Ending the Marriage Exclusion Helps Family and Business
When people are blocked from the legal protections that
help keep a lifelong promise to someone they’ve chosen to take care of for
life, they often feel they have to move to another state, and that’s bad for
their families, friends, and is even bad for business in the state. Most parents would like to have their grown
children nearby, so it’s easier to see each other, participate together in important
holidays and other family events, and have a stronger system of support for
all. Some grown children who would
rather stay in their home state have to reconsider when they find, because they
are in a same-sex relationship, that they cannot get the legal protections to
best support their responsibility to take care of a partner. Far too many parents have had to watch their
grown children leave their home state because of the exclusion from marriage. Far too many good friends have had the same
experience of saying goodbye to people they had hoped would share their lives,
including both the joy of good times and mutual support for the bad times.
The
exclusion from marriage also impairs the ability of employers, large and small,
to attract and retain the most comprehensive pool of talented and committed
employees. Current and prospective
employees place a value on whether they live in a place that supports their
commitment to take care of and be responsible for a loved one. They often will make their employment
decisions based on whether the state respects that value.
And the marriage exclusion can be
bad for business in other ways. For
instance, same-sex couples are increasingly avoiding tourist destinations in
states that bar them legal protections, and national membership organizations
and multi-state employers have begun to consider policies that avoid siting
conventions/conferences/meetings in states where some members or employers may
not feel that they are adequately safe as a legal matter (see the “safety
scale” below).
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The LAMBDA argument sounds rehearsed or practiced. I do not support ssm, its wrong on so many levels. But I guess one of many of my concerns with this absurd phenomenon is the fact that we know that NAMBLA has very strong and documented ties to mainstream homosexual organizations and ssm is only a front to their attempts to rape little boys. I know you will deny it but the evidence is clear and it does not support you it supports the fact that children will be put into harms way if ssm is allowed to be normalized by using traditional legacys ie Holy Matrimony for one man and one woman. FBI agent infiltrates NAMBLA and writes book, " THE LAST UNDERCOVER " where he exposes link between homosexual activists and NAMBLA.
I guess the next concern I have which also is documented that ssm if its allowed to take on the name of Holy Matrimony vs Civil Unions would only be an attempt to force Christians into accepting the act of homosexuality as pleasing to Gd and we do not beleive that it is and we beleive that ssm is only about destroying Christian foundations. We only have to look as far as the latest caper pulled by homosexual activists ie the big kiss-in orgy in front of churches to know that they are about destruction not about building anything.
And I guess lastly I would just like to say that you have all the rights you need in a Civil Union so there is no reason to tear down someone elses belief system so you can walk all over them. I join with millions of others to denounce this hypocricy and ask Gd to help us to stop it from destroying other peoples lives so a minority can feel their jollies.
I feel very strongly about the above argument and I must say that it employs the fallacy of ad hominem. This means that the argument is a direct attack on people instead of the issue at hand. I understand that you do not agree with gay marriage and I do not as well. However, this argument does not help the case. To accuse all the people who are trying to get gay marriage legalized of being part of a scheme to rape young boys and put children in harm's way is wrong. I am not denying that this is not the motive of some, but I believe that it is the minority. I know many very sincere people who simply believe that it is the right of people to choose how they'll live and who'll they'll spend their life with and have that choice affirmed by the state.
The second thing I want to ask is since when does what the state puts down in law determine what we, as Christian's believe to be pleasing to God? It seems that this argument takes on a bit of the victim mentality for Christianity in general as it seems to state that the drive to get gay marriage legalized is a direct attack on Christian beliefs and foundation. This is another fallacy, that of non sequitur. This refers to an argument that says that b necessarily follows from a without giving real, solid proof of how b necessarily follows from a. It is illogical to assert that a person's opinion is enough proof to state as fact that a is the cause of b.
My third and final comment is directed at your comment that this argument is denouncing hypocrisy. This too is illogical and does not follow from the Bible. The rules and sins that the Bible lays out, while sins in any circumstance are aimed at the church. Outside of the church, we cannot hold others to our standards. We must love people, simply because they are people and God loves them.
I would like to end with a very common Bible story. A young women, whom many assert was a prostitute, came before Jesus and began to anoint His feet with alabaster. The religious people in the room were indignant, they whispered among themselves that obviously Jesus was no prophet or He'd no what kind of woman was touching Him. Jesus replied, to them with a story about two men, one with a huge debt and the other with a small one, whose debts were forgiven by a benevolent master and then posed the question which would love that master more. The religious people said that one who'd been forgiven more. Jesus said they were correct and then pointed out all of the love that the woman had shown Him and then He said something truly remarkable. Her many sins are forgiven because she loved much. Never once does He condemn her lifestyle, He calls her with love and only after He has told her that her sins are forgiven does He command her to go and sin no more.
I am not saying that homosexuality is not a sin, only that we should not tear down and attack the people who are engaged in this lifestyle, but rather love them, the way Jesus loved the sinners in His day. Also we must not categorize sin. If you think about it whether a person lies once in their life or is a homosexual or is a murdered for that matter, apart from Jesus, they would all end up in the same place, but with Jesus each and everyone of them would be called a son of God and when it comes their time to go would be in Heaven. It is very important to remember this.
I agree with everything you are saying. I especially agree with your statement that this argument damages its own cause. Generalizing all homosexual men as men who “rape little boys” because a minority may do so, is like generalizing all Christians as bomb-making activists who attack abortion clinics thereby killing innocent people simply because a few Christians have done so.
In addition, I support your conclusion that we should not tear down or attack people. This is not Christ-like nor is it an effective method in any circumstance. It only separates and creates bitterness.
I thought your points were very clear and made a lot of sense. I agree with you, especially your last two paragraphs. It is interesting to me how wrong we go about things sometimes, especially issues like homosexuality, when we have such incredible examples in the Bible to show us exactly what needs to be done. Jesus loved no matter what, and we are called to imitate Him. Even if we completely disagree about something, or what someone is doing, we are still called to love them just like Jesus would. And I understand this might sound cliche and even overused, but like you mentioned at the end, there are no rankings of sin. Jesus views sin as sin. Whether you killed someone, lied, cheated on a test, or decide to live a homosexual life. Someone is not more of a sinner for doing a certain sin, and someone is not more worthy of the forgiveness that Jesus offers than another person. We are all sinners, and all have been given the amazing gift of Jesus who is gracious enough to forgive us of our sins. But I do believe it is cruicial for us to look at others through a lense of love rather through judgement because in the end a homosexual's sin or anyone's sin has the same result as my sin without the blood of Jesus. I believe if we had this mindset, that we would not be so unjustly harsh towards people that choose to be homosexual. Even though I disagree with that lifestyle, I recognize that I am completely a sinner just like them and that I have no place to judge them. All I can do is try and love them the way that I know Jesus does and pray for them.
"But I guess one of many of my concerns with this absurd phenomenon is the fact that we know that NAMBLA has very strong and documented ties to mainstream homosexual organizations and ssm is only a front to their attempts to rape little boys."
Can you document that documentation? Something recent?
"We only have to look as far as the latest caper pulled by homosexual activists ie the big kiss-in orgy in front of churches to know that they are about destruction not about building anything."
Can you cite instances of the Great Kiss In that occurred in front of churches?
"And I guess lastly I would just like to say that you have all the rights you need in a Civil Union so there is no reason to tear down someone elses belief system so you can walk all over them."
I've got to ask... is your belief structure so fragile that homosexuals getting married will destroy it?
While this was true in the 80's it is no longer true. Homosexual groups disavowed NAMBLA over a decade ago and The Last Undercover, while true is equally dated. The problem with your logic is that just as allowing gays to be foster parents but not adopt doesn't really protect children , there is no practical difference between civil union and gay marriage . Just as there is are a few bad apples in any group, gays have there share. Allowing gay marriage would further marginalize those few bad examples.
quote, "there is no practical difference between civil union and gay marriage .' If there is no difference then my vote is no.
Should marriage for same-sex couples be legal . My answer is no.
You ignore a moutain of evidence that could save some children so a few can say what....they have a marriage which is as you say no different than civil union. I vote no.
I choose to listen to evidence and base my decisions on that overwhelming argument that children are not better off, even in danger if placed in same-sex homes and not listen to the the, " because I want it", pissing and moaning of adults desperately attempting to justify their lifestyle choices by adopting innocent unsuspecting children. I say no.
"You ignore a moutain of evidence that could save some children so a few can say what....they have a marriage which is as you say no different than civil union."
That is a mountain of evidence that you have yet to provide.
I dont know how one could think that not giving children the benefit of a mother and a father is beneficial in any way. I dont know how one could think that woman and children will benefit from this in our society since woman make less and have less insurance it would only obvious that woman and children will have poorer health , poorer lifestyles, poorer everyting, and the male dominated world would not benefit from this either.
I dont know how you could even rationalize the fact that opening marriage up for a free for all would lead to a stronger society but a much weaker and distorted and psychologically imbalaced one and I hope that they would see that and that realizing that the road to hell is paved in roads such as the one that homosexual marriage will create in America.
It will weaken our family structure and thereby weaken our towns and eventually our country, if you dont think so remember what ERA for woman promised us, better futures more security etc blah blah and what did we actually get? Harder lives, more on our plates, expectations over the limit, family structure that fell apart without the mother role in the house, more money but that lead to more bills, more divorce rates because we allievated some of the mens responsiblities and that opened them up to the wondering eye, woman cheating on their husbands. Woman if we allow a redefinition of marriage we might as well just ask for the short end of the stick cuz thats what well get.
The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified.
You have not shown how allowing two people to get married will somehow weaken the marriage of others.
The Equal Rights Amendment was ratified July 28, 1868.
“The Equal Rights Amendment was ratified July 28, 1868.”
That is the 14th amendment to the constitution . The proposed amendment commonly known as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first proposed in 1923 and was not ratified by the needed deadline in 1982, it was reintroduced this year.
I surely hope that hallelujachorus was not referring to the 14th, which was part of the sequence of amendments and laws that abolished slavery and granted civil rights to all US citizens.
The 14th Amendment gave equal rights to ALL US citizens. Women were US citizens. The Equal Rights Amendment proposed in 1923 was redundant and wouldn't have given them any rights that they didn't already have under the 14th Amendment.
But the 14th was not "The Equal Rights Amendment"... that is the name for the amendment proposed in 1923.
The movement to pass the ERA was a fraud. All it did was collect money for decades trying to get women rights they already had and accomplished nothing.
Argue with people that agree. Find a common bond and go with it. Nothing will ever work if people who agree still fight.
Were just keeping things going until the other side shows up.
Equal rights and gays didn't undermined marriage no-falt divorce did.
Oh baloney, prevents employers from acquiring good talent? How many times has this been thrown in the public face with absolutly to substance to the claim.
I will agree "Civil Unions" should be allowed and this would provide the protections under the Constitution, but not marriage, marriage that has been the way it has been for thousands of years. To change it would be reckless and careless. Avery bad example to provide our younger population and the world that because you feel you are entitled, that you can dismantle what has been put in place for a reason and purpose. A reason and purpose that gets loss from generaton to generation.
This article essentially invalidates the common argument that, "If a homosexual couple wants to be together, nothing is stopping them. It doesn't matter if they are legally married." Legal recognition of a marriage is certainly an important issue because with this recognition comes certain rights and protections that are crucial to a couple. The ability to make hospital visits, to make certain economic decisions, and to guarantee the protection of a partner in the event of death are all examples of rights that a legal marriage provides. It is unfair to tell a man that he cannot visit his dying partner in the hospital when he cares for his partner in the same exact way that a heterosexual couple cares for one another.