.
Doesn't sound to me like it is "just doing their thing."
Then again, perhaps you would be so kinds as to explain the significance of the word "breeders" floating around in the Gay Community.
Bork says that gay marriage was responsible for marriage trends in Scandinavian countries, but they have longer histories of serial monogamy without marriage, that antedate gay marriage. The "inference" raised by such studies that chill Bork and Douglas are nonsense, but why try to explain the meaning social scientific study to a social scientist who has made his mind up?
I guess I finally understand in the clear language of Judge Bork how Douglas' and Bork's marriage are demeaned by equal protection. They just aren't seen as privileged over others. That must be terrible.
Personally I find it demeaning to marriage if persons with no more intelligence than Bork and Douglas are denied equal protection from the states. I'd rather prefer if my children and grandchildren don't think of privileged groups as better, more special, more worthy based on factors that tell nothing of the content of their characters and everything about their biology.
The issues surrounding polygamy are rather different, but go ahead, lump them in with necrophilia, bestiality, throw in shoe horns, but not divorce rates. Not heterosexual divorce rates.
Yes, I feel for your demeaned position in a democracy that has codified its commitment to equal protection under the laws. It must really hurt to think what you thought were your privileges are really rights that everyone shares.
Yes, homosexuality occurs in nature. So does promiscuity ... so should we also legitimize that "natural" activity as well with legal approval ... a "hooking up" permit ... or "hunting" license, perhaps?
In fact, it is far more plausible to say that we are born promiscuous, than that some are "born gay" ... so isn't promiscuity just as legitimate?
Guess we should just give up on the burden of marriage and party on?
Wrong. We are more than animals ... so using animal behavior to justify human behavior has its limits, no matter one's agenda.
Bottom line for me ... while you have the right to be gay, that right does not extend to having such activity legitimized by society at large, including deferential treatment within its legal frameworks.
The mere notion that some have a preference for a particular mechanism of getting their jollies, is insufficient to justify the legal and social legitimization of that mechanism by the rest of us.
Heterosexual marriage, OTOH, is about more than getting one's jollies ... it is about stabilizing families among a population where the natural course of events in cohabitation has a high probability of creating new, innocent lives to be nurtured ... a responsibility that will be borne either by these families, or by a society that is only second-best (and often, worse) at such nurturing if those families are not there.
This is a natural course of events that does not extend to homosexual relationships, no matter how their advocates spin it.
And, also no matter how it is spun, the push for homosexual marriage is only part of a larger, secular-progressive agenda ... an agenda whose objective is to push those of us with spiritual worldviews to the fringes, and make secular "rationality" -- i.e. the idea that humans are sufficiently omniscient to summarily dismiss alternative worldviews to the secular -- the mainstream.
Painting all who object to the legal and social legitimization of homosexuality with the broad brush of bigotry, as part of a larger effort to discredit the worldviews of many of these dissenters in toto is a means to that end.
We're onto y'all ... and we won't go quietly.
Rich: You pretty much showed your true colors there, and your hatred of homos. Getting their "jollies"?! Who talks like that?
When you reduce a person's identity, their very spirit, by demeaning them, you do no justice to them. Or yourself.
Go back to the bible buddy.
Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. “Marriage” is just a man made term and carries very little weight these days. Look at the high divorce rate and the level of infidelity, what does marriage really stand for. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage
Tim ... I didn't even quote one Scripture above ... so you can stop the ad-hom attack, and replace it with some substance.
It is your side of this debate that is making the choice of sexual expression the central definition of a person, not mine -- and that's a pretty shallow definition in a society that has significant predispositions toward hedonism, not to mention has been (and still is) defining sexuality down to the equivalent of cheap candy at the $1 store.
And BTW, I use the exact same terminology when talking to those who try to justify social acceptance of hetero sex outside of marriage ... or those who try to justify the legal use of perception-altering drugs (especially in a rights-respecting democracy, where every citizen has the responsibility to maintain self-control, and thereby become neither a burden nor a threat to civil society).
It is you and your fellow-travelers that, in multiple ways, DEMAND we irrevocably approve even irresponsible behavior in the name of getting your jollies; i.e. personal pleasure ... to the degree that dissent from that approval is criminalized as "hate speech", effectively squelching the debate ... simply because you say so.
That is the central ethos of the denizens (literal and philosophical) of Woodstock Nation that make up so much of today's political Left ... and I fear it will take the demise of my generation to finally put an end to the widespread acceptance of such arrested development.
Your say-so is not sufficient justification to upset an institution that has served our civilization well ... for centuries.
That is the motivation behind the vitriol you direct at those of us who disagree with simply letting the good times roll.
You want to shut people like me up -- because you fear that others might just develop the maturity to put some chocks under society's wheels to stop that roll -- even if that roll is clearly towards a cliff.
We're not shutting up ... not without a fight.
It's good to see you engaging this issue Donald. The supporters of gay marriage "assume" the mantle of rationality when in reality their arguments are falacious (no pun intended) -- only you can't tell them that -- they won't listen. Never have. Never will. But, that's the accusation they make against those of us who don't support their cause or buy into their arguments.
If being homosexual was natural it would be a heritable characteristic. But, if that was the case, the tendency would die out as quickly as it showed up in a population.
Rich: I stopped reading when you said "choice of sexual expression."
You seriously have no clue my friend. When I said go read your bible, I meant do that to occupy your time. Not clutter up the boards here with your repetitive and nonsensical arguments.
Tim, one's sexual expression IS a choice ... for if it were not, I'd probably be as promiscuous as Gene Simmons claims to have been.
You should quit thinking that you know more than you really do ... and realize how your side of this debate is keeping people imprisoned in their own, cheap hedonism, by providing fallacious justification for it.
We are more than animals -- more than prisoners of our feelings, physical and emotional.
And just where am I repeating myself here?
Admittedly I did that re: OIF/GWOT, because y'all kept repeating your discredited arguments again and again ... how many times did we hear (and are still hearing) about the alleged lies and follies of the previous Administration?
Sounds like our new President is repeating himself, too ... in places where such opinions should not be repeated, if he had the level of respect for this nation that you would expect from its leadership.
Stand and defend your argument, on its merits ... not by the old, tired tactic of simply trying to denigrate your opponents.
Yes Rich. I suppose hair color is also a choice, because you can change it, right?
I'm not trying to demean here, but your understanding of homosexuality is traditionally biased, insensitive and inaccurate. You are not the demographic to be open to these things, though, so I pay you no mind in this regard. I would not ask your opinion on the age of the universe either, because you choose to remain ignorant on the subject.
I will debate someone who has an argument that goes beyond the marriage-is-what-I-say-it-is argument. Your arguments are really about contempt for gays who choose this lifestyle of "jollies." And a narrow, Anglo-European definition of marriage.
Also, if anyone seeks to define marriage in terms or religion, then codify that justification by law, then we are treading seriously over constitutional restrictions that were put in place to guard against that.
Also, if anyone seeks to define marriage in terms or religion, then codify that justification by law, then we are treading seriously over constitutional restrictions that were put in place to guard against that.
Somehow, I don't see the men who put that Constitution in place rallying to support your cause, Tim.
What you describe above as undesirable, is exactly what you are seeking to do to the rest of us ... to impose the tenets of your faith -- and yes, it is faith -- upon the rest of us by the force of law.
No one is stopping gays/lesbians from engaging in sexual expression as they see fit ...
... what we oppose is your/their demand that society proactively support their choice of expression by redefining the institution of marriage to include them ...
... without regard to whether or not the moral strength of that institution will be diminished when the justification being presented for such changes is a relativist worldview that can be boiled down to "sounds OK to us -- if it feels good, do it (and it makes you mad, so it must be good)."
And yes, it is a choice to engage in homosexual behavior, or not ... just as it is a choice for me to engage in promiscuous hetero sex, or remain faithful to my wife.
What I oppose, is the relativist approach to sexuality, Tim -- if it feels good, it's OK.
That is what you want to codify into law, and into the fabric of our society.
Instead of asking society to equalise gay unions and marriage, gays should ask God to equalise them, since no human law can accomplish it. I sincerely feel for the affliction of gays. They report that they are born with the tendency to love people of the same sex, but in gay unions of course they can never share the physical and spiritual blending of souls which happens when a man and a woman make a baby. This shared experience is mysterious and awesome. It is beautiful and magnificent. It is a stone that shines so brightly on the beach that there can be no denying that it is something special. God made the world that way. His goodness is so perfectly obvious. Making babies together creates a bond which is stronger than any legal or religious structure ever could be. Traditional marriage is society's humble acknowledgement of the value of that bond. Since gays can never share the unique experience of making babies with their partners in gay unions, perhaps it is difficult for them to understand the value of traditional marriage. I am sorry that gays can't make babies together, as I am sorry for infertile couples, or mentally and emotionally disturbed people who aren't able to form loving relationships at all. However, I pray that all gays will accept the reality of their effective infertility, yet in the face of such disappointment, show the courage and the generousity of spirit to respect our shared, procreation-dependent humanity, and help us all to honor the glimmering stone of traditional marriage, even if gays are unable to fully experience the majic of making babies with their gay partners.
RICH, u are DA man. I wish I was as articulate as you. ROCK ON buddy, and GOD bless.
How dare you lay your God on me! My God can beat the tar out of your God. My God is the God of all people, he made the heavens and the earth, he also made homosexuals as well as barren women and sterile men. If you want to live in a theocratic world I suggest you move to Iran. I am gay and have four children, how dare you say I am infertile. While I admit it takes an egg and sperm to create life, it does not mean that that life will be loved. I have a life partner and four wonderful children. If heterosexual marriage is the way God intended it to be, why in hell is there so much divorce? I am an American and am entitled to pursue happiness. Iran might suit your way of thinking better that democracy.
Okay, i'm really sorry about even thinking about posting on here because its obviously controlled by right-wing ignorance, but I just had to tell you all that I cannot stop laughing at Rich, I'm sorry but I find his lack of any kind of scientific view is just funny.
His arguments are purely based on "If it ain't broke don't fix it." if we still listened to that we wouldn't have computers, cars, or stable housing.
I'm going to leave with that, and everyone have a great day :)
The issue in point is not homo, hetero, or any other sexual orientation. The issue is, and forever will be, the pro-creating power we all have and our stewardship over that power. How can we be instilled with such a marvelous gift and then think that we can use it however and whenever we like without regard to consequences that may follow. I believe our money still says "In God We Trust". I believe our own National Anthem says:
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"
Our forefathers and founders of our nation, the authors of our Constitution, were not ashamed to mention God and nor shall I be. The belittling and discrediting comments that will, of course, follow after my post will only confirm what I have written. And why not quote scripture?? The only reason people do not want to involve scripture is if their lifestyle is not justified by them.
To think that we somehow magically exist upon this rich and plentiful planet, that the Sun in all its glory miraculously warms our faces, that the planets in their majesty move in their orbits, that we are free to choose as we will, and yet we have no accountability for those choices is a thought with no foundation. General Robert Lee once said, when asked what was the most important lesson one could learn, "Teach him he must deny himself." We are all imperfect beings and I like to think we all want to make this world a better place. A sense of entitlement, a "what does the government/world owe me" attitude is not conducive to a peaceful society. Comments like "how dare you" "I am entitled..." are the antithesis to what John F. Kennedy plead for when he said, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
What good will come when the Supreme Court overturns the voice of the people? How can this be just and right? How can this foster peace when our voices are not honored?
"One nation, under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I am not a hater. I am not a bigot.
I believe in God as did our founding fathers. It is His laws that we should be concerned with keeping.
Post a Comment