The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
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?
- housemusik July 11, 2008 11:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
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.
- Gideon From The Dirty Onion
September 18, 2008 8:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- tripleayex February 15, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Michelle M February 18, 2009 10:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- QuinceyQuick February 18, 2009 11:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Emar March 1, 2009 6:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- pvtguy April 29, 2009 11:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- pvtguy April 29, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- GermyJ July 8, 2009 12:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Hope7 June 29, 2009 3:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- MrBook June 29, 2009 5:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- Hope7 July 11, 2009 6:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"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.
- MrBook July 12, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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!
- Hope7 July 13, 2009 5:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"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.
- MrBook July 13, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
- Hope7 July 14, 2009 8:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"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?
- MrBook July 14, 2009 6:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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?
- Hope7 July 15, 2009 1:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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
- Hope7 July 11, 2009 6:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.”
- hallelujahchorus August 10, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- me58 February 26, 2009 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- pvtguy April 29, 2009 1:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- hallelujahchorus August 24, 2009 3:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- MrBook August 25, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The Equal Rights Amendment was ratified July 28, 1868.
- mike1948 August 26, 2009 10:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
“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.
- MrBook August 26, 2009 6:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- mike1948 August 26, 2009 10:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
But the 14th was not "The Equal Rights Amendment"... that is the name for the amendment proposed in 1923.
- MrBook August 26, 2009 10:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- mike1948 August 26, 2009 11:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- angelmama September 7, 2009 8:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- mike1948 September 7, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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.
- angelmama September 8, 2009 2:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: 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.
- MrBook September 8, 2009 6:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"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?
- MrBook September 8, 2009 7:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Allowing same-sex marriage does not respect the freedom of religion . In European countries that have legalized same-sex marriages, pastors are being arrested and jailed for refusing to marry same-sex marriages. Already in this country, a Christian photographer was fined for not accepting a job photographing a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. I would be long before I, as a pastor, must face a tribunal for my refusal to officiate a same-sex cerermony.
- chev1958 April 21, 2009 4:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Don't be fooled that because of a few misguided indivduals that gay marriage is okay. For thousands of years, marriage has only been with man and woman. It is absurd that a very small group of people thinks that because the misinterpreted what the Constitution provides, that they can change history over night. By the way, this is not one of them. Marriage has always been and should never be changed from between man and woman. This is natural. During hard times in our history, with the lack of a partner of the opposite sex, genders have come together for the comfort and contact experienced from birth. It helps keep us sane: humans need contact. But to make this as ligitimate as mariage between a man and a woman is naive, arrogant, selfish.
- pvtguy April 29, 2009 1:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm an atheist, should I allowed to be married under your religious interpretation of marriage?
- willowly June 6, 2009 1:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm an atheist, and my husband agnostic. We did not get married for religious reasons or in a church , yet our union is still recognized by the state. End of story.
- willowly June 5, 2009 11:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What if Congress passed a law declaring the 4th of July "Freedom Day". Did anything really change except the name? Would that make you any less upset? "Independence Day" doesn't really belong to anybody, especially the government , and no one has the right to redefine it. If everyone just stopped calling the 4th of July "Independence Day" then that's fine. Nobody should be forced to observe the holiday or celebrate it in the traditional sense.
In the same way, government does not own marriage . It shouldn't define it or redefine it or sanction it. The people should be the keepers and standard-bearers of marriage. If we decide that marriage means two loving individuals then we will be accepting of gay couples and respectful of their union. The government should not be saying, "accept this," or, "respect this," or, "recognize this." It's our right to recognize or ignore whatever social contracts we want.
If we still want to have some kind of government recognition then use the term "civil union." It's respectful and appropriate, because without the law (i.e. government) the term really has no meaning. I still object to the existence of a special class of citizenship though (i.e. I object to special privileges exclusive to married/unionized couples).
- snackle November 16, 2009 1:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
So because of the actions of a few same sex couples, they should all be punished? Yeah, that's totally fair.
"The Lambda reference to denominations willing to “bless” same-sex unions changes the argument not a bit. Said denominations may hold such ceremonies right now. The “unions” just wouldn’t be recognized in most states. So the argument that imposing same-sex “marriage” on Americans somehow expands religious freedom is not to be taken seriously."
Weather same sex marriage should be legal or not in those states is exactly what this debate is about. And religions that believe same sex marriage is ok are just as legitimate as ones that don't, such as Christianity. To suggest they aren't is discrimination.
- dudeman
August 27, 2008 12:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The failure of the courts should not be a reason to deny same sex couples the same rights and privileges.
The reason same sex marriage should be legalized is to protect the religious freedoms of others. Any law that permits same sex marriage should also include provisions which permit people to exercise their own freedom of religion to not get involved with such ceremonies if it is against their religion. This is how same sex marriage is dealt with in Canada presently. Noone is forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.
- Concerned Citizen September 3, 2008 3:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
By that argument, interracial marriage should never have been allowed, since it previously wasn't. Hell, why change anything?
- Blue Linchpin April 30, 2009 10:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Alliance Defense Fund, when you twist and omit the facts of your examples to suit your own purpose (as in the case of the lesbian brides at the New Jersey beach park pavilion, designated for use by the public; the photographer who refused service to lesbians; and the lesbian woman who was denied insemination after undergoing a full cycle of preparation for that insemination) you do your cause a disservice. How is anyone supposed to believe or trust anything you say when so much of what you say can be easily determined to be misleading or outright false?
- Babaroni February 10, 2009 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Heterosexuals and homosexuals technically have the exact same rights as far as marriage, and in everything else. They both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is not the fact that homosexuals are getting married, which would be discriminatory, it is the fact that two people of the same gender are not allowed to marry. I realize this is slightly confusing, so I'll give examples. In a Chuck and Larry-type situation, where two straight men want to get married for some financial purpose, or some other reason, it would not be allowed, the same as it is not allowed for homosexuals. On the flip side, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, just as a heterosexual man can marry a heterosexual woman. The law does not stop homosexuals from marrying, it stops anyone from marrying someone of the same gender, the same as it stops people from marrying multiple people. It does not bar polygamists from marriage, which would be discriminatory, it bars people from marrying multiple spouses. The problem arises because homosexuals don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender, they want someone of the same gender. There is no discrimination to end, there is an expansion of the definition of marriage that is desired. To give an extreme example that follows the same lines, say some cult wanted to have human sacrifice. Barring that said cult from operating would be discriminatory, while banning human sacrifice for anyone is not. That's not to say that gay marriage is in any way equivalent to human sacrifice, but an extreme example is sometimes required to demonstrate a logical concept.
- richardsonkr January 17, 2009 6:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
for a long time now, i've been an advocate of gay marriage in every online community into which i set metaphorical foot. i have seen the counter-arguments deployed against gay marriage countless times and i know that they have no legitimate basis, because they are not targeting gay marriage: they merely target gays.
i find that particular detail telling.
ed
- silverwhisper July 13, 2008 8:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Civil Unions as I understand them would put Gay couples in an equal standing with married Heterosexual couples as long as they were recognized by the IRS. Other than Taxes the Federal Government could care less if you are married or not. Marriage /Civil Unions are state/local govt matters. In reality all Civil "Marriages" are in reality Civil Unions, simply a legal contract. It should be a simple matter to include Homosexuals, brothers and sisters or any cohabiting couple who want the legal protections and responsibilities afforded by such a union. I am totally in favor of that. Marriage is simply a word, nothing more. If the religious people don't like it just let them call Church weddings marriages. The Catholic Church does not recognize Civil Ceremony's between heterosexual couples as a "Marriage". Are you aware of that?
- tbcass January 26, 2009 12:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If only civil unions would afford the same benefits as marriages, I might stand to agree with you.
However, many people can think of over 1,000 reasons why they're unequal.
"According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a
family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections."
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf
- QuinceyQuick January 26, 2009 12:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Why couldn't a Civil union have the same benefits? Just don't call it marriage and it will keep the anti Gay Marriage crowd happy. Regardless, you have to take what you can get one step at a time. If you do that you will get less resistance from the anti Gay Marriage crowd. I think the Gay Rights movement's all or nothing militant attitude does more harm than good and will make the reality of a true equitable Civil Union take longer and more difficult to achieve. Stealth achieves more than Brute Force. As a non Gay among other non Gays I can probably see that better than a Gay person can. I'm on your side. I just think you are using the wrong tactics.
- tbcass January 26, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There's no dispute that a civil union could have the same benefits. The question, however, lies in the wording.
"Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do." (from the same source cited earlier)
Is it such a long stretch to see "civil union" become a derogatory term?
Starting out with "civil union" may bring the illusion of satisfaction. In this hypothetical situation, once lawmakers confer the same provisions that come with marriages, they could argue that civil unions are "good enough", failing to fully realize how a mere word can invite discrimination.
Same-sex marriages were already allowed in parts of the world before the 21st century*. Why do we have to fight for the exact same rights again?
*See: Virginia Law Review vol. 79 no. 7, 1993, A History of Same-Sex Marriage by William N. Eskridge, Jr.
- QuinceyQuick January 26, 2009 1:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Refer to all Civil Unions as such and let Churches use the term marriage. The only discrimination would come from churches and that's going to happen no matter what you call it. I simply don't agree with your objections.
- tbcass January 26, 2009 1:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
...I would have agreed with you. Forgive me for not having read your entire argument, then.
- QuinceyQuick January 26, 2009 1:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
A civil union can be defined just as marriage can be defined.
A dog is not a cat. A man is not a woman. A man wedded to two wives is not the same thing as a man wedded to thirteen wives.
We went down a long road as a society demanding there is no difference between men and women. There is not a little 'expansion slot' in the brain into which a card is inserted that is labeled "male" or "female." But on the other hand, it did not add to the richness of the human experience by failing to note that a man and a woman are different.
There is no harm in notating that a man wedding a woman is different than a man wedding a man; and that is different from singleness.
Justice does not demand that a single person be defined married for the sake of having access to the same legal and social benefits. Or that a single person in some form of ongoing sexual relationship be defined as a marriage.
We could have a long and valued debate as to whether "marriage" should receive the social/legal benefits it does (or if it should receive more). But to me, it is silly to deconstruct the meaning of the word for the sake of correcting what we deem to be an inequality.
We can go down this road, but it is the equivalent of saying there are only persons instead of being men and women. It answers a question and opens up a larger question. This is not the only route to the needed outcome.
- letjusticerolldown April 4, 2009 7:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Imagine a contract giving benefits to married couples.
Now imagine a "civilly unionized" couple trying to obtain the same benefits.
Get my drift?
- QuinceyQuick April 6, 2009 12:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Marraige is the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. If it is not between two DIFFERENT sexes, then it is not Marraige. Civilly Unionized is the word they must use... unless they decide to take the initive to create a new word.
Either way, Marraige is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
- spiderpickle April 24, 2009 6:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Before Loving v. Virginia, marriage was the union between a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE.
Now, don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm equating same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. I'm just saying that the definition of marriage can and has evolved in the past.
- QuinceyQuick April 24, 2009 7:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I understand what you are saying however, if marriage keeps 'evolving' soon it could be considered marriage between a chair and a desk. That is a little to the extreme but where do we draw the line between marriage and just unionized?
Marriage is not going to mean much to those who take it as what it began as. It wouldn't be as special.
- spiderpickle April 27, 2009 7:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"It wouldn't be as special." Why should he have the same color ball as I do? I had one first. Why should he get "x", I didn't get one? The other kids aren't going to think i'm cool if everybody has the same thing I have.
Ok, that was midly snippy. I have seen this "special" argument before and I am rather saddened by it. My 'x' thing (like marriage) is special to me because it is special to me. It's not more special because you say it is. It's not less special because you say it isn't. It is the greatest character flaw in man that we are not always capable of appreciating what we have without the consent, or indeed the jealousy, of those around us. It is from this that greed stems. To say that marriage would not be as special because a different group of people now have access to it is both petty and selfish.
- tek June 20, 2009 6:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As far as the state is (or should be) concerned, marriage is essentially a business partnership between two individuals. They share financial responsibility of property, income, taxes, children, etc.
Any factors outside of that partnership are purely dependent upon religion or the personal beliefs of said individuals and therefore should not be regulated by the state as it would violate the separation of church and state and personal rights as provided by the First Amendment.
- Avg Bear July 25, 2008 7:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
It seems to me that this argument should be separated into two issues: 1) Is marriage an issue of government or church?
2) If it is an issue of religion, then what business does the state have regulating who can participate in it? If it is an issue of the state, then we must leave religious belief out of it entirely.
Many countries have two ceremonies, one civil and one religious. We should do the same. We should have civil unions for couples gay or straight, which will give them ALL the legal rights of married couples. And then if you want to be "married" in the eyes of God, go find a church to perform the ceremony. It is unfair to deny the rights of joint income tax to couples who live together. It's unfair to deny them spousal rights in purchasing real estate, in estate planning...etc.
I have to admit that my feelings about these things have been shaped recently by my association with several gay couples whom I respect.
- mh78639 October 13, 2008 5:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ever heard of separation of church and state? It was originally made to keep the state out of the church... No religious institution should be forced to do anything. Religious institutions are supposed to be houses of freedom from cynical, politically correct, immoral, and oppressive natures of society (and i'm not saying this because i'm a regular church-goer. I haven't been to church in months). If a religious institution chooses not to recognize a same-sex marriage, or anything else for that matter, more power to them!
- Brady November 10, 2008 11:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
According to this logic, then, marriage as a civil issue should be separate from the church.
The issues for those in support of gay marriage are civil. It seems that those in opposition are against the state telling the church what to do.
I agree with both stances. So is it therefore logical to no longer commingle church and state activities with legal church-marriages? That seems like a fine solution to me.
Gays just want the rights of marriage, that being state-sanctioning of their marriage which has everything to do with power of attorney, healthcare benefits, and financial death benefits. Do those who oppose gay marriage really have an issue with those things? It is not likely (I'm sure there are some yeses) that the majority don't want other people to do as they will. They simply don't want their religious institution to be dictated by the state as I now understand it.
Brady, thanks for clearing this up for me! So, can we agree to simply separate marriage as separate civil and religious institutions? Would that appease both sides?
- thedr9wningman November 12, 2008 12:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I really like the reasoning in this thread (leading up to and including your post), but a lot of thoughts/sentiments/ideals need to be "test-driven" on this middle path. I want to see that happen because I support it.
Personally, I hate debates and yes/no positions...I like it when you watch a person think ideas through and dance around until resting on a position they feel more secure with after the conversation.
Here are some opinions I am attempting to paraphrase from various discussion threads on this section of the opposing opinions web site:
a) same-sex marriage values more than just protections; they want the "intangeables" of marriage too
b) having civil unions classifying only the same-sex marriage is a fundamental inequality to marriage [which says that separate itself is unequal, and separate but equal will not be agreeable]
c) most of the division on this issue is the use of the word marriage in affiliation with same-sex couples, but much fewer will have an issue with ensuring same-sex couples the same [federal/state defined] legal rights as married couples
d) any argument about religious institutions not recognizing same-sex marriage is reversely encroaching upon the rights of the historical churches by state/federal involvement. [Thus, this violates the separation of church and state , which protects our society in both directions.]
Here are my thoughts as extension of those shared in the post above me:
1. why not have a new word that means marriage and is defined by religious institutions that support same-sex relationships?
2. why not support that state and federal policies and protections refer to all relationships formed through weddings/ceremonies/courts as civil unions to encompass marriage and any other religion -defined relationships in addition to state recognized/defined relationships.
Looking forward - the next questions
1. If state and federal authorities, back out of the picture after calling everything remotely resembling marriage as a civil union , how will the argument approach resolution at the steps of the churches in the US?
2. Is this an issue beyond the Christian churches? What about the Jewish faith or Islam? any alternatives for same-sex couples from those religions?
- nbeyene April 11, 2009 4:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
When does Religious Marriage truly exist beyond the ritual associated with it? You need legal documentation to be married according to a number of institutions. Civil Marriage is paperwork. Religious Marriage is ceremonial and is mostly a superstitious event. Does Religious Marriage hold up in court just as well as paperwork that's been documented? I don't understand the difference between the two.
All I know about marriage is that it's something that cultures did to consolidate two families' resources through arranged marriages and it's also been used as a form of social engineering. Many people have seen it ingrained into their religion , which is the origin of Religious Marriage I suppose. The true origin of marriage is pretty arguable and its merits are mostly social and somewhat questionable outside of things like tax codes and religious belief.
Two people, no matter what their race or gender, may consent to whatever they want with one another? Who cares? If you're gay or straight, it's your business. Not mine. Do whatever you want! And as for hate, if it isn't because of your sexual preference you'd be hated for being fat.
- m46607 September 14, 2009 6:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
you suggest that opposing gay marriage on the basis of its "unnatural-ness" is a completely logical stance. i find that...strange.
the word itself, "unnatural" is one of those bogeyman words that in itself means nothing, while saying much of the speaker. by some standards, it is "unnatural" to conduct discussions with people one has never met, nor indeed am ever likely to meet. while it certainly recalls to mind epistolary debates such as the lively exchange within the screwtape letters, the immediacy we are offered now is certainly unnatural.
pointing out that you consider a thing to be "unnatural" is not a valid basis for public policy and indeed simply isn't logical.
but perhaps more importantly, advancing the "unnaturalness" argument reveals the true heart of your objection: that you simply dislike homosexuals. it has little to do with the subject of marriage per se, and advancing the unnaturalness argument spells that out in blazing, 40' tall letters for all to see.
- silverwhisper July 13, 2008 8:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: Yes
I would like to put aside religion and family values for a moment.
Although considered normal during antiquity, homosexuality in contemporary Western society arose in sharp contrast to societal norms, caused people much anxiety, confusion and persecution. As such, homosexuality met the criteria for a psychopathology, which can be defined as a severe deviation from social norms which brings about psychological discomfort. It was thus included as a psychosexual disorder in the DSM. However, it was subsequently removed as it became increasingly more popular, and thus more socially normalized.
There have been numerous studies showing a physiological basis for homosexuality, such as an increased serotonin metabolism or hemispheric symmetry. However, such studies are shunned as they go against contemporary ideals of choice and free will. We must consider the question though, what if those choices are as a result of pathology? What is the implication then? Are we ready to think about that?
- Ralfe Poisson
July 25, 2008 12:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
If homosexuality is unnatural, then surely its behaviour would not be found in humans across the globe; but it is--even in cultures where acting it out is punishable by death. If homosexuality were a construct, it wouldn't exist in the non-human world , but it does.
The forced ideal that homosexuality is 'wrong', is a judgment call. Living one's life the way that they see fit is not wrong, it simply is. It's like telling a cat to stop eating meat. You can do it and get upset, but they'll still catch a bird. America's resistance to sex and sexuality only perturb it and make it dysfunctional. Judge not. It isn't your place to tell others how to live their life.
- thedr9wningman August 20, 2008 2:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: Yes
I suspect a philosophical fallacy in the Family Research Council’s argument here. They write, “This response is followed by “the purpose of marriage is to have children” (4 percent), which also recognizes a purposeful – and thus “natural” – design for human sexuality.” This, admittedly, may have some validity. Marriage, as it has been traditionally defined, may imply “procreation.”
However, as David Hume argued, questions about what “ought to be” cannot be derived from questions about what “is.” The fundamental question in this debate is: Should two consenting male adults, for example, be allowed the right to marry? To respond as FRC has done, by appealing to what “is” (or what has always been) and therefore what “should be,” is fallacious because these are two fundamentally different questions. As their argument rests on this assumption, it should be questioned for its validity.
- Alex M August 26, 2008 2:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
It resurrects itself every 4 years when Republicans need to get out the vote. It inflames (and funds) liberal and conservative support organizations and forces moderate politicians to choose between hate-spewing intolerant right-wingers and a lifestyle that most Americans find distasteful. Thanks Karl Rove!
To approximately quote Jon Stewart, I don't have to marry a gay person, right? Just like you don't have to marry someone of another race. or religion. or hair color. The only reason same-sex marriage is not legal is you can't get reelected in most states if you support it. Give the US another 25 years and maybe the general consensus will have changed.
The philosophical/religious/parenting debates are incredibly emotional, stirring discussions that attract voters' attention but lead to no resolution. No rational person can agree that somehow limiting two consenting adults from entering a recognized marriage benefits society in anyway. However politics is highly irrational, religious views won't be swayed by research and lobbying organizations don't attract money by avoiding emotionally charged rhetoric.
So should it be? Sure. Will it be? Not for awhile.
- nbkwx55 September 7, 2008 11:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I do appreciate how you call red herring and then launch an ad hominem. The truth is, it's not us "hate-spewing right-wingers" that even bring the topic up, it's the hate-spewing left-wingers. When it gets voted down, they call the voters hateful bigots and throw a temper tantrum. You are probably right when you say that in a few years it will be legal, but the American people need more time. Have patience. We aren't hateful, just cautious.
- richardsonkr January 17, 2009 4:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Otherwise I would be arguing the apparent, but not true, reason for the assertion. To directly refute the assertion - no, homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs across all cultures, geographies and throughout the history of mankind not to mention in other species of animals. President Ahmenijad of Iran was publicly laughed at when he claimed his country has no homosexuals. By definition since it occurs in nature it is not unnatural. That's a much less interesting response, in my mind, than my original posting.
My argument is that this whole line of debate is a manufactured topic employed by politicians who force their opponents into an argument that's irrelevant to most people but so emotionally charged that it attracts attention away from more important topics. It's a very useful tactic for a politician who could not win on the issues with an opponent but knows how to manipulate the electorate for a win. It should be called out as such to push it aside in political debate and make room for more important issues.
- nbkwx55 January 20, 2009 1:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Beating a red herring simply requires you to say, "That's a red herring, a logical fallacy, and therefore will no longer be considered." Nobody said that homosexuality was unnatural, so that line of reasoning is a straw man, a logical fallacy, and therefore will no longer be considered. Your argument that the debate is irrelevant has no bearing at all on the debate itself, nor does it justify your position, though it is a point. While it might not be important to some, even most people, it is very important for many, and as such should not be discarded.
- richardsonkr January 21, 2009 4:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
--divinely created nature itself. According to the above-mentioned Pew Poll, the next most frequent reason given for opposing gay marriage is that “homosexuality is not natural/normal” (9 percent).--
Of course, the problem is that the opinion of those opposing gay marriage does not really matter. Sure, some people may be unfamiliar with the facts and consider homosexuality to be not natural, but surely we have outgrown such primitive logic and come to realize that homosexuality is not only commonly found in nature but also seems to have a (significant) genetic component.
As to the divine part, it seems that God managed to create something in which homosexuality was all but unnatural, although perhaps poorly understood by some. However, homosexuality is but one aspect of same-sex marriage and a focus on sex, while understandable given the fascination of some with gay sex, seems rather misplaced.
- PvM September 9, 2008 6:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
You've seen those pictures of giraffes with their necks entwined so that their necks form a heart, right? It's on "LOVE" cards and greeting cards everywhere. It's perfectly natural, and it's a mating behavior that causes the animals involved to sexually react to each other. But no female giraffe engages in this behavior. Every time you see it, it's two male giraffes.
"Cnemidophorus uniparens," the whiptail lizard, reproduces after a ritual involving two females. There are no males. The females partogenically lay eggs afterward that produce female babies. This is also clearly "natural," since it's in nature and it's how the species survive.
Take out the claim of "divinely created natural order" and all you're left with is "divine creation" as your argument, which is a matter for individuals, their gods, and their churches, not the judgement of the Family Research Council.
- sharky September 24, 2008 8:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
First let me be clear. As a homosexual, I do not support gay marriage. I agree with those who believe marriage only between a man and a woman should be legal because the institution provides the optimal framework in our society for raising children. But let me tell you clearly. Only one who is a homosexual can determine if it is a normal condition of life. Apart from the dubious biblical interpretation, your argument is as silly to homosexuals as the idea that red hair is not normal because most people do not have red hair.
- Bcereus October 13, 2008 1:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
We all have our likes and dislikes in life, and some of the things we like are not legal because they harm ourselves or others. Broadly speaking that's what law is based on. The majority of those laws are based on harm to others and harm to oneself. Homosexuality does not harm others and homosexuals would obviously agree that it does not harm them.
If human beings are taught to fear and hate homosexuals as they very often are, particularly among religious groups, there is going to be an attempt to suppress it. Fear and disgust of homosexuality is the root causes of all activity to suppress it.
Now imagine if you will, a thousand years in the future, humankind is traveling the galaxy and comes across an alien world of alien cultures and alien reproductive habits. If in those thousand years we have not learned to conquer our fear of homosexuality, how will we ever be able to face the shock of alien cultures on distant planets?
We are provincial, paranoid, and feeble to succumb to fear that is behind homophobia. Future generations already show signs of courage and tolerance. The embarrassing truth is older generations steeped in homophobia are in positions of authority to continue the assault on gays and lesbians.
- Marco November 9, 2008 2:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
The design argument is a valid, compeling argument. It is also very simple: Life clearly speaks of design. From a scientific view, it is extreemly improbable that life is here by any other means except a designer. For that fact, is it so improbable that life is here by any other means than a designer, that from an engieering perspective, it is a certainty that a designer behind life exists.
Given this, it is extreemly clear that male and female sexual organs are "desgined" for each other. Therefore, we as humans, are designed to engage is sexual realtions with the opposite sex. We are NOT desgined to engage in sexual realtions with the same sex.
Now to the argument that other species engage is same-sexual relations: The last time I looked, I'm a human. I'm not a giraffe, I'm not an insect, etc... I'm a human.
It is also clear that we live in a world that has significant problems. These problems are clearly seem in bad and destructive behariour of man, deseases, etc... The who reason phycologists and counselaors can make a living is that we, as humans have problems. Not only do humans have behavior problems, but there is behavior problems in the animal kingdom as well. In order to show that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom validates human homosexual behavior, you will need to show that the designer has intended this as normal behavior in the animal kingdom as a whole. Excluding the species that can actually propogate themselves with this kind of behaviour, there is no basis to belive that the designer behind life intends for this to be normative. the further a species is from humans, the less the analogy applies logically.
- steve4 November 24, 2008 8:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You say that the reproductive organs of humans are clearly designed for each other; is this not true of all the animals who engage in homosexuality as well? Or are these animals 'unnatural'? And if they are, whatever could their motive be?
- alovelylittlepapercrane April 5, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"From a scientific view, it is extreemly improbable that life is here by any other means except a designer. "
There is tons of evidence to show that we evolved. We are not definitely not designed. Read up a little on Biology and the Theory of Evolution before you go spouting what (presumably) someone told you as fact when you don't know what you're talking about.
"The last time I looked, I'm a human. I'm not a giraffe, I'm not an insect, etc... I'm a human. "
Well guess what! Whether you want to admit it or not, some humans are homosexual just like some animals are. So it would seem it is a natural occurrence in all LIFE.
"there is no basis to belive that the designer behind life intends for this to be normative"
First of all from reading your comment it is apparently you have very little schooling as you can't spell. Secondly you use the word "normative". Homosexuality is not a majority in nature at all... that doesn't mean it's occurrence isn't normal. Just like a previous commenter said... just because red haired people aren't the majority doesn't mean they aren't normal.
AND we come to the root of your false reasoning:
"you will need to show that the designer has intended this as normal behavior in the animal kingdom as a whole."
No wonder you don't know anything about science . You look to your invisible friend as a starting point for a line of reasoning. I'm sorry, but to demonstrate whether something is a fact we do not need to pick up a bible and try to fathom what some mythical being thinks about it! We do just fine without first presuming a god exists and working from what we can demonstrate in the real world.
- GermyJ June 2, 2009 3:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Homosexuality is just having feelings for someone else. That's not unnatural.
- madninjamonkey December 14, 2008 10:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't believe homosexuality is unnatural, but, even if it was, why does it matter?
Air conditioners are unnatural.
Televisions are unnatural.
Phones are unnatural.
Computers and the internet (and all of technology) are unnatural.
Even marriage is unnatural, because it's a legal agreement between two people and the state, it doesn't occur anywhere else in nature: only humans marry.
Allowing gays to marry isn't advocating homosexuality or anything like that, it's simply allowing gays to marry, so it isn't advocating unnaturalness, so why does it matter if gays marry?
Anyway, we learn about computer programs in school, is that promoting unnaturalness?
- stupidteenager December 22, 2008 12:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
"Those who would reject this law find themselves in opposition to the Divine intent for mankind, a reality that every culture from the dawn of civilization has either recognized – or failed to acknowledge at its peril."
Oh, that's convenient. All civilizations have condemned homosexuality. And those that didn't... well, they died -because- they didn't condemn homosexuality. The other civilizations fell for other reasons.
As for past civilizations who did not condemn homosexuality... I'm currently doing research, and my list looks something like this:
Zuni community (late 19th c.)
Roman community (4th c.)
Egypt (2600 B.C.)
Mesopotamian codes (2375 B.C., 2100 B.C., 1750 B. C., 1726 B.C., circa 800 B.C.)
Plato and other contemporary philosophers (4th c. B.C.)
Classical Greek philosophers (Cicero and Curio, no date)
Native Americans (1500s - 1800s at least)
Not comprehensive in the least, and clearly not all civilizations condemned homosexuality.
- QuinceyQuick January 26, 2009 6:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
If FRC could prove that an overwhelming amount of people think homosexuality is unnatural, what would that mean? Just many people think homosexuality is unnatural does not mean that it actually is. Still, if FRC could demonstrate that homosexuality was unnatural, why would it matter? Why is something that is “unnatural” immoral? Why do we place so much trust in the dictates of nature? FRC would say that the law of the Lord is against homosexuality, in that, if homosexuality is against nature, homosexuality is against God and His nature. That might work for a theological argument, but in this context, we’re wondering what policy our government should take. The government rules over a people free to practice any creed, or lack thereof, and to guide the government by religious dogma, or ideas derived from that dogma, is to impose articles of faith on the People. We cannot allow our government to veer from secularism; else, our government threatens our civil liberties and our freedom of religion. When our officials make decisions, they must use secular reason, else they stand to threaten the establishment of religion.
- The Monk February 15, 2009 10:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
This may be a question that many have considered already, but I feel that it's fundamental. If it wasn't natural for somebody, why else would it exist? Why would there be homosexuals at all if it was "unnatural"? Unless it is some kind of innate attraction, how would it have come about in the first place? Has the proposer of this question yet considered this?
- tripleayex February 25, 2009 8:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
If homosexuality is so unnatural why are there so many homosexual people? For those who look at it from a religious standpoint: If God felt being homosexuality was as unnatural as you claim it to be, why would he allow it to happen in so many instances? These things should be considered. I don't think anyone has the right to claim that a sexual preference is wrong and that their preference is the one that is "normal" or "correct".
- Emar March 1, 2009 5:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
First, advocates of gay marriage are not anti-marriage or anti-family. Opposite sex couples who love each other and wish to get married and have children may continue to do this, just as they've always done. The change? Same sex couples who love each other want similar legal rights.
Second, the law should not be based off of religion . It is important for a society to have morals; individual rights and freedom should be protected, whether it's their right to life , property, or opinions. But the majority should not be able to take rights from the minority. Besides, not everyone is Christian, or believes that nature was divinely created. As a secular state, why should the Bible supersede the Constitution?
Christian beliefs and dictates apply only to those people who choose to believe in them. There is no way to justify forcing others to follow them.
And then- innate realizations? Please. For something to be innate, it would have to be agreed upon widely, consistently, and from birth. No exceptions. Even if I were the only one who feels that homosexuality is nor unnatural, it would be enough to prove that the concept is not innate.
- alovelylittlepapercrane April 5, 2009 3:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As a gay person and advocate. I have yet to read any type of document, order, newspaper article etc that prints out a "Gay Agenda" Lord knows no two gays can agree on anything let alone an agenda. If you have such a copy please Print it out here as that way we all can see what our plans are.
As for gay marriage, No religion , I said NO religion or bible prohibits gays or str8's from getting married. In fact the Catholic church has ceremonies that were used in the past for just such type of marriages. My god ( Budda ) does NOT prohibit such marriages at all. Nor do most religions in the world. Many Christian churches allow such unions. So to say that it is abnormal is your only arguement and that one is bogus also. Nature itself has gay couples, Penguins, Horses, cows, elephants, birds, bats, and so on. So that arguement is bogus also. I suggest you study nature and you will see that it is a fact of nature. Then come back here and place a new arguement FOR gay marriages.
- oldfoxbob May 20, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Gay/Homosexual Serial Killers and number they killed
Jeffrey Dahmer 17 1978, 1988-91 Milwaukee Milwaukee and Chicago homosexual cannibal. He was killed by another inmate while in prison. 21 May 1960 28 November 1994
Andrew Cunanan 5 1997 San Diego, Calif. Minnesota; Chicago, IL; South Beach, FL killed fashion designer Gianni Versace 31 August 1969
Gilles de Rais 300+
Luis Alfredo Garavito 140+ Colombia Colombia Gay serial killer who murdered over 140 boys in Columbia.
Randy Steven Kraft 65 (
Michael Swango 35 - 60 1983-97 Ohio, Illinois, New York, South Dakota,
Virginia "Doctor of Death" -- killed hospital patients
Andrei Chikatilo 52
Fritz Haarmann 40
John Wayne Gacy 33 until 1978 Chicago Chicago bisexual; 27 of his victims (young boys he seduced) were found buried in crawlspace under his house. Executed in Joliet, IL.
Patrick Wayne Kearney 28+ 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. gay cruising areas of Hollywood
David D. Hill 28? 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. Hollywood Patrick Kearney's lover; confessed to being co-killer with Kearney, but police weren't sure about the extent of his involvement
Hans Grans 27+ until 1924 Germany Germany accommplice and love of Haarmann, the "Butcher Of Hanover"
Wayne Williams 27 1979-81 Atlanta Atlanta Gay serial killer who preyed mostly on young black male hustlers.
Dean Corll 27
Elmer Wayne Henley 27 1960s to 1973 Bisexual. Victims were young boys who he kidnapped and tortured.
David Owen Brooks 27
Donald Harvey 25 - 40
Juan Corona 25 1971 From Mexico; moved to Yuba City, CA in 1950s Yuba
City, Calif. Born in Mexico. All of his victims were men that he first raped, and then killed with a machete over the span of six weeks. Presently resides in Corcoran State Prison. Juan Corona's brother is Natividad, the gay, owner of the Guadalajara cafe in Marysville, CA. 1934 ( THIS ONE IS FROM MY NECK OF THE WOODS...NOT A FEW MILES FROM WHERE I WITNESSED THE MURDER OF JOHN DOE...AT LOMO CROSSING BETWEEN YUBA CITY AND LIVE OAK...STORY AT WWW.HOPE7.HIGHPOWERSITES.COM
Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo 21
Larry Eyler 19 1980s Chicago Illinois and Indiana
Huang Yong 17+ 2001-2003 Henan Province, China Henan Province, China Gay. Executed. Murdered boys that he flirted with and picked up at internet cafes. Saved their belts as souvenirs. His 18th victim escaped, leading to his arrest.
Dennis Nilsen 16 1978-83 U.K.
Marcelo Costa de Andrade 14
William Bonin 12+
Henry Lee Lucas 12+
Ottis Toole 12
Vaughn Greenwood 11+ 1974-75 Los Angeles
Richard Speck
Cayetano Hernandez
Eleazor Solis
David Bullock
Vernon Butts
Paul Bateson
Marc Dutroux 6 1995-1996 Belgium Belgium Bisexual. He is unusual among gay serial killers, in that his victims were all girls, who he kidnapped and tortured before killing. One of most notorious serial killers in Belgium's history.
Michael Terry
Orville Lynn Majors
Charles Cohen
Arthur Gary Bishop 5 1984 Utah Utah Utah serial killer of young boys. Years before his murder spree, in 1978, he had been excommunicated from the LDS Church. Bishop was an active homosexual and was no longer a member of the LDS Church when he became a serial killer. Executed in Utah State Prison. He said of his crimes, "With great sadness and remorse, I realize that I allowed myself to be misled by Satan. Pornography was not the only negative influence in my life, but its effect on me was devastating. I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder, and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall."
Michael Lupo 4+ 1986 from Italy London
Peter Moore 4 1995 north Wales north Wales
Westley Allan Dodd 3+ Washingon Washington, Oregon
David P. Brown
. Victims were all young boys.
Charles Manson 3+ 1968-72 Los Angeles Los Angeles Bisexual. One of nation's most famous serial killers. Murdered actress Sharon Tate, the wife of film director Roman Polanski. Deeply interested in the occult.
David Edward Maust 5+ 1981; 2003 Germany; Galveston, TX (1981);
Hammond, IL (2003) Gay. Killed teenage boys, usually by stabbing
Bruce Davis 2+ 1968-72 Los Angeles Los Angeles Charles Manson accomplice
Erik Menendez 2 20 August 1989 Beverly Hills, CA Beverly Hills, CA with his straight brother Lyle, Erik killed his parents (Jose Menendez and Kitty Menendez).
Although homosexual murderers of single victims are too numerous to list here, a number of particularly famous ones include: Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (the wealthy and academically bright gay Chicago couple who murdered a boy in 1924 just for fun; their story became one of the nation's most famous murder cases, and was the basis for many movies, including Hitchcock's film "Rope"); Armin Meiwes (the sexually deviant German cannibal known as "Der Metzgermeister" - The Master Butcher, who met a victim over the Internet who he ate and killed); John E. du Pont (the gay member of the wealthy du Pont famil who shot Olympic wrestler David Schultz to death);and on and on
- Hope7 June 15, 2009 4:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
That's a long list... but in going over it I've got to say that I doubt that they are all homosexuals. Looking at Charles Manson the only evidence of homosexuality I can see is one instance early in life. Indeed he seemed to prefer the company of women almost exclusively.
You seem to be rather stuck on this notion that all homosexuals are brutal, child molesting, killers... and that hardly matches the statistical evidence. The majority of women are raped by straight men... so do you consider all straight men rapists? African Americans commit crimes... does that make all of them criminals?
- MrBook June 16, 2009 6:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
And I believe based on all the literature Ive read and the behaviors Ive seen and experienced from the homosexual community is the only reason, besides the sad attempt to destroy the concept of a moral institution we call holy matrimony, is to adopt little children .
You say you doubt that the men I mentioned above could all be homosexual,despite their own admissions and sexual appetities, but you are very wrong, they were, by all standards set by those in the homosexual community are homosexual according to the misguided information that homosexuality is not a choice to be made but a born condition,something that despite the fact we have free will they have no CONTROL over and are subject to its every whim, despite genetic proof, so if anyone did live out their homosexual fantasies that would make them homosexual by definition of the homosexual community.
However, I find it upsurd that so along as the lines of are obscenely defined by the homosexual community that the definition of homosexuality becomes fluidly convienent when they wish to undermine a practicing homosexual. How they can find some loophole that excludes a persons sexuality, in these cases, homosexuality from "true" homosexuality, which is, a whole new class they could teach our children in school , oh yes children you can practice homosexuality and not really be a true one of us unless we give you your own card as proof of your TRUE homosexuality. It appears that whatever they desire to use as the current up to the minute definition of homosexuality even if that definition holds absolutely no medical or scientific basis is taken as fact.
Now lets let these individuals that make up this pseudo-sexuality teach our young boys how to dress like woman and maybe someday our enemies will say on the news.....WE GOT AMERICA BY GETTING THEIR CHILDREN!!
I dont know, just a mother who witnessed the murder of a 17 yo boy trying to fight for his life when a homosexual man tried to rape him..oh yah and they attacked me.
- Hope7 June 16, 2009 6:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"And I believe based on all the literature Ive read and the behaviors Ive seen and experienced from the homosexual community is the only reason, besides the sad attempt to destroy the concept of a moral institution we call holy matrimony, is to adopt little children ."
-Hope7
Not to be happy, enjoy legal protection, and spend their life with someone they love?
"by all standards set by those in the homosexual community are homosexual according to the misguided information that homosexuality is not a choice to be made but a born condition,something that despite the fact we have free will they have no CONTROL over and are subject to its every whim, despite genetic proof,"
-Hope7
What is the genetic proof that homosexuality is not a product of genetics? Yes, no single gene has been found yet... but that does not prove the opposite.
"if anyone did live out their homosexual fantasies that would make them homosexual by definition of the homosexual community."
-Hope7
[Citation needed] on that one...
"oh yes children you can practice homosexuality and not really be a true one of us unless we give you your own card as proof of your TRUE homosexuality."
-Hope7
wait... now there are cards?
"Now lets let these individuals that make up this pseudo-sexuality teach our young boys how to dress like woman and maybe someday our enemies will say on the news.....WE GOT AMERICA BY GETTING THEIR CHILDREN!!"
-Hope7
What about homosexual women?
"I dont know, just a mother who witnessed the murder of a 17 yo boy trying to fight for his life when a homosexual man tried to rape him..oh yah and they attacked me."
-Hope7
You bring this up every time... but it is not a valid argument, it is anecdotal at best. Follow that logic if I am robbed by a white guy I can say "all white guys are thieves"
- MrBook June 16, 2009 7:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Have you checked out the web site called AMERICANS FOR TRUTH lately? They had an article on the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco and men where parading around naked in front of children , no less, when are these men going to grow up? You bet NAMBLA was there for that even if they dont hold up signs or where I LOVE BOYS T-shirts how could they pass up and opportunity to run around nude in front of children. When did everything that homosexuals do turn out to be about sex, do they ever do anything else with their lives? I think its all unnatural and shameful.
- angelmama August 8, 2009 10:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Americans for Truth sounds a bit biased. Unless there is third party documentation of the incident then I wouldn't trust it.
You may think that members of NAMBLA were there... but unless you can show that they were it is just speculation, and without a history of the groups presence as baseless as suggesting that people protesting against gay marriage are all members of racist organizations.
You think it is un-natural and shameful? Do you have a non-Biblical reason for that belief?
- MrBook August 9, 2009 4:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
un-natural and shameful. And these are some of them right from the sources themselves:
http://americansfortruth.com/issues/the-agenda-glbtq-activist-groups/national-glbtq-activist-groups/sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence
http://www.thenewsenterprise.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?053 +article+News.Local+20090806160618053053003
http://www2.dothaneagle.com/dea/news/crime_courts/article/dothan_man_found_guilty_of_sodomizing_6-year-old_slocomb_boy/86359 /
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090804/NEWS01/908040358/1007
http://www.wnem.com/news/20294689/detail.html #
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/52118062.html
While not all homosexuals do this kind of behaviour history is proving that enough of them do that it is shameful and un-natural.
- angelmama August 10, 2009 11:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://www.thenewsenterprise.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?053 +article+News.Local+20090806160618053053003
You might have to copy and paste the aricle in the search section. If not its a bout a therapist who raped little boys in Louisville , Kentucky.
- angelmama August 10, 2009 11:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This is absurd. Do you realize how easy it would be to counter these by posting criminal or unusual acts of heterosexuals? Posting links to articles about homosexual rapists is as easy as finding articles about heterosexual rapists. Or posting links about controversial activisists who are heterosexual-based crowds is quite easy. The point is: you posting various links proves absolutely nothing in regards to how "shameful" homosexuality it. There are countless atrocities that could be cited which were performed by heterosexuals.
- learnlogic August 10, 2009 11:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
If those reasons arent good enough for you I cant help that they are good enough for me. I also find these reasons to suit me as well:
http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com/homosexuality.htm
In 15 reasons why homosexuality is wrong I agree with these the most:
1. Homosexuality injures the fabric of society, especially children .
3. Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family.
6. Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of domestic violence.
7. Homosexuals have a much higher rate of molestation than Heterosexuals
8. Homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible.
9. Homosexuals want to redefine marriage , changing the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage.
10. Homosexual marriages will lead to other “unnatural” unions
11. Homosexual marriage is not a “right”.
13. God did not intend for same sex relationships to exist.
14. Homosexuality is not genetic.
While number 15 says that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry I have no problems with civil unions nor domestic parnerships however I draw the line at adoptions and Holy Matrimony. Need more reasons I feel homosexuality is shameful and unnatural?
- angelmama August 10, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
None of those things have been proven definitively. Do you really think homosexuals have it out to ruin society ? Do you really think that's the point of a person who is homosexual? Again, I reiterate as I said in another response. You need to get to know homosexuals on a personal level so that you can understand that your hatred/fear is absolutely unfounded.
- learnlogic August 10, 2009 4:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
1, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 14 have never been demonstrated to be true.
8 and 13 have no place in a secular society .
- MrBook August 10, 2009 9:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage"
this is simply not true, as is evidenced by the many, many wives of certain rulers of antiquity. that too was considered "time-tested" in its day. the ultimate failure of many appeals to tradition--which this is--is that it seeks to artificially define one point in human history as the golden standard against which all other periods must be measured, but ignore previous such periods, which are usually in direct contradiction to such a decision, as even a cursory review of biblical genealogy will reveal.
the argument as presented amounts to little more than simple fearmongering about some cataclysimic consequences never actually identified yet which are somehow supposed to be inevitable. this has some admitted rhetorical force, but no logical force, because all actions have unforeseen consequences. this is known in some circles as chaos theory.
- silverwhisper July 13, 2008 8:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Anyone who feels that gay marriage harms traditional marriage is surely an insecure person. We live in a fluid ever-changing world. Surely we must come to appreciate and accept the differences within each and every individual. Bigotry has its roots in the fear of the unfamiliar. As the unfamiliar becomes familiar, fear and hatred will dissipate. It took an extremely long time for this country to finally eliminate the miscegenation laws. Why can’t we just move forward in peace and harmony? If each one of us would simply concentrate on making sure that our own lives were decent and productive without trying to disrupt others’ lives, this world would be so much more peaceful and harmonious!
- redondo July 13, 2008 11:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
I'm a bit lost. Where is your evidence that gay marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage? The point is stated but not backed up or explained. The link provided doesn't actually include any justification for this argument either. All I can see offered is the "yardstick" metaphor, which doesn't really make sense. Yes, changing the definition of a meter (not "yardstick" which is not a defined measurement) would be a problem. It would be tough to know how long a yard is.
I don't see how that extrapolates to marriage... are you suggesting that if gays marry, heterosexual couples who've been married for years will not know if they're married or not anymore?
If anything, I think traditional marriage is harmed by the high divorce rate, green card marriages, Britney Spears getting married for a weekend, etc. Even then, how is any traditional "sacred" marriage harmed? If your marriage is sound, it will not be affected by the actions of other people.
- lostlo August 19, 2008 12:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: Yes
I'd like to hear more on this. I understand why you feel that government-licensed marriage for same-sex couples would be a departure from tradition. But would government-licensed "civil unions" for same-sex couples harm your institution of marriage? What about the non-licensed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples that happen every day in America? Are you going to try to stop those?
- hibernate August 26, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It seems to me that when most people are asked about gay "marriages" they simple will not give. its seen as an assault on traditional religious ceremonies, in that a homosexual couple cannot, in the eyes of god , join in holy matrimony. but when the issue of civil unions arise its ok. i believe if your are a homosexual seeking marriage in the eyes of god thats a mockery to all things most americans hold dear, but when its being sought in the eyes of the government i have no problem with it. i am opposed to gay "marriage" but not to civil unions. most people define marriage as man and a woman joining in matrimony under the eyes of god, by this definition gay marriage is simply an oxymoron, a contradiction in and of itself. there simply cant be gay "marriage".
- camdaddy09 June 4, 2009 10:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I partly agree. I believe they should be able to file taxes together and get all the legal benefits in theory off married couples. But should not be allowed to wed. In theory, but i think that we shouldn't open the door for any advance of the homosexual society , I am completely against it and think that it is evil. But so is a lot of stuff in society.
- lucas weaver June 6, 2009 11:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
And what makes those things you think are evil, truly evil?
- quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
His religion says its evil
- camdaddy09 August 8, 2009 7:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I'm hoping there's more to it than that, but I hope that hope about all people.
- quantummechanik September 1, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's not that gays are living together. It's not about taxes or health insurance . Its not about a license. All anybody wants is that when gays get a license the clerk marks out marriage and writes civil union.
- mike1948 August 9, 2009 12:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What about those Christian Churches that marry homosexuals?
- MrBook August 9, 2009 4:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It seems to me that most of the confusion here has to do with the usage of the term "marriage" in both a legal and a religious sense. When you write "the real thing" here, I think you fall into that same trap. What defines the real thing? You mean marriage as a sacrament, or at least marriage as sanctioned by your religious framework.
My question to you: how do you feel about people outside of your religious community getting married? Their rules for marriage are different from yours (some slightly, some vastly). Do you think that anyone with a set of expectations for marriage that differ from yours is cheapening marriage for you and those like you? If so, what you are advocating is a ban on all marriages of people with other faiths. If not, you disagree with your own argument. Christian marriage is no more harmed by homosexuals being married than it is by Jews or Muslims getting married. (I could just as easily have written Catholic marriage vs. Methodist or Presbyterian, for that matter.)
- thoughtcounts Z September 8, 2008 1:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
"...no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived."
The Roman Empire only fell after it banned gay marriage.
Native American cultures used to have gay marriage but no longer do as a result of practices like, oh, the Spaniards setting dogs on them. The cultures still survive today, just in tiny numbers. It has nothing to do with their marriage practices and everything to do with having someone else come in and build an empire on top of them. The first hit were the Aztecs and Mayans, who did not accept homosexuality.
- sharky September 24, 2008 8:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The FRC presupposes that gay marriage is bad because it is "fake," then uses this assumption to state that such "fake" marriages harm other marriages. Then he/she states that because other marriages are harmed, gay marriage is bad, and thus fake. Circular reasoning is a common logical fallacy.
My marriage is living proof that the argument is false. I have many married gay friends, and their marriages give inspiration and strength to my (heterosexual) marriage.
The FRC metaphor of gay marriages being counterfeit $20 is inappropriate. I propose that that a better metaphor would liken gay marriages to the currency of another country. Like currencies, gay and heterosexual marriages are certainly different (sexuality, anatomy, gender relations, etc) but still essentially the same thing. Does printing more Canadian dollars hurt my wallet? Of course not.
- chemteach
November 13, 2008 12:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
The exessive divorce rate degrades the principal of marriage much more than two same-sex persons making (and keeping!) a commitment to each other. Every day it seems I am bombarded by a co-worker who is now going through a divorce.
Not to mention, that it is none of our buisness, and doesn't bother or hurt my marriage at all. My psyche is much more damaged by the heterosexual couples murdering each other plastered all over the news, than the pictures of other couples getting married. We all deserve the same happiness, and joy where we can find it.
- panursedeann December 8, 2008 5:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I believe this to be true because there are more obstacles to overcome to get married. Heteros are *expected* to get married, and will, at times, even when not prepared. When barriers to marriage are removed for same-sex couples, then it will even out.
- Ivar December 8, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
What is “holy” matrimony? What is it that makes it so “holy”? I assume that to be “Holy” something most likely derives from a religious purview. So then, matrimony must be in line with our religious beliefs at some level. But even if we could widen the net and make a definition of marriage that is conciliatory with every religion, what about those people who have no religion? I hope we agree that the government cannot impress religious dogma or interfere with the religious reestablishment—but if an idea cannot be rationalized through anything other than religious, then it might as well be religious dogma, and therefore it cannot be imposed on the People. Would the Protestants be happy if Catholics prohibited meat on Lenten Fridays? What if Christians prohibited Muslim girls from wearing a headdress?
What exactly is the “fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female”? Now, I understand that the penis fits quite nicely into the vagina, and that copulation is usually effective for producing children. And I would not think it unreasonable that this is the product of evolution , or the hand of God. Yet, these design elements serve to carry on the human race—to say that man and woman should be together just because their genitals say they should is reading morality from an irrelevant biological function. Marriage is about love and happiness, and the only way the idea of gender complementariness could dictate marriage is if marriage was meant to produce children. I know some people believe that is a purpose to marriage, but this wouldn’t be America if the government dictated what kind of marriage even heterosexual people should have.
- The Monk February 15, 2009 4:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
On a philosophical viewpoint here is why homosexuality is seen Biblically as wrong. Under the strict beliefs of the Catholic church, the followers of the Catholic Church believe that homosexuality is wrong. This argument would be valid to an audience who takes a firm stance on religious beliefs. Biblically speaking Gen. 2:24 is the only text which makes it clear that marriage, as intended by God, is for a male and a female. All other passages either alluding or referring to this are commentary in one form or another and presume heterosexuality as the gender basis for marriage in God's plan. For example, Matt 5:27-32; Matt 19:1-9; there are parallel passages in Mark and Luke; Ephesians 5:21-33. When the prophets (especially Hosea) use marriage as a metaphor or symbol to describe God's relationship with Israel, the heterosexuality of marriage is presumed.
In his commentary on Romans 1:26b-27, Brendan Byrne writes: "With respect to both female and male homosexual practice, the text points to an 'exchange' of the 'natural' form of (sexual) relations for that which is 'contrary to nature'. The language reflects the conventional Stoic sense of 'nature' as the established order of things. Central to that established order was dominance of male over female as far as gender relationships were concerned. Where ancient writers condemned same-sex relations, what they found offensive was the fact that such relations blurred the all-important distinction of gender role, inducing males to act as females and vice versa. The 'reduction' of the male to the female constituted a 'shame' contrary to nature. In the Jewish adaptation of such ideas reflected in this text a more theological note may also be present: such behavior is contrary to the design inserted into the natural order by the Creator."
Byrne mentions in a subsequent paragraph that the Letter to the Romans and the world then made no distinction between a homosexual orientation and the free choice made by some individuals to engage in homosexual genital relations. So we shall not find in Scripture any commentary on the orientation of homosexuality itself; just homosexual genital acts.
There is also 1 Timothy 1:10 which refers to male homosexuality.
Here is a link to a section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on homosexuality: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm #2357. The Catechism is a book in the Catholic religion that explains the beliefs of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Catechism, homosexuality is forbidden. The teachings of the Catholic Church as laid out in the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular the teachings on sexuality: "All the baptized are called to chastity" (CCC, n.2348); "Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence" (CCC, n.2349); "... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... Under no circumstance can they be approved" (CCC, n.2333); This means that under certain religious beliefs homosexuality is seen as a disorder.
I believe that homosexuals should not be able to marry because God created male and female to become one flesh despite their opposite genders. The genitals of both man and woman were made specifically for each other, and it is in God’s creation that he made them that way for a specific reason: procreation. Man and woman are supposed to populate the earth and beget children. Man and woman cleave to each other to become one, and that is a very spiritual thing to many religious people. Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.” (CCC, n.2360)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/HOMO.HTM . This sight is another reason why homosexuality is deemed as incorrect for marriage.
- Kabunky February 17, 2009 12:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Cool. Believe whatever you want to believe, but the First Amendment does not give any religious institution the right to enforce its ideas and actions upon any other individuals.
In other words, all arguments regarding God, Christianity, etc. are moot.
- QuinceyQuick February 17, 2009 1:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
While the teachings of the Church are clear that homosexuality is unnatural, to make blanket statements that “the followers of the Catholic Church believe that homosexuality is wrong” is not only false, but, as a Catholic, one that I take personal offense to. The Church is one of the largest religious denominations in the world, among Christians and among all faiths, encompassing over one billion people. There are many faucets of Catholicism unique to the faith, but, even though public deviation is not well tolerated, dissent does occur, even in the church hierarchy. As for the faith of the laypeople, it is often a personal matter and faith does not necessary lay contingent on complete adherence to dogma, but rather the belief of at least the core principles of Catholicism.
I believe that is the will of God that we should respect other peoples’ religious beliefs, and that to join Church and State at any level would be to force, in this case, the Catholic faith upon all people of the United States. I think it is un-Christian and un-Catholic to do such a thing, and so I invite you to give a logical, not theological, argument against gay marriage.
- The Monk February 17, 2009 2:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
And I am sorry that you took offense, it was not supposed to be offensive. I was only the interviewer! I took down his thoughts and then paraphrased them. kabunky
- Kabunky February 17, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Dear Monk,
I hope you understand where I was coming from. I paraphrased an opinion from someone that had opinion I thought was worthy to display as it showed diversity, and of course allows for some debate! Thank you, and I am sorry Monk, I hope you forgive me. Kabunky
- Kabunky February 17, 2009 8:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
( This was from an interview I had done over the break with A Catholic priest on his opinion which I paraphrased.)I found quotes in the Bible to back his argument. This is meant for a religious based audience only. )
- Kabunky February 18, 2009 7:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
According to the Family Research Council, "A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage". So because homosexuality was not allowed one hundred years ago and same-sex marriage was the only right way that makes it the "yardstick" of tradition? Tradition is not always best. In many cases, with time comes knowledge and we are able to reform our ways for the better rather than relying on the beliefs of the past. It could be possible that in the next twenty years a new invention will replace the yardstick, even though now we can't see that possibility.
- SweeneyToddInc February 17, 2009 9:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
How in the hell can gay marriage harm a traditional marriage ? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. I think that people aren't secure with their sexuality and they're scared. Honestly, it's about them, not us.
- ChristinaLovesMariaForever October 15, 2009 3:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Explain how gay marriage has hurt other country's to us. Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and so on....where is the destroyed economy ? Where is the Hell fire and brimstone blasting them all to hell? You cant can you. How does two people who love and cherish each other hurt your marriage ? It doesnt does it. And the key word here is Holy matrimony...What is holy about divorce?
- oldfoxbob October 28, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Canada has had legalized gay marriage since 2005 and in most provinces since 2003...it's 2009 and Canada is still standing. My straight relatives in Canada are still married and feel perfectly secure in their marriages. God hasn't consumed the nation in pillars of flame...and quite frankly they're doing quite a bit better than we are.
- RonJ73 October 29, 2009 4:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"when gay activists and their supporters cry “discrimination” they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage."
yet with this statement you create a circular argument: they cannot be married, therefore there is no way in which to evaluate fairly the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality. which of course would be necessary in order for them to be married. ad nauseum, ad infinitum, yes?
- silverwhisper July 13, 2008 8:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
This is a poor argument since it presumes that traditional marriage would not be upheld and that there are no obvious instances of discrimination. First of all, the value of traditional marriage is in no way reduced by extending this right to other parties. Second of all, people who are not married face a myriad of issues which their married counterparts do not face such as access to one's partner when in hospital, access to healthcare, insurance, and more. While more and more companies are adapting their policies, it requires an act by government to extend the same rights across all, and the only reasonable approach is to recognize same sex marriages as no different from 'traditional marriages".
Certainly the argument that it somehow trivializes 'traditional marriage' would be a flawed one, the argument that same sex relationships face no discrimination is easily laid to rest by pointing to some self evident facts to the contrary.
And so far I have failed to hear any good reason why marriage for same sex couples should be kept illegal?
- PvM September 9, 2008 5:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
While most of Americans may not want to permit homosexuals to marry, The United States is not about the majority opinion. The government itself is designed as a mechanism to ensure equality - not to propagate inequality through the tyranny of the majority. It may not always work that way but it is the whole purpose of checks and balances.
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 9:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
This “debate” is about defending what those who have taken the “YES” position believe to be an indefensible prejudice: Not allowing consenting adults to marry whom they choose is derived from traditionally entrenched prejudicial beliefs about homosexuality. The FRC’s argument here is that as this prejudice is held generally, it is justifiable. If they are committed to the position that “great numbers represent justification” then, would they similarly react to polls in the 80’s that showed an overwhelming disapproval of making “spousal rape” a crime (i.e., wives are the property of husbands)? Or polls throughout the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that approved of “Jim Crow” and racial separation? On this line of reasoning, these policies are seemingly justifiable. If not, the FRC is engaging in selective reasoning and should be criticized as such.
- Alex M August 26, 2008 2:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
During an episode of "Penn & Teller's BullSh*t", Penn & Teller interviewed a "pollster" named Frank Luntz who gathered info for Fox News. He admitted that his job was to ask the questions in a way that he gets the "right answer". He (Luntz) even got a guy to say that he doesn't mind spending money on education and healthcare for illegal immigrants, but also that the government is spending too much money on them. (video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 )
Who is to say that the (relatively) few people in the poll can represent the views of 300+ million people? A
- NCHammer326 September 3, 2008 8:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The majority of Chinese citizens thought foot binding made a beautiful foot, and women accepted the corset.
That it's currently a societal norm means little to nothing on its being "good."
- sharky September 24, 2008 10:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Most of Americans don’t want to legalize gay marriage, but how does that affect all that oppose it? If gay couples want to get married, why is it up to the whole world to decide whether or not they can? To all opposing and opposite-sex couples; why should you get to be happily married to the one you love and same- sex couples are denied the right in most states? Whether or not you think “being gay is wrong” doesn’t matter. There will still be gay couples so why not let them live life as happily as you are.
- skittles February 5, 2009 9:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I see what you’re saying, but if we legalize gay rights then they will be living among us, and influencing the minds of our children in a negative way. So in the end it is in the hands of the Americans. I hate to say it but when a couple is gay they are just experimenting and playing house. Do you honestly think that those marriages’ will last? Then that will effect and children that might have been involved between that couple.
- cjobeth10 February 5, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
According to many studies (including a fairly recent one performed by Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson), revealed that children in same-sex families were no more likely to be predisposed to gay, lesbian, or bisexual lifestyles than their opposite-sex family counterparts.
Please do your research before making such claims.
- QuinceyQuick February 6, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children." Thats part of an article from the family research council for you to read its really good here the URL...Enjoy.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
- cjobeth10 February 9, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Oh, you're right! Here, let me parse up the articles for you.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.
Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.
David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
Hey, would you look at that?! Most of the articles are talking about the -absence- of a parent! Maybe it's -divorces- that cause psychological problems, not lacking a parent of one gender or the other.
- QuinceyQuick February 9, 2009 3:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Obviously you did not read the points of this article right...
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
2. Children need fathers.
3. Children need mothers.
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
once agian heres the URL if you would like to look into the details of the points...
- cjobeth10 February 11, 2009 9:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I care what sources the article cites. Any old article can make any old claim, but unless the sources they cite are relevant and compelling, the article is as good as Joe Schmoe's rantings about why the world will end in ten days.
Once again, I implore you to look at the titles of the references. You'll see that most of what's written in the article itself is just clever wordplay and misusing research to further one's own ends. The article might -tell- you that the research is against same-sex marriages, but in reality, the references are against divorce and single parents.
You can't build your argument off of research that is making a very different point. You can't pull research out of context and use it for your own ends. That's academic dishonesty.
- QuinceyQuick February 11, 2009 10:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Wait, what is this about women and marriage domesticating men?
Sexism at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry, ladies, gentlemen, and wild, crazy, chaotic men who have not yet found a woman to tame them.
- quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
When people say that "gays" will be "living among us" it sounds like you're referring to aliens or some unknown life form. But the fact of the matter is, they are people. Living, breathing, human beings just like you and me. They will be “living among us” whether or not gay marriage is legalized. Gay couples are no more playing house than kids who marry young. A man can fall in love with a man just like a man can fall in love with a woman. And who says marriages between a gay couple won’t last? Now days, opposite-sex married couples are getting divorces left and right, what about their children? Should getting divorced be illegal because of that reason too? Other people are free to live their lives happily without the whole world scrutinizing who they fall in love with. Why should they get to dictate how those who are gay get to live? Gay people will always “be among us”. They’re not going anywhere. It’s not like they are a separate species that can be extinct. I say stop fighting and let them live.
- skittles February 5, 2009 7:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I realize that and a lot of times there is a reason for people marring young and that is only because there is an unexpected pregnancy involved no that doesn’t make it right, but there are also laws on getting married to young. If we legalized gay marriage in the U.S. then people would think its ok and safe but there are so many negative effects such as STD’S I realize that there are STD’S in other places too but the risk of getting them is a lot higher when being in a gay sexual relationship. And do you really think its possible for someone to be bi-sexual. To me its just a disgusting joke that people are wanting to experiment with. And that’s wrong.
- cjobeth10 February 5, 2009 11:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Well, the probable reason why male homosexual sex gives more STDs is that you have two factors involved: (1) penetration and (2) pregnancy.
As a male, you can't get pregnant, so there's no reason for most contraceptives. Similarly, STDs have more commonly passed from penetrator to penetratee (though I'll probably have to find a citation for that one).
As you said, it is "just a disgusting joke" -to you-. To some people, it's a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. How can we have your judgment be more valid than another person's judgment?
- QuinceyQuick February 6, 2009 11:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm serious. I've never equated the two, and I'm asking how you came to that conclusion. I find a lot of things disgusting, and I find a lot of things morally wrong, but they usually do not overlap.
- quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"It is irrelevant for equal protection review of statute that voters rather than a legislative body enacted the statute. Lee v. State of Or., D.Or.1995" U.S.C.A. Amend 14, Vol. 8
It doesn't matter who puts the laws in place. If the law violates Equal Protection Clause, it's unconstitutional. End of story.
- QuinceyQuick February 13, 2009 12:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Assessing the validity and bias in statistics is a tricky business, and to do it right would require a thorough examination of the study itself, which I certainly can’t do here. However, I can say that it is does not make for a good argument if you cite sources that are outdated. All of these polls cited here are from 2003-2004—if there hasn’t been a more recent poll, given the proposition out in California and the election, I’d be quite surprised—are over four years old and do not reflect the current political trends in the American public. Thus, the assertion that “Americans Reject Gay Marriage” is not adequately supported by evidence. Even if it was, why should that stop our advocacy? If we should make laws to allow gay marriage, then we will be doing so by a democratic process, an instrument of the will of the people.
- The Monk February 16, 2009 8:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First of all, people see what they want to see. Personally I have seen many polls on the gay marriage issue and the majority of those I've seen indicate that most Americans are in favor of some kind of gay marriage whether it be called a marriage or a civil union. This article is clearly biased toward only those poll results that are favorable to the FRC's side of the argument. The accuracy of polls is always unsure and I highly question the results of some of the polls listed in this argument. Second, whether or not most people agree with banning same sex marriage or not is essentially irrelevant. Majority does not necessarily rule in this country. The majority at one point thought that slavery was acceptable but that does not make it any more justifiable. Prejudice is prejudice regardless of how many people you get to back it up.
- me58 February 28, 2009 10:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
a parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
i'm sorry, are you seriously comparing homosexual relationships to *rape* (incest) or adultery? is that really what you mean to suggest here?
ed
- silverwhisper July 15, 2008 10:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First of all, Muslims and other religious practitioners not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion have and do allow muliple marriages.
Secondly, if being allowed to marry is not a civil right, I don't know what it.
As for natural, how come same sexual mating behavior exists in the same proportion in the mammal world in general as it does amongst homo sapiens?
- Llantha July 27, 2008 9:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Sorry, feel like I have to say it again. That's a made up word. Jews were not involved in the creation of this word.
- quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I couldn't keep a straight face reading this. It would also have helped you realize your last sentence isn't even a sentence.
To put more care into rebutting your argument than was put into framing it:
A parent can't marry their child because it would be psychologically abusive; the parent is in a position of authority over their child. This is not comparable to relationships between consenting adults.
Two- to three-partner marriages have died out not because of wisdom, but because of social equality between the sexes and the rise of industrialization, which means money is no longer represented in land, families are more mobile socially and geographically, and marriages have lost diplomatic value. It means that a rich man no longer needs to collect wives as representatives of the land he's acquired and tokens gathered to assure good relations with his neighbors. Polygamy and polyandry are also usually inequal-power relationships.
None of this has anything to do with two unrelated adults who are in love, want to marry, and cannot based purely on the laws of the society they live in.
- sharky September 24, 2008 10:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
People of the same sex should be allowed to marry. Amendment 14 states that allpeople should be treated equally. Not letting two people who love one another no matter if the same sex is not being treated equally. You can not help who you love. I vote YES for gay marriage.
- runner03 October 24, 2008 10:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Imagine a social contract entitled "married with a man". Imagine a man (who can give legal consent) being unable to enter such a social contract. Under these very limited circumstances, is it not true that the man is being discriminated against on the basis of gender?
Granted, marriages are more complicated than other social contracts, perhaps...
- QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 2:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
this is such an ignorant argument.
gays can marry whoever the hell they want.
IT'S A CIVIL RIGHT.
- buckeyes121 April 16, 2009 7:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
When Iowa legalized gay marriage the argument was over! Article IV, Section 1of the US Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause says public acts ( marriage , drivers licenses, ect.), of one state must be recognized by another. Gay marriages done in Iowa will have to be recognized in all the other states.
- mike1948 July 31, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Is that a fact what about the concealed carry permit holders?
- countryboy July 31, 2009 7:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would say yes but I'm not an attorney. What is needed is for the NRA or some other group to start a test case.
- mike1948 August 1, 2009 12:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Less than two weeks ago the senate stopped a bill that would of made it legal for concealed carry permit holders to be recognize from state to state.
As it stands today no state haves to recognize the permits.
- countryboy August 1, 2009 4:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Someone would to start a test case to prove it but I think the Senate was wrong. States not recognizing the concealed carry permit of other states should be unconstitutional.
- mike1948 August 2, 2009 12:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Should be but not
- countryboy August 2, 2009 10:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Marriage does NOT mean that both Moms and Dads matter. Of course it is true that Moms and Dads matter, but that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion which is ‘Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal? Nowhere in the dictionary within the various definitions of marriage, is there mention of Moms and Dads. There are marriages where there are no children. Should there then be legalization of marriage for same sex couples as long as both parties have agreed not to have children?
There are single-parent families which raise exceptional children. Just look at President Bill Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. They turned out quite well. I have no doubt that there are single Dads who also raise great children. There are also two-parent families whose children grow up to be terrible citizens. Yes, there may be valid reasons for someone being against legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, but I do not feel that your premise is validated by your example.
- redondo July 13, 2008 11:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Popular culture has labeled the issue, as has this website, a question of "should marriage for same-sex couples be legal?"
The question can be asked another way, which those for same-sex marriage like to avoid: "Should we change the definition of marriage?"
Marriage as it stands is one of the central cultural institutions in Western Civilization and 3000 years of wisdom as well as countless scientific studies show that a good mother and father are the best situation to raise a child in. Does this mean other situations can't be good? No. It just means other situations are better.
Same-sex marriage expands the definition of marriage, and in doing so, states that having two mommies is just as good as a mommy and a daddy. This denies the inherent differences between men and women and their value to child rearing.
If we can redefine marriage, saying we know better than 3000 years of human wisdom because our hearts tell us so, doesn't that mean we can have compassion for any change?
- Benjamin Tuttle July 28, 2008 6:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Marriage from a legal standpoint is simply a contract between two people that gives certain legal rights and responsibilities and affects property ownership.
If you're talking about the sacrament of marriage, i.e. religious ceremony, you can exclude homosexuals all you want. The law is not the same as religion, however. This issue is about the legality of "marriage" as recognized by the state. Legal marriage does not mandate, require, or even encourage children. Society encourages children. If you have a problem with children who aren't raised by a mother and father, you need to try to bring about societal and attitude changes, not trying to suppress the civil rights of a group you dislike.
If you don't think homosexuals should be allowed to raise children, that's an adoption issue. All you're doing by fighting gay marriage is ensuring that children of homosexual couples will have unmarried parents. Is that somehow better?
- lostlo August 19, 2008 1:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The sacrament of marriage is the exact reason why the laws concerning marriage were created. We wouldn't have "marriage" as a concept if it weren't for religion . Society, though, doesn't in fact encourage children . If you look at Western Europe, their birth rates are well below replacement and dangerously close to societal collapse despite their natalist government policies. The United States is leaning towards those dismal numbers itself.
I am first and foremost about children in my opposition to same-sex marriage . We are already seeing vast changes in culture in the states that have adopted same-sex marriage. These states are shutting down Catholic adoption agencies by forcing the law (same-sex marriage is legal ) to take precedent over their religion in their adoption agencies. Same-sex marriage starts to trample religious freedom even if it is "only" a legal issue.
The other major cultural shift is in that a school can no longer (and religious institutions lest they violate "hate laws" or discriminate) hold up traditional opposite-sex marriage as the normal, optimal solution to a child. Confusing children at an early age as to whether they should marry a boy or a girl is not good for children still in the development stages. Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a child marries a boy or a girl is equivalent to society saying that girls are the SAME as boys. This is patently false... men and women are EQUAL, but NOT the same.
I agree that societal and attitude changes are required about marriage. Our out-of-wedlock birthrate in the US is staggering, and the statistics about children raised in single parent households are appalling. That being said, legalizing, and therefore societal endorsing, same-sex marriage says that our society doesn't care that a child has a mother and father. We have taken that option off the table. Adoption agencies are not allowed to discriminate and favor a married opposite-sex couple over a same-sex one anymore, which deprives children of a mother and father. A same-sex couple is obviously a wonderful option for a child that is in foster care or in dire straights, but society needs to be able to favor an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex one in adoption. A child has a right to a mother and father when it is possible.
Additionally, the whole notion that it is "discrimination" is ridiculous, no offense. Same-sex marriage is a NEW right. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I will inevitably hear the rebuttal of how inter-racial marriages were illegal, and that is a non sequitur. There is no difference between the races, but there are staggering differences between men and women. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but some individuals are predisposed towards someone of their sex, be it by genetics, nurture, or nature or some combination.
By redefining marriage, we have not only thrown the notion that men and women are different out the window, we have necessarily changed that definition to allow anyone to marry anyone if it is consensual. There is no reason, therefore, that three people cannot marry into a polygamous relationship if it is about consensual decisions between any persons. There is a reason that thousands of years of human history have evolved to this point; that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that reason is being torn down.
I have the utmost compassion for gays and their situation, but that does not mean I forsake my standards and ignore the consequences of such a change because of my emotional "compassion."
Thanks for the discussion.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Where did the law come from? I don't know, and I appreciate your thoughtful explanation, but you have made a large number of assumptions in your argument. Unfortunately, my profound skepticism and love for the truth prevents me from accepting your assumptions outright without any evidence or explanation of why you think it's safe to make them. So if you truly want to convince me, and I honestly am open-minded, you will need to give me some more information about these assumptions. For clarity's sake, I will go through each of your paragraphs in order and ask questions where I need more clarification.
1. First of all, I was not aware that the concept of marriage would not exist without religion . Can you please give me some more information about which religion invented the concept of marriage, or perhaps point me in the direction of where you learned this? I have not learned this in my studies, which admittedly have not been exhaustive. As for birth rates, I am familiar about the low birth rates in some countries, but I do not see what that has to do with gay marriage. If I had to guess, I would think that you mean to say that countries that are less religious have fewer children , but I do not see how that relates to the legality of gay marriage. Remember, this debate is about whether gay marriage should be legal , not about religious views on gay marriage. If you want to argue that laws should be based on religion you are welcome to do so, but I'm not a huge fan of theocracy myself. I am a huge fan of the US Constitution, personally.
2. I am not familiar with the shocking violation of religious freedom that you mention here, and would like to read more about it. Could you provide a little more detail so I can do some research? Names of the agencies involved, name of a court case, which state/time period... any of these things would help me to find more detail about the cases involved.
3. "Confusing children at an early age as to whether they should marry a boy or a girl is not good for children still in the development stages." In this statement you have assumed two things a) if it is legal for homosexuals to marry, children will be confused about who they want to marry, and b) such confusion is harmful to the child in a way that you did not specify. This may be correct, but again I have not seen the evidence, could you tell me where I could read more about these claims? "Claiming that it doesn't matter whether a child marries a boy or a girl is equivalent to society saying that girls are the SAME as boys." Here, you have inadvertantly committed a logical fallacy. The two claims are not equivalent. Here, I'll show you: "It doesn't matter if a business owner is a woman or a man. Therefore, women and men are the same." The two are not equivalent. If you think they are, do you mean to suggest that women should not be allowed to own small businesses? Of course not, you made no such claim because the scientific that men and women are not biologically identical is not the same thing as a society standard about what men and women should or should not be allowed to do.
4. I'm sorry, I did not say that changes in societal attitudes are required. I do not think that I have the right to dictate what others are allowed to believe. I do have personal standards which differ from the most common societal views, but I do not really feel compelled to demand that others change their views to be like me. As much as I'd love for us to agree about something :) Your notion that something being legal means that society "endorses" it confuses me, if you care to clarify this position I'd love to hear it. And the rest of this paragraph appears to be your complaints about adoption law . As I mentioned in my original post, if you think the adoption laws should be changed, then you're in the wrong place. This debate is about whether homosexual couples should be allowed to get married, not about whether they should be allowed to adopt children. If you feel that's a problem, why aren't you against gay adoption? Why gay marriage? And finally, it's great that you care about the rights of children, but all children do have a mother and father, as far as I know... maybe I missed human cloning coming into vogue? I think you mean to say that you think all children have the right to be raised the way that you think is most appropriate. Do you also feel that we should enact laws dictating how parents are allowed to raise children? It's fine with me if you do, I'm just trying to understand your argument.
(this was too long, so there will be a part 2)
- lostlo June 16, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
5. You were right to say "no offense," because as a member of a heterosexual, interracial couple I am tempted to take offense. The right for me to marry my boyfriend was also once a NEW right. Your claim that there are differences in gender but not race lead me to think you are talking about genetics. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you seem to be saying that it's fine to treat groups differently under the law if their DNA is different. Am I understanding your argument correctly? That also troubles me. I do not like the idea of establishing legal precedent that equal protection under the law can be discarded based on genetics. Surely you can see how that might be abused.
6. I do not understand how allowing homosexual couples to marry implies that men and women are identical. I also do not understand your next sentence. It is false that if gay marriage were legal, that would mean that polygamy would be legal. The reason that polygamy would not be permitted if gay marriage were legal is that polygamy is illegal under separate laws. I believe you are trying to say that you think that if gay marriage becomes legal, that automatically means that polygamy will become legal. This is a straw man fallacy, because you have presented no evidence that this is true. I do not believe any such evidence exists, unless you have the ability to see the future, in which case surely you have something better to do with your time than argue with me :) Finally, you say "there is a reason" that gay marriage is illegal, but you do not specify what it is. If there is a reason, name it. Your assertion that the current situation is automatically best because "thousands of years of human history have evolved to this point" is laughable. I'm sorry, but it is. In the 1940s, thousands of years of human history had evolved to the Holocaust. Does that mean the Holocaust was good? The true history of humanity is a tale of ups and downs, of progress and regress. Humanity has made some serious bad calls, but they seemed like good ideas to the people of the time. If you truly believe that the status quo is good and the current change is bad, you need a better argument than "this is good because it's how things are." (if you want to be taken seriously, anyway)
7. What is the "situation" of the gays to which you refer? It's also interesting to me that you put the word compassion in quotes, as I see no compassion for gays (and their mysterious "situation") on display in your argument. However, I am open-minded and realize that you are probably telling the truth and are not just some bigot, so if you'd like to provide examples of times when you have demonstrated compassion for homosexuals, I would be delighted to hear that evidence as well.
No problem, I always make time for courteous and rational discussion.
- lostlo June 16, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I actually replied with a long post, answering point by point, but it was lost somehow. It made me rethink the issue, so I'll provide a few answers to your questions and then reframe the issue.
2) http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions / - Sadly, the Catholic agency had to choose between their beliefs and law . The State, which mandated that same-sex marriages were equal to traditional marriages, made it impossible to differentiate legally.
4) As you can see, codifying same-sex marriage as equal in law DOES force your beliefs on others. Either the Catholic adoption agency agrees with same-sex marriage, or it must close down. If that is not coercion, I don't know what is.
Now for a little reframing.
My hope is that you would attempt to see the issue from the opposite side, although I am a little discouraged that you think it is my responsibility to prove "when I have demonstrated compassion for homosexuals." My hope is that, as an informed women who cares about the issue enough to debate someone on a site like this, you would research these issues. I encourage you to read up on many of the religious issues surrounding same-sex marriage in Europe and the US, as well as read some intellectual discussions from the pro-traditional marriage side. I certainly am not the most eloquent spokesman, but one must first disregard the notion that opponents are either bigots or not progressive in their thinking (and therefor dumb). You certainly don't get any intellectual debate about the issue in the New York Times or on CNN.
The problem with the whole issue is that gays think the marriage issue is all about gays. It has barely anything to do with gays frankly, and every attempt to change the definition of traditional marriage in American society is met with the same attempt to stop it. The issue is that marriage, as defined as the union between one man and one woman, should be kept that way for the good of society. Utah wasn't allowed into the Union until it changed its incorrect definition of marriage to that of the United States.
Do you think that marriage between one man and one woman, especially in regards to the raising of children , is the ideal for society? Does it make no difference if a child has two mothers instead of a mother and a father?
Ignoring the difference between the sexes is required to disregard this ideal. Thinking that a male and a female parent in a loving married relationship do not bring something different to the table than two loving gay parents is just untrue.
The point is that traditional-marriage advocates are arguing FOR the ideal of opposite-sex marriage for the betterment of society, and not against any group in particular.
It most certainly is not a discrimination issue for gays, even though it is constantly touted as one. There is no difference between a caucasian man and an asian man other than cosmetic difference. There are huge differences between men and women. This is why we have girl scouts and boy scouts, but not white scouts and asian scouts. We should as a society be able to differentiate in our laws regarding different things, and gays currently have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. Gays just don't choose to because of their genetic/nature/nurture/biological differences. Allowing equal rights in visitation, inheritance, etc should obviously be law, and currently it can be law in many cases through contracts between individuals, but where not it should be made so.
In order to make it a discrimination issue, therefor, we would have to change the definition of marriage from "the union of one man and one woman" to "the union between individuals who love each other." In this case, there is no rational argument one could make against any grouping of consensual, loving humans joining together in a "marriage," including polygamy and intra-family marriage, which is why that definition is not true.
I hope this helps, and I appreciate the discussion. My main goal merely is to at least get others to think a few steps beyond the initial emotionality of the issue. What's good for individuals on an micro scale is not necessarily good for society. Thinking past "stage 1," though most people do not, is imperative to understanding any issue. Thinking about the consequences wrought on children as they are taught in school that there is no ideal for marriage or relationships, about the consequences on men and women as marriage becomes any arrangement one pleases, and denying the differences between the value of men and women in child-rearing can have vast consequences that are unknowable. Making such a momentous change in society should be thought out, and at least voted on behind a banner a little more well-thought out than "Prop H8" or "Equal Rights."
- Benjamin Tuttle June 18, 2009 5:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When you say 3000 years of human wisdom, who are you referring to? The Greeks? The Romans? The Jews?
"Western Civilization and 3000 years of wisdom" vs. "3000 years of human wisdom"
Are you saying that people who aren't a part of western civilization aren't wise, or aren't human?
- quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
3000+ years of human wisdom extends to every major civilization on Earth. Western Civilization was mentioned obviously because of its Christian roots for the last 2000 years, but that does not mean marriage between same-sex couples was the norm in any civilization on Earth through history.
Suddenly, in the 21st century, we have a generation of people who believe that they are smarter than every one of those generations before. None of those generations were right, and this new generation is FAR smarter and knows better than same-sex marriage is good for society . That arrogance is appalling, as great as we would feel about seeing same-sex couples feel validated.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Humans progress. We expand. We evolve. We become better. In a thousand years, they'll have ideas and systems and beliefs that are better then our current ones.
- quantummechanik June 11, 2009 5:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
And they'll also have a lot of ideas that are worse. As I replied to "Blue Linchpin" below, there are a myriad of ideas in the last few millenia that have been worse than previous ideas. Communism, Fascism, Racism (which is far newer than we are taught) come to mind, but there are plenty of others that show that "human progress" is an illusion. Yes we make material progress, but that does not mean we always make moral progress.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 12, 2009 9:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Communism, Fascism, Racism (which is far newer than we are taught)"
Communism, in a sense, has always existed... it just was never formally codified. As an economic / political system it can work on a small scale (single tribes or family group), though it falls apart when projected over a larger group.
Fascism is just authoritarianism repackaged. There were many brutal tyrants before Fascism existed (and I'm sure that there will be many more).
Racism has always been part of the human condition... It is the idea that ones own social group (such as a tribe or nation) is superior to all others.
"Yes we make material progress, but that does not mean we always make moral progress."
We have been making great strides. Slavery, as a global institution, has been all but eliminated... and it no longer exists as a legal entity in much of the world. The rights of women have been expanding... to the point where in nearly every country they have the right to own property and vote.
- MrBook June 13, 2009 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
No offense, but your reading of history is a bit mistaken.
Communal societies may have existed, but that does not make them communist. The idea evolved overtime, and only after the concepts of States, corporations, and human rights could an idea like Communism be invented by Karl Marx.
Fascism is the same way. Fascism is necessarily authoritarian, though it is used interchangeably solely for that aspect in popular culture. Fascism also includes an economic component, one where the government exerts control over privately help businesses through partial ownership. This is not the simple complete ownership of industry in Communism, but has the result of government direction of industry in many cases. Again, this could not have evolved without the concepts of State, corporations, human rights, etc, which have only developed in the last few hundred years.
Racism is actually not the idea that a "tribal group or nation" is superior to others. Racism is distinctly about race. Europeans, for example, are usually of the same race but have been thinking that their tribe was superior to other European tribes for centuries. Only since the human ability to circumnavigate the globe and come into contact with distinct races of people has the concept of racism evolved to where it is today. The idea that one tribe is superior to another BECAUSE of the race could not have evolved when individuals never ran into individuals of separate races on a regular basis.
Again, you point out some of the moral progress we have made along with our material progress, but as I have shown, a lot of moral ideas have come along that are NOT progress. This Marxian idea of "Progress," which so many individuals exhibit an almost religious faith in, is dangerous for humanity. Thinking that every moral idea must be superior to the last, thinking that we inevitably will end up on Earth in a "better place," is a dangerous way to think. Not every idea, not every charismatic leader, leads us to a "better place." The consequences of these ideas in the long run cannot always be known, but a simple exercise in thinking beyond emotions and the immediate consequences can usually lead us to more sound understanding.
- Benjamin Tuttle June 13, 2009 12:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm not sure if you're aware, Benjamin Tuttle, but the last 3000+ years of human history have been anything but wise. They were marked by extreme anti-intellectualism, oppression, slavery, lack of women's rights, persecution of science , and worse. Should we just do whatever's been done in history and assume that because it's been done the last 3000+ years, it's correct? Perhaps you'd be the first to slice your arm open and bleed it out, as that was one of the "wise" cures of our forefathers.
Sorry, I've never seen such a ridiculous argument.
- Blue Linchpin June 11, 2009 7:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
What is the difference between a gay married couple and a family where one parent got hit by a bus?
The nuclear family is a myth these days. A mom, father and 1-3 kids just does not happen anymore. As the saying goes it takes a village to raise a child and even if the child has 2 mommies or two daddies it should not matter because they will still have their opposing gender's roles displayed to them by teachers, other relatives, and even friends parents.
The thing is same-sex couples want LEGAL marriage and the rights, protections and obligations associated with it such as immigration rights which married couples have but the current established 'civil unions' for homosexuals do not. Is there something magical about having pieces that dont fit together that should deny them the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy?
I'll take this time to quote the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION. If you want to pawn Marriage off as a religious thing then you had best be prepared to deal with alternative religions that permit same sex couples. If it is not then it becomes a civil rights issue as congress has made laws (tax laws) that respect the establishment of religion (Judeo-Christian ideal of marriage). In either case the result would be the same if one followed the logic of arguing from the Original Position (look it up on Wikipedia)
- Concerned Citizen September 3, 2008 3:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Doctors do not, by virtue of being doctor, have the Midasian power to turn all they touch into fact. Your source provides not a scintilla of evidence to support his sweeping generalizations (One example: "The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable.")
The pontifical submission of such conjecture into the debate as "evidence" should call into question your status as "expert."
Your argument is one that warrants serious consideration in this debate. Scientific evidence has not, however, lent its weight to either side. It's contrary to the spirit of reasoned debate to pretend otherwise.
- bspatafora September 11, 2008 5:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
The Alliance Defense Fund maintains that children without the “traditional” heterosexual parents will ultimately be a harmful influence on these children. Even though they proclaim all sorts of unbiased evidence exists to support their claim, they make no mention of it and, in this debate, it has become really important to make your “non-partisan research” known, and better yet, to quote it, so that your assertions are clear and verifiable. Lambda Legal, in their objection, quotes their own sources, and provides links to them, and these sources are of an authoritative nature. Now, to ADF’s credit, the ADF does paraphrase a source with a name in their response to the objection, but we still have no idea what part of the text they refer to in these sources or how we might even find these sources. The point is, unnamed sources might as well not exist, and unquoted sources, without any citation or means enabling verification, could very well misinterpret ideas or take them out of context.
For the sake of argument, let’s disregard the alleged science of anyone’s claims and use some good ‘ole “common sense” ADF implores. Now, psychologists might say that a child develops this way because a mother provides influence A and the father provides influence B, and perhaps we can quantify all such influences on child development, and then perhaps we could construct an ideal situation to raise children in. But who knows what all the influences and factors and combinations there are, let alone how any treatment or situation might work out? Is it better to spank or not to spank? Daycare or no daycare? Homeschool or no homeschool? Perhaps there is an answer to every one of these kinds of questions, but you don’t need me to tell you we have all the answers, and that, if we have sufficient answers, we’re ready to believe them. That’s why the government still gives parents a lot of free reign over their children. We step in for a few things, like “food, clothing, health care, and education,” and housing, and a caring family environment, because the majority of people think that’s what children need, at a minimum, to live. For children to thrive, that’s another question, my friend, one that works in same-sex and heterosexual parents, and ballet lessons, and Sesame Street, and Pre-K education—we will work hard and study these things, and perhaps one day the list of things child protection agencies and adoption organizations check up on will increase, but for now, in a reality not of absolutes but of heated controversy and, paradoxically, blurred distinctions, in child-rearing methodology, we have to give every loving parent a child to raise as best they can. And God knows that love is better than anything else we can give them.
- The Monk February 16, 2009 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This article claims that children raised by two moms or two dads are more likely to engage in early sex, do drugs, drop out, etc. Can this be blamed on the fact that the child was raised without a mom AND a dad or on the fact that society is so intolerant that constant ostracizing has led the child down the wrong path? I don't think these types of statistics can be exclusively attributed to being raised by a gay couple. There are far too many other factors to be considered, therefore the basis of this argument is a fallacy. It is true that children raised by gay couples are more likely to be picked on but it is through society's own bigotry that this happens. The most important factor in raising children is giving love and care, regardless of whether there is a mom AND a dad.
- me58 February 16, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The fact that kids are better off with both a mom and a dad is questionable, simply because it is a correlation. Sure, kids are better off with two parents. They can appeal to a different parent if one is being unreasonable and there are more people to love them and look out for their well being. Single parents can't pay nearly as much attention to their children (I'm not saying that single parents don't still raise fine children) because they have to be the sole bread winner, and depending on which parent was killed, they might not have all of the college education or job skills necessary to find as good as a job. Kids who are grieving are also more likely to be angry, withdrawn, and rebel. This is not any fault of the parent. Kids who are raised by gay parents do just as well being raised by two parents of the same gender. I honestly don't think that a child needs to be raised by two parents of the opposite sex. Two gay men might be hard pressed to raise a daughter, but they would do their best, and as long as they were loving and patient, there's no reason that the daughter wouldn't become a valuable member of society . All in all, a child just needs parents. Married couples also have a lot easier of a time adopting , and I would find it hard to believe that a child would honestly be better off in the foster care system than in a loving home being raised by two parents, regardless of gender.
- doughts April 1, 2009 1:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The ADF is not objecting to the fact that children so far in our limited research have done well with two parents. In a situation where there is a loving same-sex couple willing to adopt a child that otherwise would have no family, that choice is obvious.
The issue lies with Lambda Legal's refusal to acknowledge the ADF's point. Allowing same-sex marriage makes a statement to society, whether you agree or not, that a male parent and a female parent is no longer ideal. It deprives a child of the inherent right to have a mother and a father as an ideal family. Once a society removes that distinction, it can no longer say that a child should have a mother and father if possible instead of a same-sex set of parents.
At heart is the fact that this denies the scientifically documented (as if we needed it) differences between men and women. Removing that ideal of both sexes from a child's upbringing deprives them of exposure to both sexes and denies that that makes any difference.
- Benjamin Tuttle August 11, 2008 4:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Marriage, in and of itself, has nothing to do with children. Marriage is just the act of two consenting adults pledging to become their own family together. Whether or not they have children is strictly up to each individual marriage. Therefore, it can't be said that giving marriage rights to gay/lesbian couples deprives a child of the inherent right to a mother and father.
There are things that do help in that arena though: egg donors, sperm banks, deadly accidents, divorce.
- queenraven September 8, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Marriage, in and of itself, was created for multiple reasons, but one of the main ones is because it provides the most stable environment to raise children in. Denying this goes against 4000 years or more of human wisdom and history, although it is vogue to deny it.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry will inherently force society to accept that relationship as the same as a traditional marriage, and therefore force upon adoption agencies and sperm banks, etc, giving such relationships equal weight to traditional couples. It is this "sameness" that is unacceptable and irresponsible, because it forces on society the unscientific and wrong idea (though politically correct) that two moms or two dads is just as good as a mom and a dad.
Yes, in the real world, situations are different. I'd much rather a same sex couple care for a child than a single parent, or a single parent instead of no parent. Obviously, this is not an either/or. In the end, though, same-sex marriage being elevated to being the same as traditional marriage denies the differences between men and women and furthermore removes the ability for society to prefer a traditional couple as the best way to raise a child which it is.
I realize you probably will never agree, but I encourage you to at least acknowledge and attempt to understand the premises which I am laying out.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 24, 2008 6:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Do you have any research to back up the statement that the main reason for marriage was to provide a stable environment to raise children? I'm no expert, but I always thought the main reasons for marriage has been to pass on bloodlines and property rights. I don't think ancient man was as concerned with the proper "environment" to raise children so much as they were concerned about being able to lay claim to a son/daughter.
Sperm/Egg banks and adoption agencies are all private entities. They aren't forced into anything and they already cater to gay/lesbian couples. Some of these couples even manage to have heterosexual relationships long enough to produce children of their own. Allowing gay/lesbians to marry won't change the fact that they are already capable of having children one way or another.
I am a fan of a two-parent household. I especially like for the parents to be married. I, like you, think it's ideal. I understand your concern for children needing a father and a mother, because I completely agree. But I also think that children deserve, more than anything, a loving environment where they can prosper and be safe. If that comes in a gay/lesbian household so be it.
What exactly do you mean by "elevating same sex marriages denies the differences between men and women"? How so? It's a fact that men and women are different. I have no problem with that thought. In a same sex relationship, there isn't one partner "playing" the opposite sex. They embrace the fact that they are either two women or two men together. What do you envision will happen if homosexual couples are allowed to marry? What is the outcome for children, in your estimation? Are straight couples going to be denied the ability to adopt or have fertility treatments?
- queenraven September 24, 2008 7:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Since children for the last few thousand years have been a key aspect of carrying on the bloodlines, holding onto the property in the family, and providing much needed extra hands and income, its fairly logical. I'm rather surprised that you even challenge the assertion that children are a main reason for traditional marriage throughout history, I'd be glad to look up some research at a later date.
Adoption agencies, for example, and sperm/egg banks are private agencies, but that doesn't mean they are not regulated. Massachusetts is a famous example of a Catholic adoption agency that, because of the same-sex ruling by the judges by fiat over the will of the people there, cannot prefer a traditional married couple to a same-sex one. While I disagree with the agency for shutting down at that point, I am strongly opposed to the government forcing that upon a religion, which is happening and will continue to happen as the government forces same-sex marriage on society. If it were a laissez-faire, that'd be one thing, but the government recognizing it overrules religious beliefs (so much for separation of church and state) and forces everyone to abide by its rulings.
Same-sex marriage being exactly the same in status in society forces society to accept the falsity that men and women are the same. If two moms or dads is just as good (because, remember, we can no longer prefer a traditional couple to a same-sex one or refuse based on our beliefs to give eggs, etc, from a bank) as a mom and a dad for children, then having two dads MUST give children all of the same benefits of a mom and a dad. It doesn't, because men and women are different.
Thanks for the discussion.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 5:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm typing on my phone so I'll only adress one issue: Massachusetts and the catholic adoption issue.
The ability of the court to overturn the so called "will of the people" is necessary for the protection of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." To even demean the courts for overruling laws "against the will of the people" is truly representative of a conservative 's desire to have pure democacy... Which is how communism AND fascism come into power (all you need to do is convince the majority that you are right and it won't matter what the minority says). Please don't insult our legal system just because you disagree with the outcome of a particular case.
As for why the catholic adoption agencies being forced to accept gay couples is because of the 14th ammendment(equal protection) to our constitution . The children in orphanages can't choose to transfer to "pro-gay" adoption agency and are therefore denied rights that are granted to other orphans. It's really very simple: it's about protecting children from illegal discrimination and giving the children equal access to adoptive parents !
- Rice klowN April 23, 2009 1:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The relevant text of the 14th amendment is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I of course am not insulting our legal system, other than the fact you are completely ignoring the complex legal question surrounding the clash of the 1st amendment with your interpretation of the 14th. The 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I, as many other individuals far more intelligent than I, are arguing that same-sex marriage is NOT a 14th amendment issue. They are NOT being denied any rights regarding marriage... they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. The issue is whether they WANT to marry someone of the opposite sex. The issue is ultimately about homosexuals' completely legitimate desire to feel accepted by society . Tolerance and love should be shown to all individuals, but that does not mean we make rash decisions that affect generations of society because of our supposed compassion for their situation (and arrogance that we know far better than every generation before us).
Given the Catholic Adoption agency, they have a Constitutional RIGHT to practice their religion. The government cannot ask them to prohibit the free expression of their beliefs, in this case their beliefs against same-sex marriage, EVEN IF it gives them money . If the government gives you a welfare check, can they prohibit your free speech ?
- Benjamin Tuttle June 11, 2009 5:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"...it can no longer say that a child should have a mother and father if possible instead of a same-sex set of parents."
Everyone believes that a child should have a mother and father, if possible, but we certainly don't take the children away from single mothers and give them to two-parent families. An ideal for an imaginary child has nothing to do with people's daily lives. A child with involved grandparents may do what any single mom's child does and turn to the grandparent for a role model of that gender, or bond closely with an uncle or aunt.
And since many lesbian couples have children from one partner's previous relationship, and they will be a couple regardless if they're married or not, you seem to be hinting that it would be best to take the child from the lesbian regardless of how custody was arranged--or the reasons for her having custody--and giving it to the ex-husband if he only gets a girlfriend.
- sharky September 24, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Yes, reality is much tougher than idealism. That is the precise reason I take my position on many issues.
I obviously would prefer a same-sex couple taking care of a child to a single parent or no parent. I want what is best for each child. The issue I have, though, is that elevating same-sex marriage to be the same as traditional marriage further denies the inherent differences between the sexes (the denial of which has already damaged society) and denies the ability of society to say that, wherever possible, a traditional married couple is preferred over all other options because of its proven superiority as a method of raising children. Denying that denies 4000 years+ of human experience and basic science. Acknowledging it accepts reality and places an ideal for a flawed society to strive towards.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 24, 2008 6:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While females are paid 75 cents to every dollar a man earns, I can't agree with your idea that the sexes are similar enough.
I'm also not sure which inherent differences you're referring to, or which damage. Please understand, however, that I just a few days ago read a Victorian-era screed that decried young women of good families going to work as governesses. The author's reasoning was because their taking jobs unseated social order, caused breakdown in the class system, and caused woes to women that in turn drove them to feminism and caused men to disrespect the gentler sex.
And while science does agree there are some innate differences between men and women, this is a description, not a prescription.
- sharky September 24, 2008 6:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thanks for the discussion.
There are a host of inherent differences, many of which we are only able to specify now with advanced genetic and biological techniques. Some many blame some of them on society, such as the fact that there just aren't as many women in the hard sciences and engineering as men, even though women make up 55% of the college population. The differences in how men and women look at the world and evolutionarily have developed is massive, and denying those differences to a child when there is another option is wrong. While the real world sometimes makes a same-sex couple the best option, removing the ability of society to prefer that optimal partnership for raising children over alternatives is the travesty.
The framing of this argument is very important. One side claims it is one of the last big hurdles to achieving equal rights for homosexuals. I feel compassion for them and that is a very difficult decision. The other side, though, doesn't get their frame heard in the media. I am not against same-sex marriage, per se, but FOR traditional marriage and holding it up as the optimal situation in society. If society can no longer prefer traditional marriage over any other form, be it same-sex marriage or polygamy, etc, society can no longer prefer the optimal situation for raising children.
I appreciate the discussion.
John Haidt, a Social Psychology PHD, has a great lecture on TED about the moral differences between Left and Right. It may help to shed some light on the place that half of Americans come from. In the end, it is all a framing issue, and having both frames understood is extremely important.
http://www.ted.com/index.php /talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 5:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think you might be missing a logical factor of your argument. You've pointed out there's a 50/50 representation in college. I've taken biology, anatomy and physiology, and a major's worth of psychology classes, and done as well as the males. Science classes are a prerequisite, and women and men are passing them equally. So, since they show the same aptitude for the same subjects on the lower levels, something must be stepping in to select for a career in the sciences.
I read an account by a female scientist with two email accounts, one with her initials, one with her name. Colleagues assumed the account with the initials was male and kept that account in the loop with news and rumors; they ignored the one with her first name on it. It wasn't that they didn't like or know her; they didn't like or know the other account either. That's one example of how your career as a scientist is defined by passive discrimination in a publish-or-perish field where your colleagues are all-important. I'm sure how you can see a similar effect might chip in at the grad student level. So if I had a college-age daughter, I would tell her that she could succeed just like the men, but she could expect people telling her that she couldn't do it and trying to undercut her.
I also have to argue with your use of "traditional" marriage. I know I bring up the Victorians a lot, but go read "Oliver Twist." Maybe just the first few chapters. Adults starved and jailed and beat tiny children in the Victorian era and thought nothing of it; children weren't the purpose of marriage, as people claim now. Marriage was all about social and economic stability. Children were just a side result and you only needed one male to survive to be your heir and social bargaining chip. (It's in the Bible; children are not treasure, but a "quiver full" of arrows.) Today's view of children as all-important is a modern luxury, not a traditional function.
In my view, Western marriage evolved from "one man with as many wives as he could afford" to "one man with one wife whose property he owned" to "one man and woman who could keep her property" to "one man and one woman who could divorce him and still keep custody." Marriages also shifted from arranged to love matches. And homosexual marriage was around for the British and French in the early Middle Ages, the Picts, and the Romans until it was banned as a political move. Given the bigger picture, I see no reason not to bring it back today.
Oh, I'm loving this discussion too. You're the opposite of me, and usually such people don't have your calm, for some odd reason. :D
- sharky September 25, 2008 8:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I do enjoy the discussion's civility, which is why I will keep going at least one more.
The representation in college overall is actually more like 55/45 female/male in college, and will be even stronger soon. That representation does not translate to some hard sciences and engineering, yet, though. Yes, indeed, science classes are passing males and females equally, but the issue is INTEREST in subjects, not ability. Men and women can both be amazing at the sciences, Marie Curie comes immediately to mind, but again, the issue is the sex's interest. Men are wired differently in their heads than females as has been scientifically proven. The propensity for certain worldviews and abilities is greater in men for some things and greater for women for some things. I am sure there are still incidences of sexism in the workplace and academics, and that is sad. It is not the only reason for the massive disparity in the hard sciences though.
You do bring up the Victorians a lot, and sadly there was child abuse. There still is and probably always will be in our flawed world. We have to remember, though, that ancient Egyptians and even tribes way farther back were virtually the same as we are now in ABILITY, but their knowledge was less. Evolutionarily, we have not evolved much in abilities relatively because of the tiny scope of time we have had civilization. Considering that, despite the anecdotes from the Victorian Age, children were the purpose of marriage because they supported the family as the family grew older and supported parents unable to do hard labor anymore on the farms, etc. Truly today they are a luxury and a focus unseen in human history, but that does not remove the purpose of marriage as a means to produce children throughout history. There is a reason 4000+ years of humanity has chosen man/woman marriage as the optimum situation, despite its difficulties.
Of course there were specific instances you can point out that there were changes, but arguing the exception is the rule is silly. I realize that for many this is an extremely emotional issue (because the reasoning to give same-sex marriage rights is purely compassionate), so I commend your ability to be so clear. I appreciate that, because I can't seem to find many that can discuss it clearly. My only hope is to at least drive home the frame I have chosen to see the issue through so you understand why half of America (or more) opposes same-sex marriage. Its not for bigoted or hateful reasons (that's the easy way out instead of having these discussions). Its because they want traditional marriage to be held up as the model for the family because it is the optimal situation to raise a child. Once society chooses no longer to value specific life choices over others, we descend into chaos.
Thanks.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 25, 2008 1:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So, beyond queenraven's obvious point that marriage has nothing to do with children, you honestly think that only ideal parents should be allowed to marry?
That almost makes ME want to use the slippery slope fallacy!
- Blue Linchpin December 18, 2008 8:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"The fact is that there is no non-partisan social science research supporting the notion that all children need is two parents, regardless of sex. None. And there is no study anywhere comparing outcomes of children raised from birth by either two men or two women with children raised from birth by their own biological parents."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam at its finest.
Just because we currently have no evidence does not disprove the hypothesis.
- QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Ahhhh, to "protect" the children from the horrible life of same sex "PARENTS" and families, I know thats not what was said, but rather inferred. Children ALWAYS do best when they have the influence of both male and female HEALTHY role models, when they feel safe and secure, valued and loved, when their family isn't being put up to (mostly) Christian flogging of going to hell, being called perverts, pediophiles and watching the tv ads that show other people they don't know trying to "protect" them from that person who reads to them at night. ALL of my same sex FEMALE friends who have children also have the healthy male role models in their childs life, to balance what they cannot be, lets get real. HOWEVER just because 2 women will never be anything other than, DOES NOT mean the child will suffer. Marriage, 50% divorce rate, so if a child is all happy and carefree, getting the BEST of mom and dad, oh wait how good could it have been if the child was/is living in an enviornment where mommy and daddy are beginning the steps towards divorce, the child has to live with it while it's happening, watch it, hear it and feel it. Face it it doesn't happen over night so how long has the child been exposed? And divorce...50% is an extremely high rate so how does that show mommy and daddy have something special called marriage? Lets see...and then there's the same sex parents who actually give birth or adopt. No "whoops" there, it's planned out, saved for and wanted. That child is sooo loved before they even arrive, and if indeed they adopted, who's child was it? Probably some lesbian out there trying to sabotage numbers of hetrosexual throw away babies that come from that precious gift of reproduction that's taken for granted and has no real value, just like the life that was created in a careless moment and given away, (but thank you for not aborting!).Children...and on this note, WHY are yours so much better than mine? WHY does my child HAVE to sit in PUBLIC school and be taught about your family and never see their family reflected in the teachings? WHY are you dictating to our children their lessons? Oh thats right...YOU have all the rights, yours are the only ones that count, what would happen if indeed YOUR child was teased, bullied and taunted every day and then committed suicide? Ohhhh, heads would role, but hey when its the child of a same sex couple or just a young person who discovers they are gay, it's ok? So children, I think same sex couples and families do a better job as they teach their children respect for ALL, compassion, empathy(we've been there) and to not judge or discriminate, most I know are faith based, just not fanatical based or the corporate organized religion type. Children are children, leave them out of this ADULT battle, you take care of yours and we'll take care of ours. We talk about the day at school, lessons learned and we discuss OUR family values in relation to, what do YOU do? The school is not where we turn to for our childrens life lessons and beliefs, your child won't poison mine with your values or beliefs, actually it's more info for my child to make INFORMED choices as they grow with guidance from us.
- sodaklt May 14, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"In contrast, there is a mountain of non-partisan social science research supporting the growing consensus among family scholars that children do best when raised by their own mother and father, and that the best odds for that happening is for the mother and father to be married."
So link that evidence. Put up or shut up. The way I see it, Lambda cited direct quotes and linked to more than one national organization that supports their position and provides evidence. And ADF just asserts those groups are all partisan without showing evidence of such... and says they have evidence that they do not site... i wonder who is BSing us?
- GermyJ June 2, 2009 3:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Single parent homes are not fair to children but ssm is even worse if you ask me. My children are growing up without a male influence, yet I take them to places where there is positive male influences ie church , ball games etc. The only thing worse than this scenerio would be to confuse them further with two mommies.
Gender Identity Crisis, is nothing to laugh at, it is a serious psychological disorder that some never fully recover from and ssm would cause more of this disorder, like children need more trauma.
I back this up with the following expert advice:
http://www.narth.com/docs/breiner2.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/drphil09.html
This is just sick and we as parents need to stop up to the plate here and put our feet down and say, LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE!
QUOTE
It's time to root out the imposition of gendered behavior stereotypes from all aspects of our lives. Ending gender oppression means encouraging our children to experiment with alternative gender expressions...
- Nancy Nangeroni, a transsexual activist quoted in Transgender Warriors
It is fundamental that individuals have the right to define, and to redefine as their lives unfold, their own gender identity, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
- From The International Bill of Gender Rights, approved by the International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy, 1993
END QUOTE. ENTIRE ARTICLE AT http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html
As a single parent I recommend this Redeeming the Rainbow. book: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/index.html
We can and will protect our children from this inflicted mental duress with Gds help.
- Hope7 July 22, 2009 12:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't disagree with your argument that All things being equal the children are better off with a loving mom and dad. But all things are never equal. Many children do not grow up with a LOVING mom and dad, even when the family starts with a mom and dad. Often children are born out of wed-lock and only have a mom, or the dad leaves, dies, is jailed, etc., etc. What about these situations?
So if two people of the same sex are in love and want to start a family who are you to say that they will not make good, loving parents? Would the child have been better off with both a mom and dad. Maybe? Does it matter? No.
- cantupoke July 15, 2008 8:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What gay people seek is equality. If a heterosexual relationship can be formalised by the state in marriage and thereby attract certain privileges, then the same should be true of homosexual relationships. If not, then inequality exists. The attempt to tie in procreation as being essential to marriage is a contrivance used by those who simply don't want gay people to be able to marry each other.
In any case, your arrival at the assumption that gay marriage will somehow damage other people's children by making their straight parents less likely to marry, seems bizarre. It is essentially just the opinion of David Blankenhorn, who as founder and president of the Institute for American Values, is hardly an independent voice on this issue. The fact is that marriage was on the wane for many years before the relatively recent phenomenon of gay marriage. The idea that a straight couple would decline marriage simply because gays can also marry, seems highly implausible.
- Mark D
July 24, 2008 12:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
The idea that kids will be hit hardest if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry is a myth. The biggest threat to children today is the high divorce rate among hetrosexuals, many of whom are professing Christians. Instead of worrying about whether gays and lesbians will stay together, the hetrosexual critics should clean up their own act first. The fact is there are many gays and lesbians who have lived in faithful monogamous relationships for many years, raised children and done a commendable job. I live in Canada where gay marriage is legal and you know what, the country hasn't fallen apart. In fact, things have never been better.
- edwin p August 19, 2008 6:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I disagree with all points you present. Kids are hit from all sides, and at the top of the list, is the parents (mom and dad) or guardians (lesbians and gay/couples). Kids cannot escape either.
Kids are hit when they see other parents that consist of male and a female. Kids at school, once they know the child has same sex parents, will tease and belittle them.
Kids in most situations do not have someone they can go for comfort and understanding. Most humans do not have the capacity to express themselves well enough to help themselves, let alone help others, and this has been with us since the beginning of man kind.
Kids have enough problems growing without increasing their burden by forcing them into a situation that isn't normal. The kids end up suffering, and like most family settings, when done wrong, society also pays.
Have we had a chance to actually see these children in homsexual settings? No! The few that we have seen, the kids think their guardians are weird, or just have no respect for them. This are the kids that were not affected by this strange desire to be together.
- pvtguy April 29, 2009 1:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If children look down on others who are different from them who do you think is to blame? The parents and other adults in our society , that's who. I read recently a gospel tract put out by a very well known right wing Christian. It showed a girl in elementary school who was opposed to her teacher allowing two gay dentista to come to the school and speak to their class. She was telling her classmates that her grandfather told her that being gay was a sickness and sin and she was simply assuming that it was the correct thing to say. I once overheard a mother telling her little girl whose name was Suzy some very important things. She said, "Suzy, you will probably encounter people in this world who look down on other people because they are different than them. Suzy, even if they talk like that, you must not look down on people just because they are different than you. Everybody has a place in this world and you must show respect for them. If you want to get respect, you must show respect." I think it's time for all of us adults to start acting like Suzy's mother instead of that other girl's grandfather. If we do, we will go a long way to changing things for the better.
- edwin p April 29, 2009 5:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
I agree that kids are hit the hardest. Some may not be impacted, others may not understand what they see and end up with mental instability themselves, and even others will get the idea that this was meant for them. Like playing God with the thoughts of people, for we have seen people can be swayed, manipulated, brain-washed to think something wrong is right.
Recently on the Dr. Phil show, a husband decides he wants to be a woman. The daughters are devistated. now they will have to spend countless years trying to understand something that they may never learn to understand, and now, they will fear the males they meet if they will do the same thing to them that their father did to them. We can be reckless and totally destroy the fabric of humans, create people who do not think before they act, and the next thing you know, these group will have high levels of suicide, drug use , and diseases only because we think we have a right to mate with our own gender. Will it stop here, or will humans decide they can marry objects and animals ?
Kids should not be in the picture.
- pvtguy April 29, 2009 12:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would really love to string together obscenities to this argument. I won't. This argument that children are hit the hardest, and then going on about single parenting in the same opinion are both counter-productive and counter-intuitive. It is precisely the desires of those wishing for marriage that define a two person household. A homosexual couple is two people. A divorced man and woman creates the single parent household. Your argument may as well state that divorce should be illegal. Perhaps you feel that way, and that is an entirely different debate.
This social argument that gay marriage destroys conventional marriage is a boogeyman, fallacy ridden arguement and I am quite tired of hearing it.
- tek June 20, 2009 3:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It was written by Edwin Lutzer and its quite good and is broken down into six interesting categories. I have a summary of it below and recommend this book to other Christians.
Page 15 para. 4 line 1 quote, The purpose of this book is to encourage and equip God's people to defend marriage , giving reasons why its definition should not be broadened include same-sex marriages.end quote
Reasons I found in this book to not support same-sex marriage .
Page 25 para 3. And page 60 quote, " We cannot wrest children from the God-given format of family relationships without serious consequences. Also page 62 quote by Mary Stewart van Leeuwen, a Christian feminist, says, She predicts unforeseen consequences from such a radical overhaul of mariage and family.end quote
Page 27 the last paragraph and page 28 the first paragraph stating, quote ; ..who is to say that it is to be limited to two people? Why not a trio of three men or woman? Or why not one man with two wives or ten?, After all, we must extend " equal rights" to all individuals to live according to any arragement they wish. end quote
And page 62 para. 2 quote by James Skillen of the Center for Public Justice predicts" Its going to be increasingly possible to produce children, buy, and sell children, because in addition to adoption , that is the only way homosexual couples can have children." end quote.
Page 35 para. 5 stating quote ;We must point out that the Bible does not speak about homosexuality with a muffled voice.end quote If we are to be followers of Jesus then we must follow the Bible. The Bible is not unclear on the subject of sexual immorality, either homosexual or heterosexual.
Page 37 paragraphs 2 & 3. Quote; I believe that we as evangelicals have failed these people, many of whom populate our churches. As a pastor I've listened to their stories of brokeness and heartache. I've heard stories of molestation, of the emptiness of sex without commitment, without love, without caring. No matter what we see on televesion, the gay community is hurting, compulsively acting out behavior to cover their pain. These are the people for whom we must have compassion, understanding, and care. Its a hurting world out there, and all of the wells are dry.end quote
Page 45 para.2 "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE MAN TO BE ALONE; I WILL MAKE HIM A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM".Gd made a woman.
Page 59 para. 4. quote, " Evidence suggests that the reason there are more suicides among homosexuals is not because of the ridicule they receive from heterosexuals, but rather because of the inner confilict that the lifestyle of necessity brings with it.end quote
Quote from page 69 which I wholeheartedly support quote, "When we turn from the Lord, He does not fight for us, but allows us to be distressed by those who oppose us."end quote The cure for our countries moral ailments is Gd.
Page 73. Quote, "Even if we argue that we are born with certain predispositions, we still have human responsibltiy for our lifestyles and actions. end quote. Choice. Now that is a better philosophy if you ask me, giving someone a choice that is REAL LOVE.
Page 77 Quote " Chaste homosexuals like chaste herterosexuals, must be enfolded within the community of the church . They need the support of the wider Christian community, and the larger family of God." end quote. I agree. We all need the Truth and God, anything else will not save us and is a lie.
Page 80 is very, very good too. Quote, " The homosexual movement , with its stringent insistence that all oppositoin be silenced, has been " imposing" its agenda on society with a vengence. end quote. Just look at what they did to me!!!
Page 83 is frightening. Quote, " Many homsexual males distinguish between emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. end quote. Dangerous and sad.
Page 93 para 2. Third, we must carfully nurtue and protect our young people. Studies have shown that a child who readches puberty can either become a homosexual or heterosexual depending on environmental factors. end quote. TRUTH IN BLACK AND WHITE AS TO WHY THE SCHOOLS ARE RECRUITING OUR CHILDREN.
And finally the pages that I feel repremand the Church as a whole for not speaking out more and these pages make this book valuable to the Church as a whole. Pages 97, 99,103 All of chapter 6, esp page 107 titiled, WE MUST SEEK GOD.
- Hope7 July 16, 2009 9:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree with ADF that when we mess with traditional marriage we destroy the bedrock of this country and eventually, should we allow ssm to develope further in our society ,it will obliterate this republic.
- hallelujahchorus August 10, 2009 11:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I and many others I have met and spoken with over the years can attest to the fallacy of the "normal family". My father was an abusive bully and my mother a depressive alcoholic needless to say mine was not a happy childhood. But they were "normal". I have known many others who were sexually and physically abused by their "normal" parents and had I had a child early (before I learned how to deal with my own problems) I probably would have been abusive. Just being Heterosexual doesn't automatically make you a good parent or person. I think if all couples had to go through the same screening process that gay couples go through the world would be a better place but try getting that approved.
- Gamesman September 18, 2009 4:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I had a "normal" family and I can tell you I was "hit hardest" by my dad. Being straight never means being any better of a person. Most sexual abuse happens at home by a family member or family friend not a stranger, This ideal family that you think of never truly existed. It was all made up Ozzie and Harriet had huge fights you never saw the kids got into trouble and sometimes people got hurt. This is reality. Anything else is just a hopeful dream where everyone is the same and everyone is happy all the time.
- Gamesman November 11, 2009 2:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Two people of the same sex getting married is just two people playing house. It has nothing to do with hate or discrimination. It has to do with what is right or wrong. Allowing gay marriage is just showing that the society is going deeper into moral decay. God is the one that created marriage & it is between one man and one woman anything else apart from that is not of God therefore, cannot be called a marriage.
Some people might say God does not judge them well let's clarify that. While you are alive on this earth in your mortal body God has not yet pass judgment on anyone because he wants everyone to be saved and that means accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, because after death is the judgment. Everyone will give have to an account on the type of life they lived here on earth.
Does God allow each of us to make our own choices? Yes, but know this every decision you make has consequences. The Bible said in Revelation 2l verse 8, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." I am not making this up it is already written.
- Tamara September 4, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
But maybe someone else did. I recognize your right to believe in any god you choose, but I do ask that you also recognize others' rights to believe (or not) as they wish, and that therefore turning religion into law goes against a basic human right to choose not to believe in a religion. If your intent is to convince others that same-sex marriage is wrong, you will do better if you rely on logic rather than faith.
- miseleigh January 6, 2009 5:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Have you ever lied, Tamara?
- quantummechanik June 8, 2009 1:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I object to the assumption that the purpose of marriage is for procreaion. Were this the case we would prohibit couples where either the man or the woman were sterile, couples who had progressed past the child-bearing age, or couples who did not intend to have children with the same legal strictures that we place on gay couples.
Accepting same-sex couples marrying is not the same as relatives marrying, nor is it the same as multiple marriage, or "marriage" to an animal. Each of these are very seperate and distinct arguements.
The legal basis for marriage exists to ensure the rights that the states and federal government provide such as visitation in hospitals, tax incentives, etc. Should there be an objection on a religious basis this is for each church, synagogue, mosque, etc to determine on their own what they choose to do, from their own religious standpoint. The seperation clause should keep that decision out of a legal framework.
- lasher42 November 19, 2008 7:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
In advocating same-sex marriage, we acknowledge that any two people who love each other should be able to marry each other, and children, in a safe and loving environment, will be raised well by any parents. We do, of course, have to lay certain restrictions on love and marriage, for the sake of the exploited and the offspring (in the case of incest). Children cannot marry each other, for they are not mature enough to consent to a commitment and to sexual relations. An adult cannot marry a child, for the child still cannot consent. Nor can bestiality be tolerated—it is abusive to the animal—or (generally speaking) incest, since the offspring of that relationship would be unfairly subjected to the genetic disturbances consequent of inbreeding. The great irony of the Alliance Defense Fund’s argument is that they expose the bias of those who might advocate same sex marriage with one hand, and decry other sound marriages with the other.
Those marriages between consenting adults must be tolerated, unless it is an incestuous relationship that may produce children. We do not have to be comfortable with it—if we cannot deny it based on logic, then government and society must be tolerant of others beliefs. I am a practicing Catholic, and I wholeheartedly side with my church on issues of incest and polygamy, but I cannot ask my government to make laws against them, for my beliefs in their immorality are founded in religious dogma, not secular reason, and as such, it would be unjust, and un-Christian, of me to force my religious dogma upon other people.
- The Monk February 9, 2009 6:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
What about a brother and sister “in love?” The typical objection when confronted with the brother-sister “marriage” challenge is that procreation between siblings increases the chance for birth defects in children. So then, what is the objection to two brothers “marrying?”
Several other reasons that sibling-sibling (and, for that matter, parent-child) marriages are unadvisable are here elided, including perhaps most important—the likelihood of coercion. Indeed, considering that married couples who are known to have a high probability of producing children with very severe congenital conditions are permitted to procreate, it strikes me as being significantly less important than the question of informed consent.
The opposition cannot object to a brother-brother “marriage” absent an appeal to a moral standard.
There seems to be an unstated assumption that those on the side of marriage equality reject the idea that marriage should be subject to moral constraints, but very few actually do. The argument in favour of marriage equality is that the current moral standard which excludes same-sex couples is inappropriate , not that there should be no moral restrictions whatever.
But in objecting to all sibling “marriages” they are unwittingly arguing that marriage: 1) is essentially a procreative institution, 2) benefits the state primarily as a child-protective institution, and 3) may be limited by moral considerations. These are the very arguments they must reject in order to justify the imposition of same-sex “marriage.”
It is unclear why the first two premises are important to the scenario presented above, and the last premise misrepresents the arguments underlying marriage equality.
See above. Sibling-sibling marriages are legitimately rejected on a basis other than procreation.
Children are not a prerequisite to being recognised as married, nor are same-sex parents unheard of. Additionally, there are other statutory benefits to stabler, happier, more affluent families.
See above. Arguing against one particular, extant restriction does not constitute a challenge to them all; this is as true in the case of marriage equality for same-sex couples as it was for that of marriage equality for interracial couples.
But the opposition refuses to engage in a thoughtful debate on these issues.
Perhaps there are some individuals who do not wish to investigate this issue with composure and honesty, but it is unfair to characterise all by the actions of a few.
- Jordan Gray
February 26, 2009 2:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I inadvertently submitted this as though I were "uncommitted". This is not true: so that you may know my biases, I am firmly on the "yes" side.
Also, the odd structure of the post is because I was not sure if HTML is accepted here—apparently not. If it were, the quotes would be indented, and my rebuttals to th
Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Real Goal of the Gay Lobbies
As the push for same-sex marriage continues, I believe that homosexual people will find that they are the recipients of a great deal of enmity and hostility from other people, all brought on by their political lobbies – the gay activist organizations.
But same sex marriage is not the goal of the gay lobbies. Their target is nothing less than a program to indoctrinate the public to accept the idea that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal, acceptable and desirable alternative to heterosexuality.
They’ve already begun. In April 2006, in Lexington, Mass. a second-grade teacher read a story book to her class about a prince who marries another prince...they even share a kiss. The irate parents in Lexington tried to get some assistance from the court in their efforts to reject books of this kind from the classroom, but the court turned them down since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.
We’ll be seeing more of this kind of indoctrination from the gay lobbies.
- Sivan
July 11, 2008 1:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And the Cosby show was indoctinating society...
The real purpose of the Cosby Show was to indoctrinate Americans that black people were normal, acceptable, and a desirable alternative in neighbors.
The bigotry just never ceases with you....
- SocialistBetty
January 4, 2009 1:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What are you even getting at?
Ad hominum is no effective way to argue. Who is to what the "homosexual lifestyle" is? All credibility is lost in that statement. And how can one say that homosexuality isn't "normal"? Attacking homosexuals and bisexuals because of your differing political beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with the core issue. Not every gay couple has an agenda to over run the government. Believe it or not, some homosexuals want to get married because they love each other, just like "normal" heterosexual couples.
- tripleayex
February 8, 2009 7:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, and because
Yes, because we love each other. And because we want to be able to protect our children with ALL the same rights of marriage with which straight people are able to to protect their children. These are CIVIL rights, attached to CIVIL marriage, and were created by society as a safety-net available to citizens of this nation in exchange for making commitments to care for one's spouse and children, thereby relieving society of some of the risk it faces.
Many of the rights and benefits of marriage are specifically for the benefit and protection of children, and many gay families DO have children. Denial of basic civil rights to such families is a punishment to the children of gay parents simply because of who their parents are. This is not the kind of society we subscribe to in this country.
- Babaroni
February 8, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No,and because
It is not right it is not the way it should be or it wouldn't be a problem men are suppose to be with women and women with men otherwise it wouldn't be a taboo. But regraurdless of who is right or wrong the day will we will all find out for sure and then it'll be too late for the Gay's of the world I know my son brings a men homei'll disown him and shooot his whatever u call them.
- popabear
November 4, 2009 9:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Keep talking
Keep talking, popabear, and show the world what bigotry looks like. You're doing a great job of it.
- Babaroni
November 4, 2009 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
get ur facts right!!!!
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race , or religion : intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike.
This is what bigotry means and I never said I dislike queers,gay's or whatever you like to call them big mouth I just said it wasn't right and I did not approve of there belief and I will condemn it in my household because I can Wanna be gay fine just not in my house and if it isn't wrong why was it hidden from population for so long yes yes I know it goes waY back in history but as far back in histry as it goes so is someone tring to hide it.
- popabear
November 4, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Other than
Other than threatening to shoot your son 's hypothetical gay partner, you mean? No, that's not hateful. That's not intolerant or prejudiced. Not at all.
- Babaroni
November 4, 2009 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They don't get it...
Homosexuality is a perversion from the norm. Perhaps we should let pedophiles have their way? Or Necrophiliacs have their way? MANSA claim they love sex with boys, so lets just let all perversions be accepeted! In the name of love of course... that makes it all OK!
- Argenious November 4, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
quite different
Homosexuality may not be the sexual orientation of the majority, but it is hardly a perversion.
As to the standard claim about paedophilia and homosexuality ... you are aware that most paedophiles are heterosexual?
Paedophilia differs from homosexuality in one very important respect... by definition paedophilia requires a non-consenting partner (as minors cannot consent to sexual activity), homosexuality does not share that requirement.
- MrBook
November 4, 2009 7:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are mistaken
Pedophilia is the abnormal sexual attraction to children , not a sexual act... has nothing to do with consent.
Normal: In accordance with scientific laws; Conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal, et al...
Abnormal: Not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm; not conforming to the natural course of...
Homosexuality and pedophilia are abnormal sexual behaviours.
You need a refresher course in Human Sexuality 101.
- CitizenZebra
November 4, 2009 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wrong
Pay particular attention to CZ's explanation, he is absolutely correct.
- Argenious November 4, 2009 8:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The subjects of sexual deviancy...
always have an argument that it is OK, normal, acceptable etc. Probably the most significant cause for the aversion to homosexuality are displays like "Gay Pride", the parades on the streets of Frisco where radical nudity and simulated sex acts by homosexuals are publicly displayed.
- Argenious November 5, 2009 7:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What we want is equal rights for everyone!
Your right- gay marriage is a goal for us and everyone that believes in the American ideal of equal rights and celebrating our great diversity!
But, obviously, we deserve and expect more until one day we will be equal to our straight friends and truly be free! You obviously, share the views of the extreme right who has over the years, targeted groups they vehemently opposed! They took the lead in the 50's and 60's to oppose civil rights for African Americans , and when they lost that fight, they moved on and took on those who believed a woman has a right to choose an abortion or not. They did everything they could including murdering doctors who performed that service as well as demonstrating unlawfully at Planned Parenthood offices and showing unbelievable hatred! They lost that battle, since every poll shows majority of the people support abortion rights including those in Congress. Now they are taking on gays and lesbians and our supporters! Of course, they are using the same nasty tactics to gain support and media attention to get their message across! You people used to assert years ago that we had "a hidden gay agenda" that included corrupting the children in our schools ! Well that has been so thoroughly discredited by the vast majority of the American people now that it is brought now-except you!
One last thing about gay equality my bigoted friend-we are making headway in all parts of the country now although it has not been as fast as I'd wish. Hopefully, the Congress will finally vote in support of ENDA-Employment Non-Discrimination Act which will be a major milestone in the long journey towards equality. We have the votes now in Congress to pass major areas of concern for our positions! Thank God we have Obama and a liberal leaning Democratic Congress!
- philly53
September 3, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I wonder...
do you think drug dealers, pedophiles, rapists, murders etc, should all share equal rights, in other words, do as they wish?
- CitizenZebra
November 5, 2009 8:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just Exactly Who is The Family Research Council?
I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives.
- Super Expert
October 21, 2009 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Family Research Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council
- mike1948
October 24, 2009 1:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for the link
I do appreciate you posting the wikipedia link. I have looked at it before and followed followed The Family Research Council for some time. My opinion is that the path they started on was good and as I have stated before, I agree with much of there agenda however they have strayed far from there original path into religious extremeism. They is not much left of what they started with. Possibly just satan getting his hooks into them. To me Godly things are of and in the light. The Family Research Councils funding is in the darkness. They will tell you very little of where there money comes from and I doubt they do much of a verification check of there donors. I continue to pray for them but I also stand by my statement that they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. Once again I issue this request. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts and dates donated. If your really from GOD the father of Christ Jesus, stand in the light and quit hiding your finances and donors in darkness.
- Super Expert
October 24, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Posturing.
The problem with all these groups is that their solution is all the same: Pray, Vote Republican, and Send Them Money. They are posturing. They acomplish very little.
- mike1948
October 25, 2009 12:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A challenge to the rhetoric of "victimized" conservatives
What is perhaps just as logically flawed claims of "unnatural" homosexuality is the rhetoric of victimization that this organization claims for the conservative agenda. By twisting the truth into a depiction of the "seemingly invincible juggernaut of the gay agenda," this conservative group attempts to appear as a political underdog-- trying to evoke pity as a proxy for support.
I wish that the gay agenda had the type of corporate dollars, supporters in the White House and other forms of financial and personal resource the conservative Christian agenda funnels to our nation's political system-- as this expert seems to claim. Then we would have an equal footing for debate.
Until then, do not mistake the persistent inequality of political power based on this organization's skewed vision.
Let's continue fighting for the true equality of all families!
- JMT July 13, 2008 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hate is Hate
Whether it be for the color of someones skin, or their choose of whom to love, hate is hate. People hate what they do not understand, or what they see in themselves. That being said, discriminating against the life choices of someone else is just wrong.
- Ralph July 16, 2008 12:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
Hate is hate, and attacking anyone who disagrees with you, questioning their motives and reviling them as bigots, is hateful. Attacking your opponent's moral integrity is a great way to piss them off, but not of convincing them that your argument is superior.
- richardsonkr
January 17, 2009 6:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If the shoe fits...
Definition of bigot from Merriam-Webster: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
One who wants to exclude individuals of a certain "group" from marriage is intolerant, and bigoted. So if the shoe fits...
And if it is hateful to disagree with bigots, then I am a hateful person and am reveling in it.
I guess attacking a bigot's moral integrity is equal to the hurt that a homosexual person's feels when they are denied the opportunity to marry the partner of their choice because someone who has nothing to do with them doesn't like the idea.
We should all be more careful in assuring that bigot's feelings aren't hurt. Sorry.
- illusion
June 10, 2009 12:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And the definition of the word Higot
Higot-according to mothers book of definitions means a person who practices, by choice, the act of homosexuality and then blames everything under the sun for their sexuality to the point of abnormal psychology. The higot feels they are deserving of special treatment by the whole of society because they just do,period. A person who does not see tolerance as something they must exhibit but that all others must abide by these cosmic rules;a sense of distorted reality aka homosexual bigot=higot. A person who will when they are questioned about their sexual choice will deny the ability to choose or willingness to admit they can change. Despite horrendous mounting evidence to the contrary.
They will say they are born this way and have no choice but deny the fact that people like Rock Hodson would be alive today since his first choice was a woman. They will question the authenticity of someones homosexuality if they do anything illegal or immoral ie serial rapist/murderers that are homosexual are not true homosexuals according to them. That is quite interesting given the fact they feel that homosexuality cannot be taught or learned but is a birth condition, without any genetic proof ofcourse. While on the other hand teaching homosexuality to children in school. Was removing this from a mental disorder the wisest decision. NO.
We should, and dare I say must, be careful when it comes to the fact our children are being hurt by this misguided and dangerous sexual movement.
- Hope7
June 16, 2009 8:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sounds like a reputable dictionary source.
The mother's book of definitions- Where can I buy one? Sounds like it is on par with Oxford dictionary.
By your definition from your reputable "mother's book" a higot is - "a person who practices, by choice, the act of homosexuality " - How do you know that it is a choice? I guess you won't believe that homosexuality is a choice, until it is proven." That is fine, but I hope you don't also try to say that god is real, because he/she/it isn't proven either.
Also, you claim that a higot - blames everything under the sun for their sexuality to the point of abnormal psychology." - What? Are you saying that homosexuals think that they have a mental disorder? Later, you say: "Was removing [sic] homosexuality from a mental disorder the wisest decision. NO." Because from this, it seems as though YOU think that homosexuality is a mental disorder, not the homosexuals. And I guess then, from your logic about how homosexuality is a choice, I guess all mental disorders are a choice right? ADD? PTSD? Dementia?
You then go on to say- "The higot feels they are deserving of special treatment by the whole of society because they just do,period." - Um...or maybe they feel that they are deserving of not special, but EQUAL treatment because the Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal" and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws of this country. I guess that is the same as "just because." Right?
Further, you argue that a higot is- "A person who does not see tolerance as something they must exhibit but that all others must abide by these cosmic rules;a sense of distorted reality aka homosexual bigot=higot." So... you don't exhibit tolerance to homosexuals...but you think that they, as part of all others, should tolerate/abide by the laws proclaiming the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, protection of your god, etc. Right? - So then, aren't you calling yourself a higot? It seems as though the person suffering from a distorted reality is you. By the way, I know many homosexuals who are more than tolerant that I am a heterosexual female.
You also say that a higot is- "A person who will when they are questioned about their sexual choice will deny the ability to choose or willingness to admit they can change. Despite horrendous mounting evidence to the contrary." If leading a heterosexual lifestyle is uncomfortable to a homosexual person, why should they change? Forced to live a false life so you can sleep better at night? So they have to lead a life of misery to satisfy your intolerance? Further, would you like to post the links of this "mounting evidence"? I would like to see the source.
Speaking of Rock Hudson you say- "They will say they are born this way and have no choice but deny the fact that people like Rock Hodson would be alive today since his first choice was a woman"- Were you personal friends with Rock? Did he tell you that his first choice was a woman? Did you ever think that he married a woman to protect his career from bigots like yourself? I suspect that is more likely what happened.
You say- "They will question the authenticity of someones homosexuality if they do anything illegal or immoral ie serial rapist/murderers that are homosexual are not true homosexuals according to them." - Um...don't "straight" men distance themselves from other "straight" men who are serial rapists/murderers? That's ok right?
"They feel that homosexuality cannot be taught or learned but is a birth condition, without any genetic proof of course." - Last time I checked, there is no solid proof of god, so you better not be believing in him either, because there is no solid proof. I am sure even if studies came out proving that homosexuality was genetic, you would find a reason not to believe it, just like evolution .
You then go on to say- "teaching homosexuality to children in school." Umm...more like teaching TOLERANCE at school. Tolerance to accept others that are different than you. Maybe you need to go back to school, because you are clearly deficient in this area.
You close with: "We should, and dare I say must, be careful when it comes to the fact our children are being hurt by this misguided and dangerous sexual movement." - I respond that we should, and dare I say must, be careful when it comes to the fact that our children are being hurt by this misguided and dangerous bigotry.
- illusion
June 17, 2009 12:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Minor Point
It is the school 's job to teach, not indoctrinate. Reading, writing, math, science , and history should be on the school's list, not tolerance. Other than that, I agree with you 100%
- richardsonkr
November 5, 2009 10:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hate is....
an abstract term for an emotion, emotion is a psychological response to something... by nature if something is repulsive to you, you have an emotional response. It is, has been and will always be a part of the human psyche.
I hate child molestors... is that wrong? It is all one's own perception of things, not for you, me or anyone else to decide who likes what and if it is right or wrong! The actions one may take against someone or thing they hate... that is a different story.
- CitizenZebra
November 5, 2009 8:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who seeks to exclude from others the rights they themselves enjoy
If marriage between a man and a woman were declared illegal tomorrow. My wife and I would still be together. We would know who we are to each other. We would raise our child together.
How then is our union threatened by others also joining into marriage. Choosing, not because of tradition or expectation or law, but because of the purest purpose and reward of marriage, loving union with your partner.
The threat to marriage comes from those wanting to join into its covenant, but rather those ready to declare individuals unfit because of color or faith, station in life or their sexual orientation.
- Tony Hudgins
July 17, 2008 1:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?
I'm all for same sex couples getting married. But it's the legal part that I disagree with. IMHO, the legality of marriage should have nothing to do with government recognition or benefits.
Governments should have a concept for Civil Unions for any two people to enter into. A contract between the couple and the State in essence. If the government wants to provide benefits, i.e. tax deductions, to people in a union as a result of them having kids, owning property, etc, then do so as encouragement and recognition that stable relationships can benefit the greater good of society (not that single people don't as well.)
Marriage then should be, as it has become, a religious institution. Let each faith in the world decide if they will allow their religious leaders and followers to participate in same sex marriages or not.
- BrianJ July 24, 2008 6:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eliminate marriage as a legal concept
Marriage is, at its heart, a religious concept. Many valid social goals are accomplished by giving it legal weight, and it's time we explicitly enumerate those goals, and how those goals can be accomplished. A contemporary American nuclear family could easily do just as well raising a child as an extended family (with a single parent). Adults living together in one household enjoy pooling assets and resources. Why limit that to a man and a woman? Why not homosexual couples? Why not extended families? Why not polygamous unions? Public policy should explicitly exclude religious tenets. Religious are free to forbid same-sex marriages, but the scope of that limitation should not exceed the boundaries of the church.
- Fastolfe July 24, 2008 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, not really
"Marriage is, at its heart, a religious concept."
This is factually inaccurate. Marriage is a cultural construct that transcends religions, whose requirements and structure vary from religion to religion, culture to culture, period to period.
Marriage as understood in western society arose from property issues, particularly inheritance for legitimate male offspring. For a signficant part of Christian history, the Christian church did not participate in marriages. Marriage in the U.S. is not contingent on having any religious allegiance, nor does it require adherence to the rules and beliefs of one's chosen religion. The marriage contract in the U.S. is a civil contract, and the clergy's religious role in weddings is ancillary to the civil authority they are granted by the state to recognize the civil contract of marriage.
- WRoget
August 20, 2008 7:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (7)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting
That's an excellent point, and one that I really hadn't considered up until now. Kudos.
- richardsonkr
January 17, 2009 5:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agreed
It seems that the "sanctity" of marriage is one of the most common arguments that it needs to be between a man and a woman. It is evident that, especially today, religion generally takes very little role in marriage, regardless of the fact that it sometimes happens in a church.
- tripleayex
February 25, 2009 8:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What is "marriage"?
That two or more people can marry one another emotionally is both unquestionable and unpreventable by others. Those in "same-sex" relationships have emotionally married one another likely since our species was identifiable as a distinct species and will likely continue to do so until the species is no more. Those who wish to keep the administrative marriage of same-sex individuals illegal cannot prevent the emotional marriage, nor can they prevent same-sex relationships from both inventively creating offspring and raising them to maturity. One wonders what is actually being accomplished except the irrational and prejudicial exclusion of some individuals from the benefits of administrative recognition of what already exists. What is likely to happen in the continued illegality of same-sex administrative marriage is that these individuals will acquire the same benefits of heterosexual marriages by other means. Life adapts and improvises - or it perishes.
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
End marriage as a legal entity.
A friend of mine actually brought up an interesting point that I'm going to inject into this conversation to see what happens, I'm not really sure I agree with it 100%, and I certainly wouldn't say it's flawless, but it is interesting. He suggested ending "marriage" as a legal term, and allowing only civil unions. Leave marriage to the churches. That way, if a church thinks that gays can be married, they can be. If a church doesn't want gays to be married there, then they can refuse to. Rights will be the same for both hetero and homosexual couples, and the churches can still have their way.
- richardsonkr
January 17, 2009 5:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Fine Idea
This a great idea and one I agree with completely. The usual objections to homosexual marriage is from a religious point of view, not one of protecting individual rights and liberties. Government recognition of marriage has nothing at all to do with religion and everything to do with social contracts. Turning every existing marriage, at least for legal purposes, into a civil union removes any religious prejudices. It becomes mere legal recognition of a voluntary union of two or more human beings. This last part I say because objections to marriages of more than two individuals are also religiously motivated and has nothing at all to do with legal protections of individual rights.
"Sanctity of marriage" is tribalism that must not be tolerated in a culture that purportedly values individual rights and liberties above all else. Tribalism is socialism is communism is, in any event, contrary to the nature of all life which is to seek its own way in the interest of its own survival and happiness. Civilization merely inserts the proviso that one can have all of that provided one allows the same for others. Marriage traditionalists wish to establish and maintain and members-only club.
As I pointed out, they may perhaps prevent recognition of homosexual marriages among themselves, however, homosexuals genuinely desiring marriage to another or others will find a way to do so regardless of irrational barriers to official sanction. In any event, a true marriage is an emotional bond - not an administrative status - of which no one can prevent or dissolve except those involved in the relationship. This is why it is true there are authentic marriages without official sanction and officially sanctioned marriages that are an emotional fraud. Human beings must and, I believe, will progress to a more genuine kind of marriage much less focused if at all on official sanction, i.e., official marriage or even civil union, and more importantly focused on the existence or non-existence of emotional bonding.
It is the only kind of marriage that genuinely matters. If it was the way everyone understood marriage, this debate would not be happening.
- Naumadd
January 17, 2009 7:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rambling minutia
A point for you to ponder in absolute ad nauseam; why does one go around the block to reach a point within arms length?
- Argenious November 5, 2009 8:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Divorce
Well, a problem, which there may be more with this idea of making marriage not a legal issue is that of divorce. The way it is presently setup the government also deals with divorce, but a divorce case could not be settled in court if the marriage was never considered to be legal or at least something that can be considered legal, however I don't mean to convey that it would make it illegal, just that it wouldn't be covered in our laws anymore. Oh! and another thing is for those who are atheists or simply don't choose to go to church how would that work? What I mean to say is simply that the idea is going to take a lot more than just an idea, it'll have to be covered on all bases to even work....however the intent behind the idea, I don't necessarily disagree with it.
- eJones
January 25, 2009 9:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't see where your going with this...
Just because marriage would be ended as a legal entity doesn't mean that civil unions wouldn't. The civil aspect of marriage would remain the same except that it would not be called "marriage." That title would only be given by Churches.
- richardsonkr
January 25, 2009 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry for my lack of clarity....
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean now, but I guess that "divorce" would have to also have an alternate name because it deals with the separation of two "married" people. Simply put, what I meant to say was that many laws and specifics of the system would have to be altered, whether severely or not, and I'm not sure how easy it would necessarily be to do....thus, it'd take a lot of work and careful planning...
- eJones
January 25, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No it doesn't
A divorce is an end to the legal aspect of marriage. I don't know how Protestant Churches work it, but in the Catholic Church, at least, the religious marriage is not recognized as ended until one gets an annulment, not a divorce. (I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school for 12 years, so even though I am no longer a Catholic, I know the system pretty well.) Even then, the marriage did not end, as an annulment states that the marriage was invalid to begin with, and you were never really married. They take that whole "till death do us part" thing pretty seriously. Like I said, I don't know Protestantism as well, so I couldn't tell you what they do, but I do know that a divorce is only the end of a marriage in the legal sense, and that the religious institution can maintain that you are still married, so divorce could still apply if all marriages were to be call civil unions legally.
- richardsonkr
January 26, 2009 7:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Definition of marriage
The definition of marriage is a union and committment between a MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD. You don't change definitions because a small vocal minority wants it. I certainly understand same sex people being in love and wanting to spend their remaining days together. So for insurance and other reasons I would be inclined to agree with some type of civil unions. But marriage.....NO
- irishguy730
July 25, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply to irishguy730
The definition of the term "marriage" is such because we have arbitrarily defined it that way as an expression of views we have inherited. There doesn't seem to be a justification for this definition in your comment. On your line of reasoning, inter-racial marrying, which was of course legally barred for decades, would automatically be justified. We must challenge these assumptions to see if they hold water today.
Considered more systematically however, if you were to go to church and marry without seeking the approval and consent of the state, your marriage wouldn't be legally valid. The inverse, however, isn't true: If you are given a contract by the state to marry without seeking the consent of a religious affiliation your marriage is still valid. My point is that marriage, at its foundation, is granted importance by the state. Therefore, religion aside, why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry whom they choose?
- Alex M
August 26, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Definition of marriage
The definition of marriage used to be a union and a commitment between a WHITE MAN and a WHITE WOMAN. It was changed because a vocal minority wanted it. Does that mean it was wrong?
- DrobUA
December 22, 2008 10:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Defintion of Marry
I agree the definiton of marriage is between a man and woman but, the word marry means- To join as spouses by exchanging vows, to take as a spouse, to obtain by marriage. My opinion is marriage is to take a spouse, doesnt matter if its same sex or different sex. I can tell you from personal expierence that same sex marriage is important for same sex partners but more importantly its important to their children . Maybe more so to kids .
- gtucker09
May 27, 2009 8:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Definitions do change...but
No one is redefining the definition of marriage. Marriage means quite literally the joining of entities - be it buisnesses, ideas, people, elements...etc.
But for the sake of things changing... here are some words that have changed:
Commit: to come together - but now it also means a number of other things.
Luxury: originally meant ‘lasciviousness’ or ‘lust
Cookie: both means food and now has tech meaning as well
Mouse: animal and tech
Scroll: ancient piece of paper... and how one moves down the screen
Undertaker: old meaning entrepreneur, now entrepreneur means small business owner
Inspire: to breath life into - now also means to elicit, to move to action etc.
Nice: use to mean 'not to know', but now it means something well... nice. :) good.
Bundle of sticks - in the old english - now is a derogatory word
Gay: meant happy or merry - so quite litterally when when everyone was happy - it meant everyone was gay. Obviously the meaning has changed.
But in the case of marriage - it is not changing, at least not in the true sense of change as noted above. It still means to come together, to bind, to join, to create a union... etc.
All citizens should have the right to choose their life partner, marry them, and enjoy the benefits of doing so.
- virescentgirl
June 25, 2009 1:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who cares!!!
ppl serisouly waste way too much time on issues like this when there are bigger things going on in the world. its so tireing listening to this argument. BOTTOM LINE....why does it matter?!?!? i am a straight female...i love my boyfriend...and i do not care if 2 women or 2 men are in love and want to be married. you cannot stop it...if they are in love and want to be together for the rest of their lives...they will!whats the big deal with making it official by allowing marrige??? who cares!!! i get that religious ppl go by what the bible says....but would you really care if you didnt have your religion to back it up??? its fine that ppl have their beliefs....i respect that. but this issue to me seems like it shouldne even be an issue. times have changed...and ppl continue to change as well.i have relatives along with friends who are gay. and guess what...their just as normal as everyone else i know. i dont see the big deal. ppl feel what they feel and they shouldnt be belittled bc of it
- lanidee02 July 26, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay-marriage opponents ignore fact.
Let me dissect a few points that opponents of gay marriage often bring up:
-Gay marriage will lead to more homosexuals by legitimizing the gay lifestyle.
A Swedish study published last month showed that gay men and women consistently displayed a brain structure that resembled that of the opposite sex. You see, one of the hemispheres of a woman's brain is slightly bigger than the other, while in men the hemispheres are the same size, which has long been known to be a reliable way to tell apart the sexes physically (besides the really obvious ways) Gay men had brains that resembled a woman's brain and vice versa for lesbian women. This basically proves irrefutably that homosexuality is not a so-called "lifestyle choice", but a born-in trait, determined in the womb.
-Gay parenting will create screwed up kids by denying them a father or mother figure.
Yes! This is why we, as a society, do not allow single mothers to raise kids. It's just not healthy.
I'd do more, but I'm out of room.
- DelBeano
August 1, 2008 9:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay Parenting
"This is why we, as a society, do not allow single mothers to raise kids. It's just not healthy" how can you say that society doesnt allow single mothers to parent so gays shouldnt either? around 50% of marriages dont last, gay or straight regardless creating single parents. single mothers and fathers raise children all the time with complete sucess and in that situation there is only 1 parent. in a gay marriage there are 2 parenting so it would only create more stability and a better concept of family. im sorry to say that most who are so insecure about any aspects of homosexuality are probably insecure with themselves.
- alesha September 15, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Re-read.
You're right, but I think you mischaracterize the statements above. If you re-read you'll find that DelBeano was surely being sarcastic, given that his or her statement was in support of gay marriage and is titled "gay marriage opponents ignore fact."
- nevermath
October 4, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gay Parenting is no different than straight parenting
I was raised by my biological mother and her partner. I am no different than anyone else. Nor was I any different than any of my school friends. Which by the way was ALOT! None of their parents had any problems with it, it did not stop me from doing the same things that the straight parented kids did. When my mother died, many of my school friends and their parents attended her funeral, along with BOTH of my ex husbands and their families, including the new wives. My mother being gay did not hurt my children either. My mother's partner is still a daily part of our lives and we are the better for it! Get your facts straight. The kids that have issues are the ones raised by parents that dont give a crap about no one but themselves. Out there screwing around,drinking and doing drugs. That is straight and gay parents. Your sexual orientation doesnt make you a bad or good parent, your heart makes that choice.
- gtucker09
May 27, 2009 8:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"No" answer is merely religious
The only reason to not allow same-sex marriage is religious in nature...that is it is an abomination to God. As a Christian myself, I realize that not everyone is Christian and that I have no right to impose my faith on anyone else.
Do I agree with the lifestyle? Of course I don't. Religious institutions may refuse to participate or officiate in said ceremonies if they wish, but for goodness sake let people be happy.
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is more than one religious perspective
The idea 'homosexuality is sin' is a religious belief, but it is not the only one. Many people of faith believe, based on the Bible, that homosexuality is not sin. Further, they believe that labeling the loving intimacy between two people of the same gender as 'an abomination' is not only a false translation of "toe'vah", but because it falls in a passage that requires the death penalty, the claim is a overt repudiation of Christ's teachings and a covert death threat.
In other words, to many progressive and liberal Christians, 'homosexuality is sin' is incompatible with Christian faith and life.
Since there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle, such claims are 'bearing false witness' which is repeatedly forbidden in the Bible.
Before posting one's religious views as fact, one should consider that they are, at best, speculation, and often lead one into sin, such as bearing false witness.
- WRoget
August 20, 2008 6:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, it's not.
There are a few reasons not to allow same-sex marriage. One is that the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Changing this definition opens the door to a whole bunch of other alterations. For example, "Why can't a consenting adult marry two consenting adults?" or "Why can't a consenting brother and sister get married?" It could also undermine the more traditional marriage, which has been a major stabilizing force in our society, and has already taken enough damage in recent years. I think it will eventually come to pass, but forcing the issue too soon will breed resentment and true hatred, not what the Left is calling hatred today. I'm talking about Amsterdam style killings and attacks. This nation forced slavery too soon, and had a bloody Civil War that left a large portion crippled with no one to blame but their former slaves. If slavery had been allowed to die on its own, which was already happening, there wouldn't be inequality today, and any racism would have died off quickly. Societal alterations are slow, and these things don't happen overnight. Already tolerance for homosexuals is much higher in this country than it ever had been. I hate to put a timetable on these things, but gay marriage will probably be legal in every state by 2020, and this whole argument will be as puzzling to my generation's kids and grandkids as segregation is to us. That is, unless the issue is forced, in which case, unneccesary blood will probably be shed, and there will be true hatred, true bigotry, and true enmity for the next 200 years.
- richardsonkr
January 17, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do you care only for children?
The "parents" need their freedom too. We're all human beings, animals. We have feelings. It's just a minority of us have feelings for the same sex, but those people should not be deprived of their place in the society. It is not weird for a child to have two parents of the same sex. The parents need to be accepted in this society too.
As for the children, if they really do get out of hand with a single parent, we should help them more, shouldn't we? We should teach them if their parents don't.
The children feel left out because the society looks at same sex parents as unacceptable people. Just like the parents feel the pain.
The best solution to this is to accept same sex lovers as part of our society, not looking down on them or anything, letting them feel accepted, so the children will not have any problems at all.
- Rainie August 13, 2008 2:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Proof please
Sivan claimed "But same sex marriage is not the goal of the gay lobbies."
So it should be easy for Sivan to provide 25 statements from 'gay lobbies' with external links of course, explicitly stating that same-sex marriage is not the goal'.
If Sivan does not or cannot, then Sivan is posting false information, and every claim by Sivan must be interpretted in light of that.
- WRoget
August 20, 2008 6:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is it about rights?
Where I seem to run into a a problem is the claim that what is wanted most is rights. I have seen the idea of a union of two people with all of the legal rights of a heterosexual community floated only to see it rebuffed because the term "Civil Union" was used instead "Marriage". Presumedly because it implies acceptance by the broader community. Like it or not you can't legislate acceptance by a community or a religion. Attempts to do so generally result in resentment by both parties.
- Aegiltheugly
September 3, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Separate but equal is not equal
Aegiltheugly,
I believe that all they want is equal rights under the law. We've seen how "separate but equal" worked in the segregated south. It didn't work. "Separate" can never be "equal".
I firmly believe that the word marriage can be replaced by union, civil union, or household in legal documents and law. In fact, that's what we should do. Then, if you are registered in that status, you have all the financial obligations and rights that only married couples can share in now. And that includes divorce.
Then we could let the churches marry people under their beliefs and procedures. That way, the sacred covenant of marriage would be protected in your church.
Would that not satisfy everyone?
Michelle
- litebkt October 11, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not even close to equal
I appreciate your points, Aegiltheugly, and I could accept the union, civil union, or household designation -- except for one thing. To yield the point would be to allow the religious right to claim a word out of the English language as belonging solely to them. According the Websters Dictionary, 1996, marriage is defined as the taking of another person as husband or wife. It says nothing about a husband taking a wife. Two women can just as easily take each other as wife, or two men take each other as husband. I feel it would be wrong to make that sort of concession to any group. Witness the foolishness of Spike Jones suing Spike TV because they were encroaching on his trademark of his name.
- OddGrouch
October 29, 2008 4:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You have made a great point and I've changed my opinion
OddGrouch,
You have an excellent point and I now agree with you without reservation. It must be up to the churches to make their own distinction within their own congregations and doctrine and practice that belief within the confines of their faith. Marriage under the law should be afforded to everyone. It is a right that we must all have.
Michelle
- litebkt October 29, 2008 12:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marriage is only between a man & a woman
Two people of the same sex getting married is just two people playing house. It has nothing to do with hate or discrimination. It has to do with what is right or wrong. Allowing gay marriage is just showing that the society is going deeper into moral decay. God is the one that created marriage & it is between one man and one woman anything else apart from that is not of God therefore, cannot be called a marriage.
Some people might say God does not judge them well let's clarify that. While you are alive on this earth in your mortal body God has not yet pass judgment on anyone because he wants everyone to be saved and that means accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, because after death is the judgment. Everyone will give have to an account on the type of life they lived here on earth.
Does God allow each of us to make our own choices? Yes, but know this every decision you make has consequences. The Bible said in Revelation 2l verse 8, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." I am not making this up it is already written.
- Tamara
September 4, 2008 8:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You May Be Christian...BUT...
You have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives. Not everyone believes the same way you do. What you are trying to do is impose your religion on everyone else, which is just as immoral as allowing corruption into your religion.
If your religion or any other religion does not want to ordain same-sex marriages, fine. But keep religion out of politics and let those who don't believe the same as you live their lives the way they see fit without you interfering with their right to do so. I don't see them interfering with your right to Bible-thump, so don't let them interfere with their right to unbelief if that's what they so desire.
- bagpiper2005
September 19, 2008 6:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually she isn't
Ummmm.......Tamara I believe it was, yeah, she wasn't telling her your opinion... She was quoting scripture....who wrote the scriptures? Oh yeah, God did, thus in quoting Him, she brought His opinions to the table, and I tell you so that you may know it and know it well. His opinion is one to be respected, he created you. Deny it all you will, but that isn't my opinion. It's not a belief, it's a fact. The evidence is all around you and you only don't see it because you close your eyes. She simply stated her agreement to the Bible, the Bible which is a set of moral statutes that we'd do well to obey if we want to go to Heaven. If we don't want to, ok, fine, we can do whatever we want to, but it doesn't mean we'll get away from judgment. Just because we feel it's ok to steal someones chocolate bar, and it's not against our conscience and we feel it's ok, that doesn't make it right. So don't be all you have religion thus I don't like you to Tamara, she is only posting her thoughts as is the purpose of this site. And she isn't imposing, if you don't wanna hear it, close your ears....but yeah, you'll be judged for that too.
- eJones
January 25, 2009 10:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So the opinion of...
...a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully is to be respected?
Not to mention the burden of proof is on you to authenticate the validity of the Bible or even the existence of a deity, nether of which you can do.
Stealing one's chocolate bar hurts the other person. A same sex marriage hurts nobody. That's the difference. Anyone with half a brain can realize that.
- bagpiper2005
January 25, 2009 11:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ummmmmmm........I apologize...
I apologize for being blissfully unaware of who you are referring to in the first section of your reply, it certainly doesn't apply to Tamara, I hope, unless you know something I don't. I KNOW it doesn't apply to me........and if you are trying to apply it to God, well, I don't see how any of it applies to Him...or, were you even replying to what I said? I'm just a little confused.....I mean I guess when you got out your dictionary/thesaurus to look up those words, I suppose that you may have gotten a few definitions and meanings distorted but........I don't know....please explain?
If you want me to discuss the validity of the Bible, all you need do is ask; if you need proof of a deity (God) the proof is all around you, all you need do is open your mind and consider the proof and the facts. But if that doesn't work, you can still ask about that too.
I had a chemistry teacher who had a brain tumor, miraculously, she lived. However she did indeed lose part of her brain from that process, because of that I don't really appreciate that comment......and yes it does...to think otherwise would be.....well.....kind of stupid....
- eJones
January 30, 2009 10:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just so's ya know
If you don't want people to bash your beliefs and opinion, you probably shouldn't bash theirs. I am all for gay marriage , but I don't see us making any progress by bagging on the Christian church . Mud slinging will get us no where. I will get off my high horse now, but it is possible to be religious and still support gay marriage.
- doughts
April 1, 2009 3:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is the comment that made me sign up.
1.) Tamara only included a small quote from the Bible. The majority of her input was comprised of interpretation [albeit from her, you, or any minister] of this--and likely other--pieces of scripture. She stated her accordance with a common intrepretation of God's word. There are a great deal of interpretations of scripture, and unfortunately there is not much one can do to clear up misinterpretations considering that all the interpretations are based off of the same text.
2.) You cannot use people or the Earth as evidence in support of God if the question at hand is whether or not God created us and the Earth. It may be true [or equally likely false] that God created us and our surroundings, but said evidence is not valid support. Who knows if God created the universe or not... we can never prove such metaphysical conjectures.
3.) God may or may not be around [a question I often ask myself], but the Bible was still written by people. Wonderful lessons and words of wisdom, but it's still just a book. God is above and beyond such earthly, material things.
- userk
April 13, 2009 4:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My response
1.) 1 Cor. 6:9 " 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."
Sorry if I find this straight-forward, but it seems to me that if you don't interpret this as homosexuals will NOT enter the kingdom of Heaven...then, you're wrong. Plain and simple, not my opinion, nor interpretation, rather it is what it says.
2.) So how do you believe the earth (and the universe) was created? Evolution? Well if that's the case, look up the second law of thermodynamics, it states that everything is moving to disorder, when evolution says: bang = life and order. Ummmmm, no, even our own science laws disagree with that. And survival of the fittest? How come apes are still around if we evolved, wouldn't they be weaker and have died off by now?
And matter cannot be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of matter (or mass), so how did all the matter appear on the earth, even the gases that allegedly were there to cause the 'big bang' had to have come from somewhere....right?
3.) Yes, people wrote the Bible; however, the author was God. That's a distinction that is crucial to understanding the Bible. And any argument associated with it.
Forty people wrote the Bible. How could they be in complete agreement with one another? The writing of the Bible spanned thousands of years. There are no contradictions whatsoever in the Bible. But books written by even one person can contradict themselves. How can it be that forty people, most of which didn't even live near the same time, be in complete agreement?
- eJones
June 13, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're assuming things
1.) If a few scholars/linguists agree that "homosexuals" is a fair translation of the original text, then you are absolutely right. I don't have enough background in Greek nor in the Bible itself to figure it out. If the translation is accurate [which neither you or I can really know...] then you're absolutely right and this passage does speak against homosexuality .
2.) What does it matter how I believe the universe was created? I only said that if God created the universe [which He might have] we cannot use our existence as proof of it. I never discredited Creationism. Even if I had, that does not necessarily mean I believe in "Evolution." You're quick to assume my beliefs and even quicker to disprove them. Also, the Big Bang and Evolution are two entirely different theories and should be addressed as such.
3.) It is not crucial to accept God as an author to understand an argument put forth. That's like saying non-believers are incapable of understanding your ways. An argument should be evaluted for its reasoning, not who said it. There are also more than a few contradictions in the Bible. You'd have a much stronger argument by saying that there aren't many. And I'm sure some groups have 40+ members in complete agreement with each other sometimes. It's not impossible.
- userk
June 14, 2009 12:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
clarification
"Well if that's the case, look up the second law of thermodynamics, it states that everything is moving to disorder, when evolution says: bang = life and order. "
-eJones
That is a rather large misrepresentation. the 2nd law states that the entropy of a closed system increases over time... but the Earth is not a closed system, the Sun adds most of the energy to the biosphere (with vulcanism a distant second).
"And survival of the fittest? How come apes are still around if we evolved, wouldn't they be weaker and have died off by now?"
-eJones
Because they are well adapted to their environment . Evolution is not a strictly linear process, ancestor species can branch into more then one decedent species... which is to say that modern apes and modern humans are 'cousins'
"And matter cannot be created or destroyed according to the law of conservation of matter (or mass), so how did all the matter appear on the earth, even the gases that allegedly were there to cause the 'big bang' had to have come from somewhere....right?"
-eJones
Matter did not 'appear' on earth, the earth formed from a cloud of interstellar dust (the same cloud that gave rise to the sun and the rest of the planets).
The origins of the universe are not yet known in any great detail... the Big Bang is the current theory, but many questions remain to be answered.
"Forty people wrote the Bible."
-eJones
That is a fairly specific number, how exactly was it arrived at?
"How could they be in complete agreement with one another? The writing of the Bible spanned thousands of years."
-eJones
The most direct answer is that because the Bible is a compilation of religious texts that they were chosen because they were consistent, and that the different authors had all read the earlier texts and were building on them.
"There are no contradictions whatsoever in the Bible. But books written by even one person can contradict themselves."
-eJones
So if everyone in the Bible was in complete agreement with each other then the OT passages supporting genocide and slavery are still acceptable?
- MrBook
June 15, 2009 6:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Logic.
It's nice to read something with a glimmer of logic after a marathon of its absence. I agree completely.
- andrewdang
November 4, 2009 3:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A lot of people wrote the scriptures
G-d only wrote a very small part of it--specifically, the 10 Commandments. The rest was dictated.
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for walking into the trap.
This comment is a perfect example of what a previous poster was talking about - opposition to this issue is based on religious dogmas. As long as you're proving them right at every turn, your side will never gain any ground with rationalists.
- DelBeano
September 23, 2008 7:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God and Marraige
God created marraige?
There are many people that do not believe in God but still get married. There are many others who believe in other gods that you do not believe in. Do they not have equal rights?
The bottom line for me is this: You have equal rights under the constitution or you don't.
Keep marriage sacred in your own church and let the government treat everyone equal. Won't that work?
Michelle
- litebkt October 11, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Sky Is Falling
When divorce was legal, Judeo-Christian folk said the sky was falling. It didn't.
When contraceptives were legal, Judeo-Christian folk said the sky was falling. It didn't.
When custody rights were delineated, Judeo-Christian folk said the sky was falling. It didn't.
When abortion was legal, Judeo-Christian folk said the sky was falling. It didn't.
When same-sex marriages are legal, Judeo-Christian folk will say that the sky is falling. And it won't.
- QuinceyQuick
January 30, 2009 11:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's no such thing as Judeo-Christian
That word was invented by Christians. Jews have virtually no common moral philosophies or spiritual frameworks with Christians. They appropriated us, like they did a lot of other people. Let's keep the Christian arguments on the Christian side.
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Civil Marriage vs. Sacramental Marriage
As long as marriage is used contractually by society as a means of determining who is or is not eligible to receive governmental benefits, rights or protections, there can be no legitimate reason to limit it to only heterosexual participants, based upon religious strictures and dictates.
Churches should have the absolute right to determine who is or is not eligible to receive any of their sacraments or blessings, and may discriminate at will based upon whatever criteria they set for themselves, but government has no such leeway. If heterosexuals continue to want their government to acknowledge their marriages and dispense rights and protections based upon those marriages, then such acknowledgement must be open and available to ALL citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.
The fact that we currently have a situation in which sacramental blessings of marriage and governmental verification of civil marriage are dispensed at the same moment by the same officiant, should in no way cause us to confuse the two separate and distinct institutions.
If we need to rename one of these institutions "civil unions" and provide such civil unions to all couples who seek governmental acknowledgment of their relationships, regardless of the gender of the participants, and leave the other term, "marriage" as a purely religious concept to be granted at will by various religious institutions, then so be it. It would probably be easier, on the whole, though, for us all to just grow up and realize that the two institutions exist side-by-side and, while we may be able to control the one (sacramental), there is no good reason to deny the other (civil) to any of our fellow citizens based upon our personal religious beliefs.
- Babaroni
September 10, 2008 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Same Sex Marriage
Same sex marriage is a perversion of the very meaning of the word 'marriage' - an institution established by God between one man and one woman for life. Homosexuality itself is a perversion and imagination of how we were created. Life is hard and there are hard questions asked in life, but this is not one of them. It is not hard to realize if we were created male or female, and one should bring their mind into harmony with the way their body was created / not bring their body into subjection to their mind. The reality is that we are either male or female - any other thoughts we may have about how we feel is not reality and nothing short of perversion and imagination of who we really are. To think of taking homosexuality to another level of 'marriage' is even more perversion and imagination.
- Canadian September 18, 2008 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah, the binary gender system.
So... I'm going to assume that you are vehemently against transexual people as well then? Ok, so you've quoted the bible at me, I'm assuming. I'd like to quote back.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER (hate to break it to you, that does include gay people) believes in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that a gay christian couple wants to get married, because they want to have sex after they get married, not before. Wouldn't that mean they are following what God is teaching ? Also, please point out versus where the Bible says being gay is wrong.
Or how about John 8, 1-11? Let anyone among you who is without sin throw the first stone.
There's also the issue of love. If I remember correctly, love is the word used most in the bible. Gay couples love each other, and they deserve to be loved. And the hate the sinner thing? It's like saying you don't like people being left handed, but you like left handed people. Being gay isn't a choice, whatever you may think of it, it's a piece of your brain that's hard wired into you, like being straight.
- doughts
April 1, 2009 3:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Separation of Politics and Religion
To Bagpipe2005
It is impossible to separate religion from politics and this is why, whether you like it or not, or whether you are a Christian or not God is the one who created laws and how we as human beings should live in a society. The 10 commandments is the very basis of almost every county's law in the world today.
For example thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit fornication etc. And from these laws spring forth other laws.
So when people say separate religion from politics that is not a valid argument. God's standard will always be the best way, anything from that is lawless. So you not loving God or don't care anything about Him does not change anything. You have your opinion and I have my truth. Peace
- Tamara
September 20, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So are we going to teach...
...our kids that earth is 6,000 years old in school? Hey, you can't separate religion from politics, right?
Of course, I feel sorry for anyone who believes that nonsense.
By the way, I'm very deeply rooted in the Christian faith. I have a very strong faith in Christianity, but I do not force that faith on others and I let people live the way they see fit and love the people they want to love. Adultery is perfectly legal in this nation, as is lying, coveteousness, and not attending church, so your theory of the 10 Commandments being the basis for law is out the window.
A majority of the founding fathers of this nation were actually non-Christians anyway (most of them were Deists). "God's standard" might be the best way, but we can't hold everyone to that standard, as such we would be oppressing minorities. To make everyone commit to Christian values against their will is truly disgusting, people just want to be free to live their lives.
- bagpiper2005
September 22, 2008 1:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Wow, bagpiper2005, every time I want to reply to a post you beat me to the punch and convey your opinions intelligently as well as passionately- kudos to you.
It I've read various posts for and against this subject and it seems as though the only people who are against it straightforwardly are those who come across as Fundamentalist Christians who can't seem to adapt very well to the changing times. In fact, after reading the primary article we are all debating on, my first impression was: "so... we shouldn't adapt- because 'that's the way things have always been- why change it?' how lame is that?" I mean, we've adapted so much as humans- all different cultures- we wouldn't have technology if we had maintained that mindset.
I also have deep rooted Christian beliefs- I'm 22, saving for marriage , (though I refuse to marry until everyone in my country is granted that right- guess I'll be a virgin for a long time, hahaha) and I have a lot of strong Christian beliefs- however, bagpiper2005, I agree that my personal beliefs should not prohibit anyone from loving whoever makes them happy- and marriage may be somewhat of a farce as of late (Celebrities are making marriage into a fad, it seems, what with the constant divorce rates and all that lovely jazz), but when I think of 'marriage' I think of happy people committing to loving one another for the rest of their lives- and the prospect of this right being denied to anyone makes me scoff.
When I was 12 years old, and a goody-two shoes Christian freak, and I was first presented with the prospect of homosexual marriage (by my super religious aunt) I was so puzzled and confused by the contradictory feelings I had regarding the topic- knowing that, per my aunt, 'and the bible - supposedly' God doesn't love 'fags' yet God is a God of love- yeah, you can see where my brain just exploded for a while, there...
So all the Fundamentalist Christian hubbub- regardless of the 'grounded evidence' presented in the bible- is just mind-blowingly asinine- even a twelve year old can see it.
- Questix
July 26, 2009 5:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reading Suggestions
Tamara,
I think you would do well to to read about the actual writing of the US constitution and the bill of rights as well as the debates over religion and state laws that took place in Virginia prior to our founding documents. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were very clear about what they thought should be the founding principles of this country.
Besides, not kill and not steal are pretty universal laws, they even existed before Moses received the stones they were written on.
- mangueken
November 19, 2008 4:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lets Go
If you want to drag religion into this, fine. Here's a challenge, make a case against gay marriage that does not include religion, reproduction issues, ethics or anything stated here. My point is that as soon as this debate comes up, the first thing to be said is "well the bible says..." or "gay men or women cant reproduce". Oh, and you said "You have your opinion and I have my truth" well, that's an opinion. Your opinion is that you're right when it comes to religion. my opinion is that you're bring arrogant, close minded, and flat out rude.
- VerbalAssasin07
May 13, 2009 5:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientific Facts
Evolution theory makes it clear that homosexual activities are perversions of natural biological laws. The basis of evolution is the reproduction of beneficial genes and the elimination of detrimental ones in succeeding generations -- the "survival of the fittest." In our species that requires heterosexual intercourse. If accidental mutation had ever produced a "homosexual gene," lack of propagation would have quickly bred it out of Homo sapiens.
Thus, homosexuals do what they do because they want to, not because they have to. That they have a right to do it is no excuse for new laws to force others to approve of it.
Every known human community has had the sound scientific foundation of heterosexual marriage, which we are now urged to destroy for a minority's perverted pleasures.
- Allogic
September 29, 2008 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mischaracterization of Evolution
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Evolution has no moral import! It's also not a grounding for normative ethics. Even granted that homosexuals are 'unfit' for procreation biologically, this says nothing of moral implications.
Here's a thought experiment: let's say that a certain evolutionary trait develops which renders people sterile, should they not be allowed marriage?
Also, evolution isn't absolute, poor traits are not necessarily extinguished just because they aren't most fit.
Finally, how is allowing gay marriage "destroying" heterosexual marriage?
You should change the first letter of your screen-name to an 'i.'
- nevermath
October 4, 2008 1:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientific facts?
Actually, homosexuality could be argued to be an evolutionary benefit for a species that is overproducing. To help save us from our own over population of the planet the gays and lesbians may be the products of beneficial genes. So, your argument, from a "scientific" evolutionary point of view has failed to take this important point into account. Those who keep recklessly reproducing may be the perversions of natural biological laws, ever think about that?
- mangueken
November 19, 2008 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marriage for the same sex is a contradiction
How can two gay individuals celebrate marriage? The purpose of entering into a marriage contract in the eyes of Christians is for a man and woman to give themselves to one another--freely, totally, faithfully and fruitfully (fruitful being that children may bare forth). God wanted to make this free, total, faithful and fruitful love so evident, so real to us, that he clearly stamped it into our bodies as male and female--when we come together in the sexual union (intercourse), it is a reminder that we are called to a total self-giving, nuptial love for one another. This is what marriage is. Lawyers will never redefine this in the eyes of the faithful (no matter what changes to civil law they might make). Next, marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament is defined by newadvent.org as "an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification." The substance of the "sacrament of marriage" or the "sanctity of marriage" i.e. the word "marriage" itself, occurs only in the religious context. Those "religions" out there who recognize homosexual unions and call it "marriage," are in the eyes of their Christian brothers and sisters, illegitimately and falsely interpreting the sacrament of marriage. And it is not me or other people out there who define what the sacrament of marriage is; man does not have this authority. It was Christ who defined marriage in holy scripture and it is from His authority that we draw our definition. There are several scripture passages to site. In Ephesians 5:22 for example: "Let women be subject to their husbands, as the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. He is the savior of his body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church..." This passage defines marriage as a call for men and women to come together in marriage, to serve Christ, to serve each other, their family, and the community.
What I am saying is that the union of same sexes cannot fulfill the sacramental definition of marriage, and hence the argument misses the mark. It is ultimately an improper understanding of sacramental marriage. The effort for "gay marriage" is really an effort to seek legitimacy. Any attempt to do so is invalid in the eyes of Christians (and I am sure other faiths...Islam, Judaism etc) who properly understand the sacrament of marriage. So it doesn't matter if the lawyer says it's legal. No matter how much homosexuals want their relationships recognized and validated through the sacrament of marriage, it will never happen. Yet despite this, we love our homosexual brothers and sisters very much, we simply do not condone their sexual relationships outside of marriage (the same goes for heterosexual sexual relationships outside of marriage). This is not a form of discrimination, it is a matter of affirming a decision to live the life we are ALL called to live by Christ--one of chastity (a virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence in the sexual appetite) and purity (not confusing lust for love). Only in this way will we find true fulfillment in life, as we discover the beauty and purpose of our human dignity--the call to live a life of free, total, faithful and fruitful love. This selfless love is pure and free of lust. We do not use an individual merely for our sexual gratification, we come to see a person for who they are! Marriage between a man and a woman is a reminder, an icon if you will, of this total self giving love. This is why we fight to keep people out there from deconstructing the definition of this sacred institution. If you are interested in finding out more about this "Theology of the Body" check out Pope John Paul's teachings on the theology of the body, explained by Christopher West ( http://www.tobinstitute.org /). It is the most profound, uplifting and eye opening material I have ever studied. It has changed my life and how I view others.
- wdpauli
October 12, 2008 10:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Great job of falling into the religious dogma trap!!!
We're talking about civil marriage here, not sacramental or religious marriage. If your religion doesn't want to honor a same-sex union, fine, but at the same time, whatever happened to separation of church and state?!?!?!?
- bagpiper2005
October 14, 2008 9:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Job
I like your explanation of marriage. I believe you are right. It is so sad that people exchange the truth for a lie. People who believe in gay marriage set a trap for themselves. All who believe in Christ have nothing to loose.
- Tamara
October 16, 2008 8:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus said what about marriage?
I think you are mistaken about gay marriage, Jesus never said anything about it. What we read in the bible are what they think Jesus said and even they don't agree about many things in relation to Jesus, so not a good arguing point.
However, the bible is clear that it is anti homosexual, so your right among "believers" and the "faithful", most likely your mind won't be changed to accept gay marriage.
This means that you, your fellow church friends and the church itself should stay out of what is really a secular question on discrimination. Since, before we ever get the proof of whether or not heaven exists, marriage has many secular implications. Peoples taxes, property rights, health and death issues, all fall into the realm of secular legislation and as such, our government is expected to treat all people equally. This puts your feelings and faith second but it is the right thing to do.
- mangueken
November 20, 2008 4:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is either right or wrong?
To Michelle:
God is the one that created people (whether they want to deny his existence or not) therefore everyone has some measure of good in them and also a conscience. So people who chose to practice homosexuality or follow other gods are only searing their conscience. Nature itself testifies that God exist, for instance observe the change in seasons no human being is smart enough to invent that. Not even animals practice such depravity as some humans. Remember sin came into the world because of Mankind.
I am a Christian and I refuse to agree with three quarters of the people saying it is right when God find that lifestyle detestable. Any Christian who tells you or anybody else that practicing homosexuality is O.K with God he/she in their own sweet way is telling you to go hell and the spirit of truth is not them. Don't be deceived the devil is a roaring lion seeking who he may devour. The Bible said I present before you life or death choose life. The life you live here on earth will determine where you spend eternity it is either heaven or hell. Jesus is your savior while you are on earth and he is your judge once your spirit leaves your body especially if you are not a Born again Believer filled with the Holy Spirit. A day will come when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. There is only one God.
You may not like what I have to say, that is O.K the truth alone is controversial.
- Tamara
October 12, 2008 10:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gods have nothing to do with same sex marriage
If you study history, it is crystal clear that people have universally labeled things they could not comprehend as god. Mankind has created thousands of gods in its image during the 100,000 years that humans have existed in our 4.7 billion year old earth and 13.7 billion year old universe.
As we learn more about all aspects of the universe and the evolution of biological life in it, the gods we created keep getting smaller and smaller. At this point, we can explain pretty much everything without invoking a sky daddy.
It is way more intellectual honest to say that "this is something we don't know yet but we are looking into it" than to say that because we don't understand something that it must be "god did it".
Again if you study history, you can only come to the conclusion that we are all 99.999% atheists. Most people only believe in one of the thousands of gods we have invented. Some go one god further and become 100% atheists.
Now then, any argument against same sex marriage that makes reference to any of the gods we have invented is not an argument at all.
Laws made by the state should not rely on such fake arguments. The state should use science base its decisions on evidence.
In contrast, faith is belief in something not based on any evidence. Churches of course are welcome to use their version of god any time and make their decision based of faith.
It is, however, dishonest to put faith and truth in the same sentence. Only evidence and truth belong together.
Separation of church and state means freedom OF and FROM religion.
People using their god argument against same sex marriage, are welcome to use it within their church but join the 21st century and let the state make decisions that do not discriminate anyone.
We have a supreme court for a reason: to prevent any majority from discriminating against a minority.
Be happy within your faith and let other be happy within theirs or be happy without any faith.
- gma
October 29, 2008 1:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's be consistent with the separation of church and state
The US is one of the few countries with a constitutional separation of church and state.
Within such a system, marriage should only be defined by the state and 2 people (same or different sex) should go to city hall to get married. Priest should not be able to perform legal marriages.
Only after a couple is legally married, should they have the option of going to a church of their choice to celebrate their marriage within the rituals of that church with their church community.
Because of separation between church and state, churches have no say in how the state defines marriage but in pure symmetry, the state can not require churches to organize religious celebrations if they do not want to.
Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, Belgium in 2003, Massachusetts in 2004, Spain and Canada in 2005, South Africa in 2006, California and Connecticut in 2008 and will be in Norway in 2009 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage ).
The sky has not fallen, heterosexual marriages have not disappeared and divorces have not exploded, these countries have not gone up in smoke, ... In fact, except for these happily married same sex couples, nothing has changed.
So, don't be afraid of your own shadow and support same sex marriage.
Society has to continue to eliminate any form of discrimination. We did abolish slavery, gave women the right to vote, allowed mixed race marriage, ... This is one more thing that makes the world a better place.
- gma
October 29, 2008 12:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Marriage should not be a State issue but a private one
Marriage between gays and not-gays should not be an issue of the State - then marriage becomes a private matter...and people can do what they want. That is the mistake society has made....rather than ask if gays should be married - we should ask should the State regulate marriages? If we were to end state regulation on marriage - then gays and the not so gays can marry however they way. Heck even a gay guy and a straight girl could marry- think of all the possibilities!
- selfish November 21, 2008 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Love is love.
Lets begin with this..love is a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person, a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection. Now a question..if a woman has the right to love a man, why cant a woman love a woman or a man love a man? Love is love and it has no gender. You cant help who you love. Who is anyone in this world to say who someone else can fall in love with? People say that being gay is choice. Well, heres another question..do you wake up in the morning and say "hey, I think I'm going to be straight today"? I don't think so. You are not born straight or gay. You are born asexual. You have no sexual orientation. As you grow and develop you become attracted to things and for some its the opposite sex and for others its the same sex. Gays are as normal as straights or anything else in this world. Besides, who are any of us to say what NORMAL is? I've been on several websites about this gay marriage thing and most of them argued that it wouldnt be right in the eyes of "god". Now, I dont believe in god, but if there is in fact a god than why would he have made gays if he wouldnt approve of them? It just doesnt make any sense. Other websites have tried arguing that gays are the reason for AIDS and STDS. This is not true. If you search for the answer to the quesion "where did AIDS orginate from?" you would find several different answers, but none would say anything about gays. People are trying their hardest to prove that homosexuality should not be allowed by throwing false information around and that will get you no where. Another thing that people are trying say is that gay parents will raise gay children. This isn't true either. This goes back to the asexual thing. If you're going to be gay you are going to be gay. It doesn't matter who raises you or what your religion is or anything that you have any control over. I know a gay couple bothwho has two daughters of which are straight. So that is proof that that suggestion is indeed false. And as for the statements saying that gay marriages are unatural because in "traditional" marriages the man and woman can have children, there are plenty of straight couples out there that are popping out children left and right! It doesn't matter how many gays there are because there will always be straight couples and there will always be more children being born. And as for gays, there are plenty of ways for them to also have children. So lets put that arguement to a rest, please! Gays deserve the same rights as straights. Gays are no different than straights. They wake up every morning and they have a life. The only thing thats different about them is they love someone of the same sex rather than the opposite. There is absolutely no reason why a gay couple should not be able to get married and have the same rights as a straight couple.
- RissiaBaby
November 23, 2008 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Get marraige out of government
Government should not determine or exercise legal supervision over marriage.
I favor a domestic civil contract for all people who choose to live together. You get married in your church and file a domestic civil contract with the government. The contract would provide you the rights to kinship, survivorship, joint ownership, insurance privileges (and all of the other some 4000 rights that only married people can now claim). And, for what it is worth, this would cover other cases such as a son taking care of his aging stepmother.
Would that not solve this insane problem?
No. Some other stupid thing would come up where gays would be denied their rights.
We will never have equal rights until all people share those rights. I am not gay. But I will stand with them until they share equal rights under the law.
Michelle
- litebkt December 10, 2008 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What happened to separation of church and state?
There is a very good reason the constitution separates church and state. One, because our country has the freedom of religion and making laws based on religion is unethical and unfair to the people who don't believe whatever that religion may entail. Two, because religion is blind. Religion is based on faith and needs neither reason nor logic. Many people say that a person that CHOOSES to live an "alternative" lifestyle is CHOOSING to forgo the benefits of a marriage. No one chooses to be a homosexual. Some people are born white, some people are born black, some people are born straight, some people are born asian, some people are BORN gay. Anyone that still thinks it's a choice ask yourself this, Are you physically attracted to the same sex and you just CHOOSE to ignore it? If so, I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but you are homosexual. Anyone that says that its not based on religion it is the fact that the constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman think of what it said before the civil rights movement. Marriage used to be allowed to one WHITE man and one woman. Does it mean that that was right? Why not go further? Why not make it one white christian man between the ages of 18-25 and one woman? Anyone that doesn't fit into that category can have a civil union.
- DrobUA
December 22, 2008 10:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why is it...
when ever anyoine is talking about me or my civil right there's always an opposing viewpoint. On the Today show when discussing Martin Luther Kings birthday no one says " and now lets here an opposing view from the KKK".
- mikey683
January 17, 2009 2:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Separation of Church and State? Really.
No matter how one looks at this question, the responses all come down to a clash of moral and religious viewpoints, or lack thereof. True, separation of church and state is said to be in effect, but has religion ever been truly separate from government? I don't think it has, or is even possible honestly, because people will always bring their religious and non-religious and ethical ideas to the table on highly controversial issues such as this one. And if they did not, we would truly live in a country that is even more closed minded and one-dimensional than many may claim it to be. If people truly kept their religious beliefs out of it, then we would be living under a much more stifling government, not a more open and tolerant one.
- boyswannafight2010
January 25, 2009 4:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Unnatural.
Not all those who oppose gay marriage HATE gays, as so many commenters have been instigating. Many seem to be focusing on the "love is love" idea, which sounds fine, but there is always the rebuttal that this particular kind of love is "unnatural." I have to say that I agree, gay marriage is unnatural. Many have posed the question, "what is natural?" Given, it is now popular and sometimes very necessary in society to make use of "unnatural" processes (i.e radiation and chemotherapy for cancer), as long as they have the potential for positive results. However, in the case of gay marriage, I believe that anatomy alone is sufficient proof of how a man and a woman are the only intended course, religious standpoints aside, and how anything else is not only impossible, but indeed unnatural.
- boyswannafight2010
January 25, 2009 4:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One Clear-Cut Answer
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
Therefore, God also gave them up to uncleanliness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deciet, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backs-biters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:24-32)
I understand that I will get a lot of flack for this, but I'm just offering some very clear-cut answers to this question. I didn't write it, but it comes from an extremely reliable Source, and I believe it.
- boyswannafight2010
January 25, 2009 5:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lie with vs. Marry
Doesn't say anything in there about marriage.
And once again, women are off the hook. Lesbians seem to be fine with those passages.
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Biblical View
Well, I am certainly glad I'm not in Canada, but I am inclined to my view completely agreeing with the following verse (which I don't intend to offend anyone with, it is just my belief and therefore you need to tolerate it too, just as I suppose I will have to if you disagree)....the verses are 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but yiou were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." thus even from these verses you can see that homosexuality IS a choice if there were indeed some who practiced it and then turned from it after obeying the gospel. It doesn't matter what I believe, it doesn't matter what you believe this verse means or says, it matters what it DOES say, and that my friends is quite obvious, homosexuality is wrong.
- eJones
January 25, 2009 9:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homosexuals in the Bible???
How can the word "homosexual" be in the bible when it was only coined about 80 years ago?
- batymahn
May 21, 2009 10:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Well, that is how it is translated in the bible today...and the word is really unnecessary...
Homosexuals have been around for a long time....go back to Genesis 19:4-7...and the rest of the story is good as well, it shows how God thinks of gays regardless of whether they call themselves married or not doesn't matter to him
Here, i'll quote the two verses here for you from my New American Standard version bible
4-Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5- and they called to Lot and said to him "where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring then out to us that we may have relations with them.: 6-But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7-and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly."
Also, if you want homosexuality clearly spoken of in the New Testament go to Romans 1:18-32 most specifically verses 26 and 27, but the rest helps you to understand the context....
Go ahead and read those and then tell me what you think, and if you have more questions I am willing to help you understand...
- eJones
May 25, 2009 10:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Define some of these other words
I mean, this reads to me like anyone who's an alcoholic doesn't go to heaven. No one who's covetous goes to heaven. Is that the line from you guys?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about the children?
Man and man were not made to have children together and neither were women and women. Therefore I do not believe the gay marriage should be legalized because then gay parents would be able to adopt children and I do not think that a child can be raised up properly without both a mom that is a woman, and a dad that is a man. That child would suffer from bullying by other children and eventually they might question their own sexuality, and I don’t think that their parents gay sexuality should make a negative influence on their child.
- cjobeth10
February 5, 2009 9:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pointing the finger the wrong way.
That's your opinion.
Many studies have found that same-sex parentage has no bearing on a child's self-esteem or sexuality.
Furthermore, as David E. Seidelson (1966, Catholic University Law Review) pointed out (in regards to miscegenation statutes): "Suppose, however, the social hostility aroused by a racially mixed marriage is sufficiently great to threaten peace and good order. Is there not, then, sufficient justification for state action? By all means. However, appropriate state action should consist of enforcement of existing laws aimed at maintaining tranquility and, if necessary, additional laws imposing sanctions upon those who would threaten or actually commit harmful or disorderly acts as a result of a racially mixed marriage. Statutory prohibition of such marriages as a mode of preserving tranquility makes no more sense than (and, bearing in mind the “fundamental right” of marriage, even less sense than) statutory prohibition of bow ties and mustaches."
In other words, it is the children who would bully other children of same-sex parents who should be punished. Not the same-sex parents.
I would direct you to studies: Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents. Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson. Child Development, 2004, Volume 75, Number 6, Pages 1886-1898.
Patterson, C.J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052 – 1069.
Huggins (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. In F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 123-35). New York: Harrington Park Press.
O'Connor, A. (1993). Voices from the heart: The developmental impact of a mother's lesbianism on her adolescent children. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 63, 281-299.
Gershon, Tschann, and Jemerin (1999). Stigmatization, self-esteem, and coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 437-445.
Golombok et. al.: Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosocial and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572.
- QuinceyQuick
February 6, 2009 11:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No
Being gay alone is wrong, so to become united in marriage with someone of the same sex is wrong. According to my religious beliefs I beleive that people who are married should have a family and reproduce. This is only possible if a man and a woman are married, so I believe that same sex marriage should not be allowed.
- kumquat
February 6, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your argument doesn't follow...
Your views that homosexuality is immoral does not translate to whether or not same-sex marriages are allowed.
As the courts recognized in State v. Baxley:
"In 1976, for example, the Protestant Episcopal Church issued the following resolution:
“Resolved, that it is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God, who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.
“This General Convention expresses its conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the law with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see such protection provided in actuality.
“In 1982, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirmed its position that “homosexual persons are children of God and are entitled to full civil rights.”
The American Friends Service Committee, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Methodist Church, American Lutheran Church, and other churches have held this same belief (Cases and Materials on Sexual Orientation and the Law. 2nd ed. Ed. William B. Rubenstein. 1997. West Publishing Co. St. Paul.“Amici Curiae Brief of Religious Organizations and Leaders.” State v. Baxley.). They all think that homosexuality might be immoral, yet they also believe that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights.
So ... what was your argument again?
- QuinceyQuick
February 6, 2009 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply
Oftentimes when discussing the issue of homosexuality, a religious argument is brought up. Basically saying that homosexuality is a sin and is condemned by the bible. Certainly, if you hold these beliefs you are fully within your right to express them and to practice them. I am not here to argue whether or not the bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. However, even if the bible does condemn sexuality I don't see the connection between that and laws allowing same-sex marriage. Since when has our country been governed by religion. Our government MUST be seperate from religion. Whatever you think about homosexuality is your belief and can not be forced upon others. Laws that outlaw same-sex marriage are doing just that and in turn violating the very freedom that this country loves so dearly.
P.S Also, I believe families and marriage can function without procreation. There are many mna-woman couples who don't have children for any number of reasons. Whether they are sterile or just can't afford children or simply are happy without children, I don't think they are doing anything wrong and wonder if you would be for outlawing these marriages with your argument that, "people who are married should have a family and reproduce."
- EvanD
February 8, 2009 2:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
According to my religious beliefs
I'm supposed to kill witches. Should the law respect that particular verse? Does a law preventing me from killing witches infringe on my right to practice religion ?
- quantummechanik
June 8, 2009 1:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religous Argument
Oftentimes, when discussing this issue, religion is brought up. Basically, the argument is that homosexulaity is a sin and marriage should be between a man and a women. I'm not here to debate whether it is or isn't a sin. If your beliefs dictate that it is wrong you are fully within your right to not be gay and to express your opinion. However, concerning laws on this subject, since when has religion ran our country? Our government must be seperate from our religous institutions. I'm not positive, but the way I see our country is as a pretty free place. Is it not? I believe laws against same-sex marriage violate that most basic freedom of choice that we so love here in America.
- EvanD
February 8, 2009 2:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about equality?
The United States takes pride in being considered the "melting pot" where all are accepted for who they are and what they believe in, yet there is such a heated debate over whether same sex couples should be allowed to get married. What happened to the melting pot idea, the idea that we are all equal? Can society really call itself tolerant if it can deny such a right to citizens whose sexual preference may be different from the majority? It is a fallacy to assume that same sex marriage will somehow delude the general population into thinking that marriage is pointless and having children without getting married. The fact is that nothing would change between a married man and woman were same sex couples allowed to marry. Their bond would remain exactly the same. It is sheerly biased to believe that one's own sexual preference is "right". For society to progress, everyone regardless of skin color, religious views, or sexual preferences must be accepted. Such things do not, in any way, change the essence of a person.
- me58
February 8, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Can we stop with the circular arguements and get some substance?
Scanning the above comments, all I see is religious dogma and circular or undeveloped arguments.
Religious beliefs, scriptures, "God's word," are not arguments. By using scripture as the only source of proof for the stance against same sex marriage, one falsely gives authority to the Bible and to god. I'm not here to argue about the authority of god in general; I'm not here to argue his existence of say whether or not I agree with his teachings. I'm simply saying that in this argument, god's authority cannot prevail. There is a separation of church and state and one must acknowledge this and find another way to defend this opinion against same-sex marriage.
Another argument I've noticed is that "being gay is wrong," or simply that gay marriage is wrong. Arguments like this tend to either stay undeveloped - ending there and not providing anything other than an opinion, not fact - or they become circular arguments - "It is wrong because it is unnatural...."
(comment continued below)
- Zeusthewoman
February 8, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
(continued from above)
Using terms such as "wrong" and "unnatural" does not develop an argument. These terms are used in a definite way when in fact they are indefinite. Who is to say what is wrong and how do we know what is unnatural. There are studies that say homosexuality is natural. So if one says that it is wrong because it is unnatural they might be wrong. On the other hand linking homosexuality to same sex marriage may seem like an acceptable leap but as someone else proved in a comment before it is a false analogy. Episcopalian churches are known to be advocates of gay rights - including gay marriage- although they do not think homosexuality is necessarily "right."
It is easy to use faith as a crutch to an argument against something; it is also easy to manipulate words to form an argument as well. I would like to see an argument against same-sex marriage that does not rely on these methods and uses logic and proof as the foundation, instead.
- Zeusthewoman
February 8, 2009 9:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And I understand what your saying...
While I do not agree with some of the things you are saying, I do see what your saying about having an argument with something to back it up. What I have also noticed is that people who do agree with same sex marrige do not have their own arguement a lot of the time. The just restate the one that is presented and say that their argument is wrong. But I would like to know what side you are on, and what your argument is?
- cjobeth10
February 11, 2009 9:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I believe in same-sex marriage.
I believe same-sex marriages should be legal. I believe that the arguments against it are poor and are based on personal beliefs rather than logic.
1) Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is unconstitutional. It discriminated on the basis of sex. It also denies them of the many benefits of civil marriage such as: to call out of work to take care of a sick partner or partner's child, to receive social security continuation after a partner dies, file joint tax returns, etc. If two people are in a committed, monogamous relationship they should be able to get married and fulfill their promises to each other.
2) Some say that they are against gay marriage because the definition of marriage is "an institution between one man and one woman." But WHO says what marriage is to be defined by? Their argument basically stops there because there is nothing else to add to it. It is word manipulation because definitions are never set in stone. They develop over the years as does language in general. Other words are given multiple meanings and connotations yet we seem to be stuck with just ONE for marriage. Tradition seems to be the only thing that keeps this definition from changing and in the past tradition has lost. Just look at slavery and the treatment of women.
3) "Marriage is for reproduction." What about infertile couples? A post menopausal mother or a impotent father cannot reproduce. Are they not allowed to marry? Actually, they are. So how is this a valid argument?
4) Same-sex couples do not provide the best environment to raise children in. But heterosexual couples ALWAYS do? What about the rapists, child molesters, murderers, alcoholics, and other harmful personalities are free to marry and procreate and raise children all they want. Yes, there are organizations that help children in those situations but do they get to all of them? And isn't the child already affected negatively from the experience? Gay couples can raise children just as well as straight couples can. The difference is that gay couples are looked down on and that can affect the children and it does. If homosexuals were treated equally then what differences would there be? And would they -really- be significant and worthy of being mentioned in an argument?
5) Same-sex relationships are immoral. Says who? Give me valid, unbiased sources and I will acknowledge it and actually have an argument. I will not argue over faith based arguments or personal beliefs.
6) Same-sex marriages threaten the institution of marriage. This to be sounds contradictory. By allowing gays to marry we eliminate marriages that some of them would enter with people they do not love and are not fully attracted to. Gay marriages do not threaten the institution of marriage. If anything they simply strengthen it. Divorce, if anything, is what threatens it.
7) Same-sex marriages are untested social experiments. This is a very narrow-minded argument because it implies that nowhere in the world have there been same sex marriages, while also degrading the relationships of same-sex couples. Calling someone's relationship and love "an experiment" is less of an argument than a personal attack. And same-sex marriages have been "tested" and successful in countries such as: Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, etc. It doesn't seem to pose a problem there so why would it in America?
To me these arguments are all excuses for the real reasons people oppose gay marriage. The reason I say this is because in each argument there is a flaw or contradictions. It is easy for people to dismiss something they find repulsive, unnatural, or that makes them uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it okay to deny a group of people the right to be married.
- Zeusthewoman
February 11, 2009 5:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes
I believe that same sex couples should be able to get married. When people are in love, they should be able to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation. Same sex couples should be treated the same as straight couples, and should have the same rights as straight people. Just because they like someone of the same sex doesn't mean they're any different from people who are straight.
- Kelsey R February 11, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
words matter
I see some of you are twisting the words and making personal attacks, again. This is the usual fare when you can not make your point through logic. Marraige is plain and simple the joining of a man and woman, period. If you must pervers the meaning of a word to make it fit "your'e" definition then it is indeeed a contrived definition. If same sex couples want to live together in wedded bless, let them enjoy their civil unions, this describes it very well lietearly and legally. But convulting the term marraige to suit "well" meaning otherwise intelligent people is sheer incompetence.
- the car man msncom
March 1, 2009 10:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Meanings Matter
Let me start with a simple question. -Why- is marriage between a man and a woman? Or, more openly, why was marriage defined as between a man and a woman?
- QuinceyQuick
March 1, 2009 10:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who's Right is right?
Though I feel a completely neutral standing when it comes to questions of sexual orientation (meaning that I view homosexuality as neither right nor wrong), I feel that it should not be allowed to have marriage for same sex couples.
Marriage is defined as a religious institution. Now, should the individuals be wishing to marry under a religion that feels that their union is acceptable, then their marriage is acceptable. However, should the individuals be trying to be married under a religion such as Islam, Christianity, or any other religion that does not approve of their act, it is violating the rights of that religion to have the government force such a thing to occur. They (the individuals) had willingly agreed to joining the religion, with its preset beliefs and ethics. The government is not in a place to violate their rights.
Do I think that same sex marriage is wrong? No. Do I think that it is wrong to ignore the already given rights of a religion, violating them in order for a person's choice (what religion they belong to) to be kept unchanged? Yes.
- ckidwell7098
March 3, 2009 4:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religion or Secularism?
"Marriage is defined as a religious institution."
Wrong. Wrong, you're already wrong.
Nobody is arguing about whether or not churches should sanction same-sex marriages. The point in question is civil (secular) marriages. Religion is absolutely irrelevant when we're talking about secular law.
"Do I think that it is wrong to ignore the already given rights of a religion, violating them in order for a person's choice (what religion they belong to) to be kept unchanged? Yes."
How about the Buddhists and the Shinto and the Hindu who don't oppose same-sex marriages? As a Shinto, I would be offended if my First Amendment rights were abridged solely on the basis of somebody else's First Amendment rights being upheld. Is it right that my Shinto beliefs be put down for somebody else's Christian beliefs?
To clarify, same-sex couples do not and should not request religious institutions to sanction their marriages. They are and should be appealing to the government to sanction their marriages.
- QuinceyQuick
March 4, 2009 1:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shouldn't both be present?
Now, though the pure, clean cut definition of marriage may say that the state or government recognizes their union (which I see no faults with), actual marriage ceremonies are performed for enjoyment and religious sake, in order for their religion to recognize their union. So, is marriage a secular thing? Yes, if the individuals wish to have it be solely the state that recognizes them.
I feel that we are arguing for roughly the same thing. I am not saying that the state should not recognize them, and I am not saying that the Hindu faith shouldn't as well. I am saying that if a group does not wish to recognize them, already firmly holds the belief that their act is "wrong", it is violating their [the religion's] rights to force recognition.
"To clarify, same-sex couples do not and should not request religious institutions to sanction their marriages. They are and should be appealing to the government to sanction their marriages."
Not fully true. If a same sex couple wishes to have a religious ceremony, then they have every right to do so, if the religion is not being forced to change due to their [individual's] beliefs.
"Nobody is arguing about whether or not churches should sanction same-sex marriages."
The topic header chose to generalize marriage and not to restrict this argument. I felt that it was fair for me to argue it.
I hope that might better clarify my point and argument and nullify some "Wrong. Wrong, you're already wrong" comments.
- ckidwell7098
March 4, 2009 4:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Now you've confused me.
How, exactly, does this tie in to your believing that same-sex marriages should -not- be legalized? (I'm saying this because it says that you're on the "No" side of the argument.)
- QuinceyQuick
March 4, 2009 10:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only "Yes" and "No" are present.
There is no "Same sex couples should have the state and federal government recognize their union, but if their current religion disapproves of the union, then they [the faith] should not be forced by law to recognize the union [hold a religious ceremony]" button. I have no problems with same sex marriage, provided it doesn't infringe on other's rights.
- ckidwell7098
March 5, 2009 8:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're right
The question should have been worded, "Should CIVIL marriage for same-gender couples be legal?" I agree that no religious organization should ever be forced to dispense ANY sacrament or blessing to ANYONE, including the sacramental or religious blessing of a union between ANY two people. The question under discussion is and should be one of CIVIL rights accorded to citizens and their partners as members of a society.
- Babaroni
March 6, 2009 4:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As a christian and (suffering) from homosexuality...
I believe that gay marriage is wrong & should not be legal.
as ejones said...
1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but yiou were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."
- esjagjoe
March 24, 2009 1:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Church or State?
I understand that you believe gay marriage is wrong, but I don't understand how you believe it should not be legal. Why is the state compelled to follow your ideas on gay marriage as opposed to some other religion 's?
- QuinceyQuick
March 25, 2009 12:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Argument from Outrage?
I see it everywhere..."There's a storm coming, etc." Though my views are slightly different from allowing me to fully support gay marriage, I often ask myself, "What if we could actually pin down the premises that oppose gay marriage." The problem is that most of the opponents seem to truly resent the fact that gay marriage is even being entertained, their arguments are often too flurried with emotion to find any kind of structure. How could you determine if their argument is valid when there is no structure? If validity cannot be established, what use is arguing about individual premises?
If I had nothing better to do with my time, I would devote it to a compendium of premises and write a program to show me all possible permutations for the given argument. Then, I would evaluate each argument with its given permutation of premises. If I could find a valid argument, other than my own personal convictions, I would be happy to publish it. Figuring out whether the premises are true is up to the masses. What? It works in politics !
My argument is this: a marriage can be termed in philosophical terms as "name-only." This means that it has no value other than what is assigned to it by individuals within society . The value of a dollar bill works in a similar, but not identical, fashion. A paper bill is only worth what someone will take in exchange for it. The point is that in other countries where the issue of "marriage" has been circumscribed by establishing civil union under the same binding laws, the movement was met with much less resistance.
You may ask,"What is the difference if a man and woman wish to be wed versus two homosexuals?" The answer is simple: in one case you have a man and woman, a culturally established phenomenon and in the other you have two homosexuals, which by the conventions of culture are marginalized. This margin of which I speak is based in the fact of gay not being the majority of members of society. People have a tendency toward groupthink. This has been established in psychology at least since the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Human tendency is to look away from the unpleasant. But, based on allowing such human tendencies one might create a law that bans the unintelligent or unattractive from marrying.
If the citizens of this country were to elect to do so, would the unintelligent or unattractive cease to reproduce or to have a family? I do not think so. Therefore, what power does this little word have over the commitment one person makes to another? It is completely irrelevant. If I were seeking a civil union with my partner, I would not be concerned with the word "marriage." Should effort not be better spent establishing the rights to civil union? Would it not slip by with fewer scruples from the clergymen and politicians?
What is true equality? Is it something that can be obtained in this lifetime? We have the freedom (except in states where certain laws have yet to be repealed) to do what we want in the privacy of our homes. If I want to pool my funds with someone, I create a joint account or add them as a cardholder. If your commitment is so great, why can you not be happy with a different name? No one is going to stop you from putting on your high heels and walking down that aisle, gurl. There are so many corporations that stand behind us, at least until we brought this petty issue to the forefront. Should stubbornness divide us from those sources of hope? I for one, would not sponsor a movement I felt was motivated by selfishness and frivolity.
If gay marriage is going to make America croak, then maybe the best we can hope for is tolerance.
- rajacafe
May 6, 2009 5:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
When?
put simply, yes. in this world, but especially in America we have become more accepting of race and views. but there needs to be a point that we as a human race evolve. this needs to occur and will in the next five to ten years. gay rights are facing the same problems as segregation did in the thirties and forties. if gay marriage is enacted, will there be fighting? yes. will there be riots? probably, but the goal is to let every man and woman express they're views without accusation, but acceptance. the goal on this planet is to achieve true freedom in thought, view, and actions. Sivan, you said " I believe that homosexual people will find that they are the recipients of a great deal of enmity and hostility from other people". well, first of all that's a blanket statement, not every gay man wears rainbow shirts and hits on straight men. and you also said that the source of this hostility are the gay activist organizations. granted, they may have pushed the envelope, but the anti gay organizations are just as guilty.
- VerbalAssasin07
May 13, 2009 5:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Traditional or New View on Marriage
This is referenced outside of religion , since for some strange reason every one wants to funnel the issue into religion.
"Marriage" has been written up and defined as a monogamous legally recognized union between one man and one woman. There are stipulations around this which do not allow a brother and sister for example to marry because of obvious reasons....genetic degradation in offspring. Yes! reproduction comes into the picture here.
There is no such thing as traditional or new view where marriage is considered. The components are clear and documented as neither old nor new.
"Same sex" instantly disqualifies the use of the defined term ...Marriage... being that the clearly documented components are already non applicable.
The term Union works because the title is open and non stipulated.
One solution would be to do away with the term Marriage in vital statistics and documented records and use only the term Couples Union. Include all of the benefits desired such as alimony, dowries rights, insurances, health care , tax breaks of a couple etc.
If others saw you and noted that you were male and female, it would become obvious that you are Married. If they noted you as being a same sex couple, it would be obvious that you were in a legal Couples Union.
This is the best that I can offer, but same sex does not meet the criterion of the term "married". Traditionally or Newly, either of which there is no such.
Same sex people are going to be making commitments to one another and many of these commitments will remain faithful. The same rights should be extended to those commitments on a legal and social level. Not greater not lesser.
As for religions.. There should be freedom to express why you don't agree with same sex, but you can't (force) that on same sex choice people. Freedom to choose is where the God of creation is coming from. Freedom to choose blessing or cursing; life or death, but freedom to choose is putting the responsibility upon the chooser. If you wish to precaution in a loving and winning way, your job is then done. You can't exercise force against peoples choices or choose for them.
The church has failed hugely by trying to use force instead of winning minds and hearts to upholding it's treasured values. The values upheld by people in the church often become those specific of their choice, and because (same sex issues may be upheld to their values by them) but maybe not financial integrity. They need to uphold it all before dogmatically promoting values in any direction. One disqualifies the other.
- Me2
May 20, 2009 3:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confused
I don't understand why anyone is against gay marriage! They are people just like us and by denying them the right to marry whomever they want, we are discriminating! It is just like saying that Jewish people are bad or black people are bad! I think if you love someone, no matter what their gender, you should be allowed to love and marry them without it being looked down upon or illeagle! I really and truly don't understand why anyone would be against gay marriage.
- meroxhard
May 20, 2009 6:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My thoughts, from a gay man that was raised strictly christian
First of all I cant figure out why the heterosexual community makes such a huge deal out of this. Straight people run through marriages with no thought about the oath they take before God. If this is so important I would think you need to look at the example you providing your children and the world.
Second I cant figure out why Gay people want to be married as this is a religous ceremony and the real issue is having the same rights as the heterosexual people. A legal union will be as binding if recognized by the state or federal level.
Third I can understand the statement that Gay people want to make publicly that they are committed to each other. It is just as important to them as to the straight community.
Fourth Unless you are Gay you cannot know what it is like anymore than a Gay person does not have the same feelings as straight people. What is that old saying about walk a mile in my shoes?
Fifth I keep hearing that being Gay is a choice. What sane person would just decide to be Gay? I have known that I was Gay since a very early age. I did not want to be different from other people, but I can tell you with no doubt that it is a natural feeling, wrong or right it is not a choice.
Sixth Are children raised by a same sex couple missing something? Well of course, children should no how people relate to each other as male and female. But, I think it would be better than being raised by a single parent or in a foster home knowing they are just like a dog in a kennel. They are given what they need, but know that they are not a part of that family. Love is not a sexual issue. Everyone needs love!
It seems overall that people are people and none of us are perfect. We should be concerned about each other instead beating down people who happen to be different. Unfortunately we are a selfish species. I hope that God is as loving and forgiving as I was taught as a child.
- bhall
June 17, 2009 1:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
a point
"Second I cant figure out why Gay people want to be married as this is a religous ceremony and the real issue is having the same rights as the heterosexual people. A legal union will be as binding if recognized by the state or federal level."
Marriage is not a strictly religious institution... it never has been. There are also religious homosexuals, who want to be able to get exercise their right to religious freedom by getting married (and all that entails).
It also strikes me as a little odd to create civil unions and have them be identical in every way to marriages... except that the names are different.
- MrBook
June 23, 2009 10:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is an issue that I have struggled with
and I still can't completely decide how I personally feel. I never felt less than married in the two serious relationships I have been in, one for 6 years and one for 13 years. I suppose because they weren't permanent I don't have much faith in an oath, whether you take it before God or a group of people to witness your commitment to another. I do respect the wishes of others and I worked to promote vote against prop 8 in California because I do think there should be an opportunity for all to marry if they want. So it is more of a struggle for me than a criticism of the whole issue, thanks for your thoughts.
'
- bhall
June 23, 2009 11:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Several Relevant Issues Involved in Answering this Qauestion.
For the purpose of clarity and understanding it is necessary to have meaninfull discussions about the following; (1) Homosexuality has always existed, but in the thousands of years of history of civilization, every society has defined marriage to one man and one women, Why do we wish to change this definition in 2009? (2) Why wasn't same sex marriage an issue 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago? What has change? (3) As a civil right, should same sex marriage be a protective class/status? be given the same status as other catagories of civil rights? such as civil rights for minorities (African Americans)?, the aged (senior citizens)?, the Handicapp? Sex/Gender?, discrimiantion based on sex/gender? (4) And we need to ask the most important of questions; Does a young child/toddler NEED a Mother AND a Father in their life? If you are a same-sex couple living together and or married and or want to be married with children , I would like to ask you both the following question; Who is the Mother? Who is the Father?
- beenthere777
June 22, 2009 8:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
changing purpose of marriage
"(1) Homosexuality has always existed, but in the thousands of years of history of civilization, every society has defined marriage to one man and one women, Why do we wish to change this definition in 2009?"
Actually marriage was not always between one man and one woman. It was also a vehicle for dynastic succession, property transference, and political alliance.
"(2) Why wasn't same sex marriage an issue 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago? What has change?"
In Christian and Muslim world there were (and still are, in some places) laws that would have lead to the arrest of someone who was known to be a homosexual. Thus there would have been no way to even ask this question until after those laws were rolled back. There is also the matter of public opinion, which has changed now that homosexuals can act in the open and reasonable people can clearly see that said homosexuals are no threat.
"(3) As a civil right, should same sex marriage be a protective class/status? be given the same status as other catagories of civil rights? such as civil rights for minorities (African Americans)?, the aged (senior citizens)?, the Handicapp? Sex/Gender?, discrimiantion based on sex/gender?"
Yes, homosexuals should be extended the same rights and protections granted to other minorities.
"(4) And we need to ask the most important of questions; Does a young child/toddler NEED a Mother AND a Father in their life?"
Having a mother and a father may be the ideal situation... but it is not always the most practical one. Isn't it better for a child to have a loving family, even if that family is not the 'norm', then to have no family at all?
- MrBook
June 23, 2009 10:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"reasons"
It seems like there would be no reason to ban gay marriage if it wasn't for religion . I don't understand what's so hard to follow about the separation of church and state . Gay marriage shouldn't even be a question.
- Detailsarevulgar
July 15, 2009 5:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Also
Most arguments against gay marriage don't even seem to be about marriage , they're just against the lifestyle. Regardless of marriage, homosexuality will always exist.
- Detailsarevulgar
July 15, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Church vs State
Getting married in a church is determined by the church so churchy people calm down on it's not gods will.
State why can't to people recieve the same rights for being together as any other Person? It's about who will care for them when they are sick or getting older.
PDA isn't welcome around me if you're straight or gay I just don't think it's respectful.
- ttut21
August 15, 2009 2:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
rights of you means right for everyone. dont it
Its not a choise you are or not. The first time you fall in love did you choise between a man or a woman. If yes why did you choise a woman and not a men? It is a discussion concerning religion . If you removed the word marriage and says cohabit with same the legall benefit. the discussion is changed. The law does not distinguish between men and women. Why shut it make difference between men and men or women and women. In my country we have the gay marriage since 1 April 2001. and the gay right movement is compared with the Feminist movement. not jahova which want convert everyone
- jelle
August 19, 2009 7:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religion doesn't follow it's own rules
On the question of religion the Nazi's had the full backing of the church when they started rounding up "undesirables" like Jews and homosexuals so they're claim of wanting to "protect" marriage is a sham. And they're claim that it will harm children is kind of hard to swallow when they protect pedophile priests. It about what it is always about, hating and attacking those who are different in any way. What happened to "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself" isn't there in you holy book?
- Gamesman
September 18, 2009 4:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your insecure about yourself but you let loose on homosexuals.
You always argue about your politics , races, religions etc. you say they are better than others but then you make fun of homosexuals ......... Has it ever occurred to you that they are not just different to YOU but they are normal to others? has it ever occurred to you that their marriage is just as important to them as straight marriage is important to you? The american people, as well as people all over the world need to open their eyes and realize that homosexuality is perfectly normal.
I myself am straight but i think that everybody should be able to express themselves freely without persecution.
- neilisabell
October 26, 2009 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bigotry
The only reason to deny the right of marriage to anyone is bigotry pure and simple. They tried it with race and mixed race now it's gays . Some folks are just that hateful. Any other reason is lies and half-truths. def Bigot: someone obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own beliefs, creed or party
- Gamesman
November 1, 2009 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One step at a time, don't shove it in peoples faces
I am really open minded and have numerous gay friends And luv em all to bits. I am open to let ANY one marry who ever they want to marry. The thing is people are living longer now, their views live on longer and change can take a while And you also get sick and tired that when someone with a bit of money /power and is GAY, They have to make a bloody point of telling you. If you want to be together, be together, No laws can keep you apart. But take it one step at a time and try not to rub people up the wrong way by trying to force it on them. Why Not do like they did in the UK (for now) And have a civil partnership. 14 smaller steps are better than taking one big one and falling
- boothybunch
November 5, 2009 8:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.