Marriage Helps Couples Keep Their Commitments
Marriage provides protections for couples who have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other. Keeping those commitments is harder when couples are barred from marriage, especially in tough times, because they may be denied the right to:
- stop an eviction when the landlord says unmarried adults cannot live together
- get social security benefits the couple earned through involuntary deductions to their paychecks
- get family medical leave to care for an ill partner
- make medical decisions for a partner in a coma
- visit a dying partner in the hospital
- carry out the wishes of a deceased partner for a memorial service and epitaph
- keep the home and personal possessions after a partner dies without a will and unknown relatives appear with a moving truck
Many same-sex couples cannot afford the legal documents that create the few protections available. Those who can afford them, while increasing their security, still find that the documents are sometimes ignored in certain situations. That is no surprise because the exclusion from marriage marks the couple as unworthy and thus deserving of discrimination. It’s wrong to put committed couples in harm’s way and cause these tragedies.
When Bobby Daniel was dying in a hospital, what he needed most was Bill Flanigan, his lifelong partner, by his side. But Bill was kept for hours in the waiting room until Bobby’s mother could fly in by plane, and this is what she had to say after learning about what happened: “Bill and Bobby were soul mates and one of the best couples I’ve known. They loved each other, took care of each other, came to family holidays as a couple and Bill still baby-sits for my grandson. If that isn’t family, then something is very wrong. When someone is dying, hospitals should be bringing families together rather than keeping them apart.”
Bill Flanigan spoke of his ordeal: “When you love someone and make a commitment to each other for good times and bad, there is an awful feeling when you can’t follow through on your promises. I have a huge hole in my heart, and my soul, because I wasn’t allowed to be with Bobby when he needed me most."
It’s wrong to stand in the way of couples trying to keep their promise to be there for each other in sickness and health and provide for each other in times of trouble or death.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The word “commitment” means loyalty and remaining together. When people talk about a “marriage commitment,” they are usually referring to a couple being loyal to one another and remaining together. A true commitment would not end in separation. When I initially read the title “Marriage Helps Couples Keep Their Commitments,” I expected to read a post about how being legally marriage lowers the separation and divorce rate among same-sex couples. However, your argument that marriage helps same-sex couples stay together did not describe that. Instead you discussed legal benefits of marriage, many of which are denied to same-sex couples. Therefore, I find that your argument for marriage helping same-sex couples keep their commitments not supported in your discussion of legal benefits. Though I do not support same-sex marriages, I do believe that same-sex partners should be allowed certain rights, such as the right to be with their partner in the hospital.
I did some research to find out if there was any evidence that marriage increases commitment in same –sex couples. Truthfully, I did not find any evidence for or against the possibility that marriage increases commitment in same-sex relationships . According to the American Psychological Association there is little research on this topic same-sex relationship divorce rates ( http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/12/jn.aspx ). However, there is some research on the longevity of committed same-sex relationships. According to PBS only 28% of gay couples and 21% of lesbian couples in a committed relationship stay together for more than 10 years ( http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/relationships/same-sex-couples ). But anywhere from 50-75% heterosexual couples in a committed marriage relationship stay together 10 years or more ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf ). This is a huge difference. Though part of the great disparity may be due to lack of marriage benefits for homosexual couples, surely lack of benefits cannot be responsible for a 30-50% difference.
It seems to me that in either heterosexual or homosexual relationships, if the individuals are committed to one another, they would never separate and they would not let benefits, or lack thereof, determine if they remained with the person they loved.
This is a very valid point. Marriage is more than benefits. It is a commitment. I think that no matter what your religious background, we can pretty much all agree that marriage is a serious commitment. Two people pledged their lives to each other. And unfortunately, like rsm00 said, there is not a lot of research done on the topic of the commitment of same sex couples. Are people on the side of marriage for same sex couples asking for the title or marriage or the commitment?
I strongly agree with your opinion on that marraige is not for benefits. I believe that because of lack of commitment, the divorce rate is increasing today. It can say to both hetereosecual marriage and homosexual marriage. I do understand that money, insurance, law, and all other stuff come with marriage. However, these should not be the focus or purpose of marriage.
Since homosexual marriage became “ legal ” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
At my own children 's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.
At a school in Mass. a class was held in March of 2000 that is down right criminal. Children as young as 12 were instructed by adults (state employees!) how to perform a range of dangerous and perverted homosexual sex acts, including fisting which became known as the fistgate incident.
In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship !
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”
After witnessing a murder of a 17 yo boy who was, by the way, being raped by a homosexual man in 1980 in N. California I was attacked afterward at my home and at college and it destroyed my life and for 10 long hellish years I lived outside the Christian community and that is what qualifies me to tell you that wrong will never be right no matter how much you want it to be and not even a peice of paper can give you that. Wonderfully came back to God in 1998 and that is when my life started again. I have by my own choice lived celibate ever sense and that too qualifies me to tell you that you can live single, without sex, sex is not the bottom layer of Maslows heirarchy of needs, trust me, its not. My story at www.hope7.highpowersites.com
You are treated as fairly as anyone else or else their would be law suits. Trust me thats the one aspect of nursing I can tell you with full certainty that hospitals and doctors give all considerations to the patients and their partners, no matter who that partner is, so the story you gave will very emotional is still incorrect.
If I have an affair with a man, and we are deeply in love, share everything in life, go on trips together, buy a home and car together and are together for years and years, so does that make our relationship right in the eyes of society , in the eyes of God and does that give me some kind of say in his life, just because we sleep together and love one another?I would have given my life for this man doesnt that count for anything in a court of law or in a society. Why is our love second rate? If homosexual couples have rights shouldnt adultresses have rights too? After all we put up with soooo much more than wives do and we also get sooooo much more than wives do? Why not give us legal rights too? But we love each other? If I have an affair with a married person do I have rights? I will answer that question myself:
Just because you sleep with someone does not automatically make you the number one person in that persons legal and moral life! You cant force a Holy God to accept what isnt right and you cant force people to accept it either.And I should know because I am that person.
"Trust me thats the one aspect of nursing I can tell you with full certainty that hospitals and doctors give all considerations to the patients and their partners, no matter who that partner is, so the story you gave will very emotional is still incorrect."
Yet you trot out the same tired bits of anecdotal evidence in virtually every argument you make about homosexuals. Since gay couples cannot get married they do not have protection from discrimination IF a hospital decides not to allow visitation...
"Just because you sleep with someone does not automatically make you the number one person in that persons legal and moral life! You cant force a Holy God to accept what isnt right and you cant force people to accept it either.And I should know because I am that person."
What God accepts as right (or not right) is not a sound basis for legal rights. Not everyone believes in the Christian God (many don't believe in any God(s)).
The difference between a couple having an affair and a homosexual couple is that IF both people in the affair want to share legal rights then they can get married (after a divorce from their other marriage (s)). Sates that deny homosexual marriage do not allow homosexual couples that same right...
You don't have to accept a homosexual union... you are free to treat them like they are not married, but as far as the LAW is concerned they should enjoy the same protections as any other couple.
Unions give all the same legal rights so the only reason I can see for the homosexual movement to want to invade traditional marriage is to destroy it completely along with what they deem as unuseful repressive socialtal relgious boundaries, which by the way, is the bedrock of a viable, solid and functional and preserved society . Just my thoughts. Also if we open the door to allow homosexual marriages which is clearly against Biblical and Christian beliefs then it would only stand to reason we would allow adultresses to have moral and legal rights to their married partners money , health plans, property, salaries, retirment, and oh yah wills too right? And then if we give this right to adultresses why not just open it to polygamous marriage, and then to incestous marriage, and then to beastiality marriage and then to heck just get rid of marriage all together. Do you see how damaging allowing homosexual marriage will be? Probably not so instead here is a question from an ex-adultress to all churches and ministers who feel they can either by pass God and condone homosexuality and adultry or either feel they can stay neutral on these moral subjects : have a question for all ministers out there that are marrying homosexual couples.
This question comes from me, and ex-adultress, I would like to know when adultresses will get the stamp of approval from your church too, when will this lifestyle be given moral respectablity and legal rights? When will the minister hail the love and devotion of adultresses in this country?I spent years and years caring for a married man, we bought a house together and a car, went on trips etc but I have no rights as an adultress and if you allow homosexual couples to marry, clearly against the word of Gd, I was wondering how long before you drop all the Godly precepts and boundaries set in place by a wise and loving Gd whose desire is to bless traditional marriage, in lieu of your more enlightened convictions, and allow me to have all the self esteem and protections of the church that you afford homosexuals? So as long as your not following Godly principles you wont mind allowing all adultresses to have the same legal and moral marital rights as the married couple correct? And since you dont care much of what God has to say about blessing Holy matrimony you wont mind if my kissin cousins marry us too?You cant possibly be opposed to one big happy family, now what wouldnt be very tolerable of you, so SEE YOU IN CHURCH. I ll be in the adultress section, just to the left of the homosexual section, and I fully expect to have the full cooperation and support of the church in my lifestyle too.
I hope you undertand I am being sarcastic but at the same time I am realistic in the fact that homosexuals have equal rights already in society; they dont want marriage they want to destroy Godly precepts and the parameters set in place for moral edification and protection of the church and Gods people,and some of you ministers are leading us astray. Please consider that all societies need moral guidelines and Godly parameters for a safe and healthy life and country not just just for the family unit, but children and society, as a whole need the church to be the church and a light of higher quality.
PS Only an enemy of God would want to condone homosexuality and adultry. I repented and came back to God in 1998 and have by my own choice, not always easy though, taken a vow of celibacy for the past 11 years, per scripture. God is head of my home and for the past 11 years it has been a happy one!
"Unions give all the same legal rights so the only reason I can see for the homosexual movement to want to invade traditional marriage is to destroy it completely along with what they deem as unuseful repressive socialtal relgious boundaries, which by the way, is the bedrock of a viable, solid and functional and preserved society ."
If they are identical in every way to marriage then the term marriage is just a name on a form... so why not allow homosexuals to use the same form as everyone else?
"Just my thoughts. Also if we open the door to allow homosexual marriages which is clearly against Biblical and Christian beliefs then it would only stand to reason we would allow adultresses to have moral and legal rights to their married partners money , health plans, property, salaries, retirment, and oh yah wills too right?"
First... what is against 'Biblical and Christian beliefs' is not all that relevant as not everyone subscribes to those beliefs. Secondly and adultress can get those rights... she just has to marry the guy (after he divorces his current wife)... unlike homosexuals.
"I spent years and years caring for a married man, we bought a house together and a car, went on trips etc but I have no rights as an adultress and if you allow homosexual couples to marry, clearly against the word of Gd, I was wondering how long before you drop all the Godly precepts and boundaries set in place by a wise and loving Gd whose desire is to bless traditional marriage, in lieu of your more enlightened convictions, and allow me to have all the self esteem and protections of the church that you afford homosexuals?
Again with 'Word of God' and such... it's not relevant to a discussion of legal rights.
You can get those protections if you married the guy... something that a homosexual cannot do in a state that prohibits same-sex marriage .
"I am realistic in the fact that homosexuals have equal rights already in society; they dont want marriage they want to destroy Godly precepts and the parameters set in place for moral edification and protection of the church and Gods people,and some of you ministers are leading us astray."
In places where they cannot get married they do not have equal rights... they want marriage because they want to have the same rights as heterosexuals... not to 'destroy Godly precepts'. A church is free to marry / not marry whom ever they chose... it is in the law that these rights need to be enshrined.
"Please consider that all societies need moral guidelines and Godly parameters for a safe and healthy life and country not just just for the family unit, but children and society, as a whole need the church to be the church and a light of higher quality."
Moral guidelines are needed... Godly parameters are not.
"Only an enemy of God would want to condone homosexuality and adultry"
I'm sure that gay Christians out there would disagree with you on that point... and that non-Christians don't really care.
then I dare you to tell that to Elton John. PS Id stand back a few feet when I told him so if I was you.
The homosexual movement is based on lies and deception, always has been and always will be, and its obvious we disagree on this matter, and I have no reason to beleive what they are saying now in regards to why they feel that civil unions /domestic partnerships are not good enough runs the same lines. You are wrong. The homosexual community said that if marriage is granted to them they will not use it to sue churches or push agendas in schools, yet they are and will do just that. And the comment on an adultress only needing to marry the man after he gets a divorce...ludacrious ( my spelling sucks sorry) you advocate divorce so someone else can marry...are you serious that is a sorry excuse and what if he doesnt want a divorce but wants a mistress and visa versa, why cant they just be married and have legitimate, legal , and acknowledged mistress on the side who is given all the rights a married woman would have....I dont think Im asking for anyting more than what homosexual couples say they dont have and want right? They are intimate, so were we, they share housing, so did we, they spend alot of time together, so did we, they feel married, we did too. Why should one relationship ie homosexual one have precedence over ours? We loved each other dearly and I would have appreciated some respect and acceptablity in society . Wait you say adultry is wrong? Hypocritical isnt it?
And as far as your comment about gay Christians thats as possible as a three hundred pound sexy swimsuit model, neither are suitable nor possible, sorry.
A discussion of Iowas ssm laws:
quote from article The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage
by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse at http://www.ruthinstitute.org /
It should be evident that if the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then the dual gender requirement is perfectly permissible. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not the same with respect to this purpose. The Court had to come up with a very limited understanding of the purposes of marriage in order to maintain that opposite-sex and same-sex couples are in fact similarly situated.
end quote
"then I dare you to tell that to Elton John. PS Id stand back a few feet when I told him so if I was you."
Are you referring to the emotion that Elton and his partner feel or their legal status... because I agree with you on the first count (emotionally their bond is as tight as a heterosexual couples) but from a legal standpoint I'll disagree with you. In a state where same sex unions / marriages are not recognized they do not have the same rights as a married couple.
And that is the question... Should homosexual couples be able to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual ones. To me the answer is easily yes... and if they have identical rights then why does the name at the top of the form they sign need to be different? Legally that name would be the only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage... so why call it something different?
"The homosexual community said that if marriage is granted to them they will not use it to sue churches or push agendas in schools, yet they are and will do just that."
[Citation needed] on that one. All the cases loudly trumpeted as 'homosexuals suing churches' that I have seen have turned out to be quite different once the full facts are brought forward. As an example I'll point to the case where a homosexual couple sued a church over the use of their pavilion... that pavilion was rented out to those outside the church, and thus barring homosexuals was an act of discrimination... which would have happened if the church had refused to marry a mixed race couple.
"my spelling sucks sorry"
I'd recommend using firefox... it has a spell checker that underlines misspelled words and lets you correct them by right clicking on them. Bad spelling has always been a problem for me... so I use it quite often (I misspelled recommend above when I was typing this).
"I dont think Im asking for anyting more than what homosexual couples say they dont have and want right? "
Yes you are... that is polygamy. Homosexuals are asking that they can enter into monogamous relationships.
"Why should one relationship ie homosexual one have precedence over ours?"
They don't want precedence... they want equality with heterosexuals.
"Wait you say adultry is wrong? "
When did I? A polygamous relationship, where all parties know about everyone else, are not morally wrong in my view (though I'm into monogamy myself). A polygamous relationship where one or more of the people don't know about the others (say a man cheating on his wife but not telling the woman that he is with that he is married) is only immoral for the person doing the lying.
"And as far as your comment about gay Christians thats as possible as a three hundred pound sexy swimsuit model, neither are suitable nor possible, sorry."
Though it's not my taste I wouldn't be overly surprised if you could find a 300lb swimsuit model that someone out there found sexy. As to gay Christians... There are those who identify themselves as such, and I have no problem agreeing with them. There are many different Christian factions out there... and many claim that they are the only 'true' Christians, with everyone else being wrong (or evil).
"It should be evident that if the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then the dual gender requirement is perfectly permissible."
You seem to be focusing on marriage as it relates to having children (either through some nod-nod, wink-wink... or via adoption ). There are many couples who are married but do not have children, is their marriage somehow invalid?
I may be from California but Im slow as a Texan, no cut to Texas because life is slower there and alot of good people live out there,but really, they take forever to make a point though, but good people.
I love Elton John but before I would tell him to his face that his civil union is somehow not as significant as a marriage lisence Id personally stand a foot away,not implying hed react adversely, well I guess I am arent I. Can I ask you a question? Why do you want to be married? If its for rights, why arent you soliciting to increase your rights within civil unions /domestic partnerships instead of destroying traditional marriage,dont even bother denying it,what would it profit you to have a lisence vs a city hall partnership agreement form?
Your agrument quote: Legally that name would be the only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage... so why call it something different? end quote
You answer that one? Why indeed would you fight so hard for just a name?
And as far as the comments about adultresses having the same rights not being the same as a homosexuals rights is wrong and you and I and the whole world knows it! Marriage as we have it now is set up for the betterment of a society in order to have stable homes that will provide those within them security to thrive and grow and become productive individuals and thereby profit the whole community and our country to accept ssm will do just the opposite and again you know it, I know, and the whole world knows it.
I feel like you are not serious about marriage but more serious about hurting someone you feel is your problem and standing in the way.
I probably wont change to firefox, dont know where to get it anyway. I do apologize for my spelling, its horrible, I could put it on word and do spell check first and then on here but Im too lazy.
As far as the swimsuit comment its as likely to be a cover of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED sexy swimsuit edition or Hugh Hefners Bunny of the Year as to be able to put oil and water together perm. or as to be a practicing homosexual claiming to be authentic Christian because a sincere Christian would not, could not, live the homosexual lifestyle simply because as a born again believer living by the power of the Holy Spirit you would not consistently disobey every fiber of that Holy Spirits direction which that lifestyle would embody.
Again sorry for spelling. Could you be so kind as to over look it?
"I love Elton John but before I would tell him to his face that his civil union is somehow not as significant as a marriage lisence Id personally stand a foot away"
And I am saying that the question is "is a Civil Union legally identical to marriage" I would have to say no... if the question is "is our union as ethically/emotionally valid as a heterosexual marriage" I would say yes.
"Can I ask you a question? Why do you want to be married? If its for rights, why arent you soliciting to increase your rights within civil unions /domestic partnerships instead of destroying traditional marriage,dont even bother denying it,what would it profit you to have a lisence vs a city hall partnership agreement form?"
You ask that question as though I am a homosexual... when I am a heterosexual.
"Why do you want to be married?"
Homosexuals want to get married for the same reasons as heterosexuals... because they love someone and want to be with that individual for the rest of their lives (or any of the other reasons that heterosexuals get married)
"If its for rights, why arent you soliciting to increase your rights within civil unions /domestic partnerships instead of destroying traditional marriage,dont even bother denying it,what would it profit you to have a lisence vs a city hall partnership agreement form?"
Because I do not agree with your base premise that homosexual marriage will 'destroy traditional marriage'. I don't see a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships (aside from the mechanical aspects of it). If they want to call themselves married that's fine by me.
"Why indeed would you fight so hard for just a name?"
Because spending money on two sets of forms for what is legally identical seems like a waste of money to me ;-)
In all seriousness... Because I don't see a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. They deserve the same rights and privileges... and marriage is the culturally accepted term for that union. They want to get married, and I don't have a problem with that.
A 'separate but equal' bit with marriages and civil unions just strikes me as questionable. If two people are legally married in one state then all the states have to accept that... having a different form of marriage for homosexual couples strikes me as a way for people to discriminate against homosexuals.
"And as far as the comments about adultresses having the same rights not being the same as a homosexuals rights is wrong and you and I and the whole world knows it!"
How so? When two individuals are legally married they have entered into a contract. An adulteress is a third party outside of that contract. If the woman wants to have the same rights, and the man agrees that she should then he can divorce his current wife and marry the other woman.
Homosexuals cannot enter into that contract in the first place. They are not asking for more rights but the same rights that the man and the woman he is having an affair with already enjoy.
"Marriage as we have it now is set up for the betterment of a society in order to have stable homes that will provide those within them security to thrive and grow and become productive individuals and thereby profit the whole community"
Yes.
"and our country to accept ssm will do just the opposite and again you know it, I know, and the whole world knows it."
You may 'know it'... but I don't agree, and the same can be said for many other people throughout the world.
"I feel like you are not serious about marriage but more serious about hurting someone you feel is your problem and standing in the way."
I'm not interested in 'hurting' people who oppose same sex marriage... I see it as both logical and ethical that homosexuals are allowed to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals.
"As far as the swimsuit comment its as likely to be a cover of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED sexy swimsuit edition or Hugh Hefners Bunny of the Year"
True... however you just said 'sexy' not 'holding to the standard of beauty used by modern American civilization'... Personally I'm not very fond of that standard... sure the women are attractive... but it's so 'standard issue' that it does not have a great deal of appeal to me.
"or as to be a practicing homosexual claiming to be authentic Christian because a sincere Christian would not, could not, live the homosexual lifestyle simply because as a born again believer living by the power of the Holy Spirit you would not consistently disobey every fiber of that Holy Spirits direction which that lifestyle would embody."
That's something to take up with a gay Christian... but if they can rationalize their beliefs and identify as Christian then who am I to judge... any more then I can say if Baptists or Catholics are the 'real' Christians.
Its not a peice of paper you need its anatomy.
I found this article both interesting and infuriating because it proves through scientific study that environment plays the majority of the causation of homosexuality and it is interesting that children raised in the country have fewer homosexual tendencies as did their counterparts in the city, again, environmental factors. While the study is about ssm it really hits home on the environmental cause for homosexuality. I recommend it. I support its conclusion:
Conclusion:
All of the aforementioned research studies from four different countries, each utilizing large, countrywide samples, reveal that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate--sometimes greatly--with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality--whether an urban center or a university campus--the more homosexuality there will be in that setting.
Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western Countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual--socially, politically, and legally--they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage .
http://www.narth.com/docs/legalizing.html
The only difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is in the mechanics of physical intimacy... it is not a difference in emotional makeup. To use your previous examples... try telling Elton Jon that his love for his partner is not 'the same' as the love felt by a heterosexual couple.
"Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western Countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual--socially, politically, and legally--they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage ."
Two questions:
1) What does it matter if the number of homosexual couples increases?
2) Could it not be argued that the reason why the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior increases is because those individuals felt more comfortable exploring that side of their sexuality... that they were already homosexual and a more permissive society simply allows them to be more comfortable with their own natures?
It matters alot to the children in those situations. And you ask what does that have to do with homosexual marriage ? Alot. As a mother I feel we are putting kids in danger by placing them in homosexual homes. Nambla would love to see homosexual marriage passed. I personally would not! I dont care what two men are doing at night alone but I do care when they want to take that and use it to adopt children and marriag would legitimize their plans.
These are some of the reasons I protest ssm.
Homosexual rape victims very high according to FBI report http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html PS AQUAINTANCE is where they put homosexual rapes according to their site and that is the highest of all the perpetrators.
According to American Academy of Pediatrics : National data show that adolescents continue to have the highest rates of rape and other sexual assaults of any age group.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics ;107/6/1476.pdf Found under epidimology.PS Studies have demonstrated that two thirds to three quarters of all adolescent rapes and sexual assaults
are perpetrated by an acquaintance or relative.
81% of rapes by priests where by homosexuals as stated by
The Washington Post reported on February 28, 2004:
Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the church 's sex abuse crisis.
The John Jay study was commissioned 20 months ago by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in response to hundreds of sex-abuse accusations that were made in nearly every U.S. Catholic diocese. It covered the years from 1950 to 2002 and found 10,667 cases of abuse.
AND YOU ASK WHAT DOES IT MATTER. IT MATTERS A HELL OF A LOT!
"Alot. As a mother I feel we are putting kids in danger by placing them in homosexual homes. "
You may feel that way, but evidence (not feelings) are what is needed.
"I dont care what two men are doing at night alone but I do care when they want to take that and use it to adopt children and marriag would legitimize their plans."
Can you show that that would be the intention of a significant majority of homosexuals? Can you show that a significant number of homosexuals are paedophiles? Can you show that a significant number of homosexuals are going to adopt? What about female homosexuals (it's rather interesting how all your comments seem to focus on only one half of the homosexual population).
"Homosexual rape victims very high according to FBI report http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html PS AQUAINTANCE is where they put homosexual rapes according to their site and that is the highest of all the perpetrators."
They say 'The category of acquaintance includes homosexual relationships and the composite category of other known to victim'. What they do NOT say is how many of those in that category are homosexuals... it could be 1 or it could be 16.
"According to American Academy of Pediatrics : National data show that adolescents continue to have the highest rates of rape and other sexual assaults of any age group."
That entire article contains one sentence mentioning homosexuality :
"Male perpetrators of male sexual assault more commonly identify themselves as heterosexual than homosexual, and there is lack of clarity in the literature whether adolescent and young adult victims are more commonly heterosexual or homosexual."
-American Academy of Pediatrics; PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 6 June 2001
That does not seem to indicate that there is a significant number of homosexuals committing crimes against minors.
"Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the church 's sex abuse crisis. "
Which indicates a problem within the Catholic Church... not the larger homosexual population.
Im just cant be silent!! My story at www.hope7.highpowersites.com
Reminder number 1 why homosexual marriage is criminal in every way!The Duke Official who by the way is homosexual who has been raping his adopted son and recruiting other homosexual men to also rape his 5 yo adopted son, unfortunatly is not the except of the rule for homosexual men. Dont even try to say it isnt there is way to much proof otherwise!AP) WASHINGTON - A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering his adopted 5-year-old son for sex.
Frank Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department.
According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Det. Timothy Palchak, an unnamed informant facing charges in his own child sex case led authorities to Lombard.
Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person -who he did not know was a police officer -to travel to North Carolina to have sex with Lombard's child.
The detective's affidavit charges Lombard identified himself online as "perv dad for fun," and says that in an online chat with the detective, Lombard said he had sexually molested his son, whom he adopted as an infant.
The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy, and even suggested which hotel he should use."
In response to the AP report, which most of the newspapers used almost verbatim, Mike Adams of Townhall made the observation that "The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement."
With this shocking lack of coverage of an even more shocking story, many are asking why this did not make the front pages and top headlines like the Duke lacrosse team scandal did. Thomas Lifson of American Thinker posited that "identity politics ... apparently trumps all sense of outrage."END QUTOE
Read article and think of all the children that will be harmed, if not physical abuse then emotional and psychological damage because of ssm.I know it sounds unfair but Id rather err on the side of protecting children than on the side of homosexuals to destroy marriage as we have known it and destroy the fabric of families that will adveresly affect children. This article is the best, of thousands, reason to not permit same-sex marriges. I pray to God that this disguised attempt to put our children into danger is ended once and for all when we define marriage for all time, for one man and one woman for holy matrimony. If homosexual couples want to marry they have civil unions , period.
There are many ways for paedofiles to get access to their victims...
How many children are adopted by heterosexuals only to be abused? Is this comparable, statistically, to the number of children who are adopted and abused by homosexuals?
You are applying the actions of a small number of paedophiles to the entire population of homosexuals. From such a small number of instances this is not a valid comparison, a statistical relationship must be shown, and so far it has not.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects or establishes "Gay Marriage. For further proof of this, was it legal at the time for two men or two women to marry? No!
I believe that Marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman, like it has for thousands of years.
For those to enjoy the fruits of their Constitutional right, then legalize Civil Unions with the benefits of being a couple, excluding any rights to have children unless they were obtained by natural methods.
Marriage defines the role two people take, Civil Unions also define the role two same genders make.
Back when the constitution was written it was also illegal for interracial couple to marry. Obviously that has changed! We do not look to the past for our values and laws, we look to the present and see if it works for us today. If you want to talk about "traditional marriage " then we should be outlawing divorce and stoning adulterers (even if the woman is raped, she is still and adulterer). Oh and btw Pologyny is about as traditional as marriage gets and we don't do that anymore either. These lies about upholding so-called "traditional marriage" need to end. It is not about that at all. It is about refusing to respect gay couples and their relationship as equal to that of straight people. After all, we are disgusting sinful abominations that also deserve to be stoned to death, right?
I beg you, please do not look to the bible for your morals. It is a book of evils that tells us that stoning is justice and slavery is acceptable. We have long since moved past that ancient book's "morals" and become a better society as a result.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects or establishes "Gay Marriage. For further proof of this, was it legal at the time for two men or two women to marry? No!
I believe that Marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman, like it has for thousands of years.
For those to enjoy the fruits of their Constitutional right, then legalize Civil Unions with the benefits of being a couple, excluding any rights to have children unless they were obtained by natural methods.
Our country claims to represent equality. Therefore I think it's a bit hypocritical that we deny the homosexual population the right to marry. Gay marriage would not negatively effect anyone. Those who have a problem with it are simply being inconsiderate. It should be the homosexual couples decision to marry or not to marry, it is not the decision of people around them. I think people just need to mind their own business and keep out of matters that do not involve or effect them.
While what I find moral impedes me from making a solid decision on the legalization of gay marriages, legally i believe they should legalize it. Not because of the couples wanting to unite in matrimony but for the purpose of when it comes to legal documents and such it might be beneficial to them. If they already live together I don’t see why a document of that would be such a problem.
I'm not trying to incite a conflict, but ... don't you have it almost backwards?
The couple is in love, and they want a public expression of that love. The legal benefits are ways for them to be able to practice and reinforce that love. The benefits aren't the ends. The expression and practice of love is.
It is absolutely ludicrous that in this day and age, while we tout freedom and democracy, we are still ruled by puritanical thought. What business is it to anyone else whether a man marries another man or a woman marries another woman? Does it hurt the economy? Does gay marriage prevent Americans from getting reasonable health insurance? Is gay marriage the reason we are fighting a war? No, No, and No. They deserve the right to marry, just like everyone else. It isn't like the heteros have it right anyway, what with our stellar divorce rate and all. Is god OK with divorcing, but not OK with same-sex marriages? How does that work?
Marriage by its very definition cannot be performed on same sex partners.
Webster: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Calling it marriage is changing the very definition of the word. That is like calling someone a homosexual and deciding that the definition means they like the opposite sex.
Now, if you want to call it something different. That is fine. I have no issues with two males or two females being joined to receive the tax and family benefits of married couples. As long as they also have to go through the long, drawn out process of divorce when they decide they don't want to be together anymore.
Do you think that the word itself is what holds the sanctity? This is like saying that the word "man" in the Bill of Rights can't apply to women today. The classic definition of a word can't define how it stands in modern day society, this has been proven time and time again.
If we were to follow your viewpoints on the world, racial minorities would still not be afforded the civil rights that they have today (because the Constitution, as ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, was written for "white people" as opposed to all people).
Changing a definition in order to insure protection of civil rights is more just than holding onto a definition that wrongfully denies civil rights.