PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage

MacG
10-18-2008, 12:55 AM
Hey All,

Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

MacG

Trinity
10-18-2008, 11:04 AM
Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

Hello MacG,

I think people sees ****sexuality as a temporary modern phenomenon. However, there was gays during all the humankind history. That also transcends the ethnicities, the cultures, and the earth geography. At the antipodes of the planet you will always find gay people.

They could be surprised to know that people in the history that they highly respect, were also ****sexuals (ex: Michelangelo, Richard the Lionheart, etc).

This is something we should live with. Because that is something that will never disappear in this present world. However, the Church can not have bonds with all the secular laws. The only danger is to see the state imposing his own standards to the Church. In this circumstance we will have no other choice that to chose the civil disobedience as a weapon.

"First, to map the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of ****sexual desires is sin. This leaves the ****, no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, preventing from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (Jean 9:1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God shd. be manifest in him. This suggests that in homsexuality, as in every other tribulation, those works can be made manifest: i. e. that every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will "turn the necessity to glorious gain." Of course, the first step must be to accept any privation wh., if so disabled, we can't lawfully get. The ****. has to accept sexual abstinence just as the poor man has to forego otherwise lawful pleasures because he wd. be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative conditon. What shd. the positive life of the ****. be? I wish I had a letter wh. a pious male ****., now dead, once wrote me--but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He beleived that his necessiity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain social role which mere men and mere women cd. not give. But it is all horribly vague--to long ago. Perhaps any ****. who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g. by mock-or quasi-marriage with a member of one's own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act) is the wrong way... All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought."

C.S. Lewis
A Severe Mercy,
Letter to Sheldon,
Vanauken (14 May 1954),
chap. 6, pp. 147-148

In brief, I believe like a citizen and a taxes contributor that gays should have all the same rights and benefits than us. However, in the Church, without abstinence, we can not be in communion with them.

At least, even if we diverge with them, we should never segregate them and be disrespectful.

Trinity

Leslie
10-18-2008, 05:40 PM
If the Lord does not accept gay marriage, I don't think we should as well.

Libby
10-21-2008, 02:06 AM
Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

I believe they do, yes. I know that's an unpopular opinion in Christian circles, but I believe it's wrong to amend our cons***ution to exclude the rights of minority groups.

Leslie
10-21-2008, 07:03 AM
I believe they do, yes. I know that's an unpopular opinion in Christian circles, but I believe it's wrong to amend our cons***ution to exclude the rights of minority groups.

So you're saying you support this, then?

If our Lord defined what marriage was, why can't we abide by it?

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus quoted Genesis when he said that.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24

So if the Lord Jesus Christ only considered marriage valid for a male and a female, who are we to say otherwise?

Bob Carabbio
10-22-2008, 10:34 PM
"****sexual Folks" have a "Secular right" to do anything the laws of the state they live in SAY they can do - so no big deal there one way or another - it's only the civil law.

AND they can CALL what they do "Civil union", Marriage", "limited Corporation" or any other term as defined by the terms of the laws governing the practice wherever they are. Government can do any thing they can get consensus for.

"Marriage", Biblically however, is the "joining of flesh" - not really the charming (And ex$pen$ive) ceremony in the church, nor the party afterward.

What folks do at "Weddings" is essentially the execution of a legal contract defining responsibilities, ownership of physical property, and tax conditions between to consenting adults in the presence of witnesses as required by law - with some preaching and prayer added to make it a "Religious service".

And then the couple gets in a private setting and "Consummate the marriage" at which point it actually exists. Actually in most cases they get to the "wedding" already "Married" and probably in adultery because of previous more casual "marriages" these days.

"****sexual folks" of either gender, of course, can't "Join Flesh" in the Biblical sense, since the parts just won't fit together. Consequently a "Biblical marriage" between anything OTHER THAN a male and a female is a simple impossibility.

Libby
10-23-2008, 01:27 AM
Good post, Bob.

tealblue
10-23-2008, 03:29 AM
The united church of christ and the luthern church are two churches that I know of that perform same sex unions. This issue is spreading out of the mainstream and into the pulpits.

TruthSeeker
10-23-2008, 07:17 AM
The united church of christ and the luthern church are two churches that I know of that perform same sex unions. This issue is spreading out of the mainstream and into the pulpits.

Do you know which Lutheran Church performs same sex unions? Are you aware that some Methodist Churches condone ****sexuality? Few years ago, I went to a Methodist church that allows such practice due to the pastor making allowance for the behavior. The state that I live in is redefining the term, marriage, in the upcoming proposition. So, why is God against the practice of ****sexuality? Please do not say, the Bible said so.

TruthSeeker

tealblue
10-24-2008, 04:07 AM
Do you know which Lutheran Church performs same sex unions? Are you aware that some Methodist Churches condone ****sexuality? Few years ago, I went to a Methodist church that allows such practice due to the pastor making allowance for the behavior. The state that I live in is redefining the term, marriage, in the upcoming proposition. So, why is God against the practice of ****sexuality? Please do not say, the Bible said so.

TruthSeeker

I read the luthern church in switzerland performs same sex unions. God is against ****sexuality because its disordered and doesn't coinside with Gods plan of life.

MacG
10-24-2008, 11:28 PM
"****sexual Folks" have a "Secular right" to do anything the laws of the state they live in SAY they can do - so no big deal there one way or another - it's only the civil law.

AND they can CALL what they do "Civil union", Marriage", "limited Corporation" or any other term as defined by the terms of the laws governing the practice wherever they are. Government can do any thing they can get consensus for.

"Marriage", Biblically however, is the "joining of flesh" - not really the charming (And ex$pen$ive) ceremony in the church, nor the party afterward.

What folks do at "Weddings" is essentially the execution of a legal contract defining responsibilities, ownership of physical property, and tax conditions between to consenting adults in the presence of witnesses as required by law - with some preaching and prayer added to make it a "Religious service".

And then the couple gets in a private setting and "Consummate the marriage" at which point it actually exists. Actually in most cases they get to the "wedding" already "Married" and probably in adultery because of previous more casual "marriages" these days.

"****sexual folks" of either gender, of course, can't "Join Flesh" in the Biblical sense, since the parts just won't fit together. Consequently a "Biblical marriage" between anything OTHER THAN a male and a female is a simple impossibility.

...specifically the bible says that God puts into place the governing powers. This was easer when the powers were not voted in :) Where I am torn a bit is that we are being asked to vote to amend our cons***ution to define marriage as thus "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Attorney General has ***led it in the ballot "ELININATES THE RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY".
Do we have the right to eliminate a right? What if it was reversed? What is they said that they agreed with Frued the religion i the opiate f the people and that therefore those religious christians cannot marry each other because they are not rational but stoned by pie in the sky delusions.

MacG

Leslie
10-25-2008, 06:17 AM
Do you know which Lutheran Church performs same sex unions? Are you aware that some Methodist Churches condone ****sexuality? Few years ago, I went to a Methodist church that allows such practice due to the pastor making allowance for the behavior. The state that I live in is redefining the term, marriage, in the upcoming proposition. So, why is God against the practice of ****sexuality? Please do not say, the Bible said so.

TruthSeeker

So you want us to tell you why God is against the practice, but then turn around and tell us that we can't tell you what he has said about it?

What I'm about to say may offend some, so please don't take it personal. Here goes. Any church that blesses what God has cursed, is of the devil and is falling into apostasy. To those that are in this said churches, flee from the corruption before it gets to you!

Bob Carabbio
10-26-2008, 02:46 PM
The Biblical PROBLEM with ****sexuality appears to be centered around the "typology" of sexual reproduction.

Essentially the nature of the relationship between Jesus and the Church is stated in sexual terms, and concepts like "insemination" and "Conception", and reproduction/birth are wrapped up in that. The "Song of Solomon" is seen as a picture of the relationship between Jesus and his bride (us) - and it's intensely sexual in nature.

****sexuality, of course, is a total denial of the "original intention" of God - i.e. One man, and ONE woman - becoming ONE through the joining of flesh.

In the same sense, the "PLAN" is that the Church and Jesus will "Become one" by a "Joining of Spirit".

Bob Carabbio
10-26-2008, 03:05 PM
"specifically the bible says that God puts into place the governing powers. This was easier when the powers were not voted in :)"

Actually I don't see "Voting" as a complication. The bible says that the "toss of the dice" is in God's hands (The urim and thummim were "sanctified dice"). Hanging chad isn't THAT much of a stretch!!

"The Attorney General has ***led it in the ballot "ELIMINATES THE RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY".
Do we have the right to eliminate a right? What if it was reversed?"

The government has the "right" to do any stupid thing it wants, as detailed in the interpretations du jour of the State and Federal cons***utions. Same sex couples CAN'T "Marry" in the absolute sense, so in actuality the whole issue is moot regardless of what senseless laws the government cobbles together.

HOWEVER I see NO REASON why a "same sex" couple shouldn't be permitted by law to the same contractual financial, tax, signing, and social rights as a Heterosexual couple, and be bound to the same legal considerations in the dissolution of that contract, should that occur.

There are ALL KINDS of "corporations" out there. Legally, "marriage" is only just another one of 'em, and a "Civil union" can have any contractual stipulations the lawmakers want to tack onto it. The "law" isn't "moral" or "Immoral" - it's A-moral. IF it p***es the cons***utional challenges (making any number of lawyers rich in the process) but is reversed later - then existing "unions" would probably be "grandfathered" and there'd just be no new ones.

CALLING it a "marriage" in one respect isn't important - because it WON'T BE ONE regardless of the "Legal name" given it. If you name your son "Ford" - that doesn't make him a car.

What is they said that they agreed with Freud that religion is the opiate of the people and that therefore those religious Christians cannot marry each other because they are not rational but stoned by pie in the sky delusions.

Oh well - the time IS coming when "Christianity" WILL BE CONSIDERED a symptom of insanity.

johnd
11-05-2008, 08:12 AM
Hey All,

Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

MacG

The votes in California are in. And the count continues. Prop 8 has a 450,000 vote lead thus far. And if this proposition p***es, California (and in my estimation America)has dodged a mine field.

Marriage is the first government of man, preceding any form of ancient regional or national government. The former was commissioned by God. The latter was formed by man. So when marriage becomes a mockery or is made to be a mockery, it is God who is being mocked by man.

The reason it has been allowed by God for America to have to fight for the sanc***y of marriage is because heterosexuals have been making a mockery of marriage for at least the last 50 years in America. And at least half of those heterosexuals who have been doing so have been Christians. Look at the divorce statistics. Divorce rates are virtually the same for the "churched" as the "unchurched." And at times, it has even been higher for the "churched." That is not only a shame it is a testimony to the sad state of affairs in the Church... a testimony that causes the "unchurched" to further mock God.

I am among those who felt the need to reach out to the unchurched by appearing less churched to them. The Apostle Paul spoke of precisely this in:

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

But we must be careful, we must be very careful in our efforts to remove the sanctimonious rebuff unbelievers sometimes feel around believers... not to forget the middle portion of that same verse. At times I have... to my shame. Because to do so is to devalue the Gospel, to make Christianity appear to be just another religious choice among the rest. To make it seem like the cause of Christ is worth little since we haven't even bothered to change our lives to accommodate him... how could that apparent insincerity appeal to a possible convert?

And this (in my estimation) is how the Church has been forced into the closet the past 50 years. We tried to seem as worldly as the next guy... then we became as worldly as the next guy. And the humanists began pushing on issues we were hard-pressed to oppose (given our worldliness and lack of moral capital)... like open ****sexuality... ****sexuality in the military... ****sexuality in the schools... ****sexuality in marriage.

At each juncture the Church (that's us) failed to oppose the red ribbon tide... because we have been too much like them. This is why the Bible warns against worldliness and sex sin. Any deviation from God's commands are a perversion of them... and we who are deviant in heterosexual sin are on the same road as those who are ****sexual (they are just further along the same road). And since we have the truth... the Bible... the Spirit of God living in us... and therefore a reason not to have any deviousness (and the unbeliever knows none of these reasons to show any restraint)... it is we who have the greater sin... we who have the log in our eye who so often point the finger of accusation at those who have but a speck in their eye.

We in the Church have dodged a mine field if Prop 8 p***es. But this is not a time to sigh with relief and then return to our life styles that got us in this predicament... it is time to repent! It is time to pray and seek God's face! It is a time to get our own house in order so that we can oppose the crimson tide of evil.

Judgment must begin in the house of God (1 Peter 4:17).

Look at the evidence of how we have mocked God and have made a mockery of him to the unsaved...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y49/pspauld/poster202.jpg

For Heaven's sake... Repent!

Leslie
11-05-2008, 10:18 AM
Amen John, amen.

Just because a person is under grace does NOT give them free reign to sin and feel alright still.

IncitingRiots
01-01-2009, 06:18 PM
I seriously want to know why this is such a big deal to you people. Why do you care if gays want to get married? Does it really hurt you our family? Do you truly fear this "attack on the family"? Doesn't everyone deserve to love and be loved? Where in the Bible is marriage actually defined as being between a man and a woman?

I seriously want to know the answers to these questions. I have never been bothered by ****sexuality. I am straight but I am secure in my sexuality so I am not predisposed to ****phobia. As such, I really don't care what they do behind closed doors. So long as any and all parties involved are consenting and of legal age. That being the case, I don't care if they want to get married either.

I understand full well that ****sexuality is an "abomination" to you people because your "God" says it is so, but marriage is more of legal matter than anything. Yes, there should be love, trust, respect etc., but it is still nothing more than a piece of paper that cost roughly 75 depending on your locale. Not to mention the fact that these attempts to bar ****sexual couples from getting married is clearly religiously influenced and there is something of the matter of Separation of Church and State. These bans are Uncons***utional and should be repealed. I have heard people, many people, on that slippery slope claiming that; if we recognize ****sexual marriages it won't be long before we are recognizing interspecies couples. That is a ridiculous argument, so don't even try to make it. The only definition of marriage that I am familiar of is a legal contract entered into by two consenting adults. Since most animals don't have opposable thumbs, and none aside from us can speak; they would not be able to sign the contract or give consent. Therefore no one would allowed to marry their turtle or television or any other crazy thing like that. That being said I will get off my soapbox. disciple 01-02-2009, 08:49 AM Greetings IR [QUOTE=IncitingRiots;2826]I seriously want to know why this is such a big deal to you people. Why do you care if gays want to get married? Does it really hurt you our family? Do you truly fear this "attack on the family"? Doesn't everyone deserve to love and be loved? First of all many people do see ****sexuality as a sin and our God does say this act is an abomination. He is your God too by the way whether you want Him or not, and that is not a slam against you just a fact. I cannot stop people from "wanting" to do anything but a society without morals and laws will soon crumble. There are many people who "want" to steal, rape, kill and a variety of other acts God also considers to be sin and I'm sure you would not want these to become legal. Now I am not equating the desires of ****sexuals with rape and murder, I am making a point about where ignoring God's law will lead. Everyone does deserve to love and be loved, but ****sexuality is not about love but sex. There are many men who love other men but do not engage in sex with them. We were not created to sodomize one another man or women. God made man and woman obviously different to fit together in marriage, each one honoring and respecting the other in love. We were not created to do whatever we please to, or with someone else. There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed? Condoning immoral behavior by saying it is legal does hurt my family because surly it will lead to worse and more perverse behavior. Sin has a detremental effect on society so the idea that what one does in privacy does not harm others is false. There are absolute truths and morals and logically must come from One who is absolutly moral and truthful. God has given us boundries to protect us, we would do well to listen to His law. But as I know and you know humans have a hard time keeping away from things that will harm us and that will seperate us from God. That is why we need a Savior and Redeemer and when we finally realize that we need something that we can't do for ourselves break the hold of sin on our lives, God offers us freedom and life through Jesus Christ. Thanks for listening IR. IncitingRiots 01-02-2009, 01:57 PM “First of all many people do see ****sexuality as a sin and our God does say this act is an abomination.” Uh, I know that. You are not telling me anything I don’t already know with that information. “He is your God too by the way whether you want Him or not, and that is not a slam against you just a fact.” HA! I am mine own redeemer. That is not a slam against you, just a fact. I cannot stop people from "wanting" to do anything but a society without morals and laws will soon crumble. “There are many people who "want" to steal, rape, kill and a variety of other acts God also considers to be sin and I'm sure you would not want these to become legal. Now I am not equating the desires of ****sexuals with rape and murder, I am making a point about where ignoring God's law will lead.” Whether or not you feel like you are equating ****sexual desire with rape or murder; it is still a slippery slope argument, and that is a logical fallacy. “Everyone does deserve to love and be loved, but ****sexuality is not about love but sex. There are many men who love other men but do not engage in sex with them. We were not created to sodomize one another man or women.” That is not true. I know several gay couples and it is not just about sex. Love is a big part of their relationship and you can’t tell me any different because they are my friends, I have seen them interact and I know there is love. Yes there are men who love other men but don’t engage in sex with one another. I love my grandpa but I wouldn’t have sex with him for a few reasons. 1. Incest is just plain gross. 2. I am not gay. I love my friends who are guys but wouldn’t have sex with them because, well, I am not gay. I have friends who are girls that I love, but I don’t have sex with them because sex has a tendency to complicate things between friends, or I just am not physically attracted to them. I am not sure if you know this but sodomy is any sexual act besides intercourse between a man and a woman in missionary position. Sodomy is illegal in several states to this day, but they can’t enforce that law. Even a god fearing person has to realize the importance of a healthy sex life in a relationship and how to keep it healthy sometimes we need to mix it up and let the woman be on top. “God made man and woman obviously different to fit together in marriage, each one honoring and respecting the other in love.” Have you seen most married couples these days? Honor and respect have taken a back seat to the size of bank accounts *****es and breasts. Something like 65% of marriages will fail. There are some couples who are married and will stay that way but for the most part, marriage is becoming a somewhat pointless act. “We were not created to do whatever we please to, or with someone else.” Whoa, hold on just one second; I thought “God” gave us free will. “There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?” Well first of all there are also woman like that out there as well. Secondly, no, I don’t think that should be allowed. A child has not developed mentally in order to make such a decision. Children are very easily manipulated by adults; because as children, we are taught to respect adults. These people you speak of do not “love small children” they are infatuated with them, people consider it a disease, I think all pedophiles should be publicly executed, but that is a different story. “Condoning immoral behavior by saying it is legal does hurt my family because surly it will lead to worse and more perverse behavior.” Please, enlighten me as to what behavior it will lead to. I will politely ask that you do not revert to any slippery slope arguments. “Sin has a detrimental effect on society so the idea that what one does in privacy does not harm others is false.” Well how is it harming me? How is it harming you? How? How? How? “ There are absolute truths and morals and logically must come from One who is absolutly moral and truthful.” God is anything but absolutely moral. Have you actually read the bible? I have read both the OT and the NT. There are some pretty gruesome immoral things going on in there that “God” not only allowed to happen, but condone as well. “God has given us boundries to protect us, we would do well to listen to His law. But as I know and you know humans have a hard time keeping away from things that will harm us and that will seperate us from God. That is why we need a Savior and Redeemer and when we finally realize that we need something that we can't do for ourselves break the hold of sin on our lives, God offers us freedom and life through Jesus Christ.” So it doesn’t bother you that you are essentially forcing your religious beliefs on people? By being for the ban on gay marriage and using your religion as a basis for it you have become a fascist. We all know where fascism leads don’t we? MacG 01-03-2009, 01:00 AM “There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?” Well first of all there are also woman like that out there as well. Secondly, no, I don’t think that should be allowed. A child has not developed mentally in order to make such a decision. Children are very easily manipulated by adults; because as children, we are taught to respect adults. These people you speak of do not “love small children” they are infatuated with them, people consider it a disease, I think all pedophiles should be publicly executed, but that is a different story. Greetings IR, Your response is interesting to this point. Why should what you think be the deciding factor? I mean to say, with all respect, does not the child feel shame and guilt because our laws and legacy social mores are so embedded it leads adults to think it's bad and therefore project that at***ude when questioning children? I mean that children are sharp and want to please and are highly suggestable and authorites are the good guys right? If the authorities say it's wrong then it must be and they do not want to get into trouble and say they made me. I bet that among these people they see the gentle love and affection for these kids that you fail to see because of your p***ionate baseless bias. Who are you to say they don't real love just because you find it repulsing? So what if people consider it a disease, who are "they" to make judgements and demonize a segmment of our society? Well anyway it is nice to see we have some common ground ;) Blessings, MacG sayso 01-03-2009, 08:45 AM “There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed?” Well first of all there are also woman like that out there as well. Secondly, no, I don’t think that should be allowed. A child has not developed mentally in order to make such a decision. Children are very easily manipulated by adults; because as children, we are taught to respect adults. These people you speak of do not “love small children” they are infatuated with them, people consider it a disease, I think all pedophiles should be publicly executed, but that is a different story. Not necessarily so. One person's disease might be another's indulgence. They could be satanists. This from your bible says the number one thing is indulgence. I Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence! They are indulging themselves just as other satanists indulge themselves, no? IncitingRiots 01-03-2009, 12:08 PM There is a big difference between indulgence, and compulsion. The people you speak of aren't indulging in what they do, they are compelled to do it. It literally makes me sick to my stomache that you would liken pedophiles to Satanists simply because of what you deem to be "indulgence" One of the 11 Satanic Rules of Earth is "Do not harm little children" another is about not making sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Your claim reminds me a lot of claims of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), all of which were proven to be false. It seems to me the ones molesting little kids are members of the Judeo-Christian faiths:D Anyone who claims to be a Satanist and does things like that to kids, is decidedly not a Satanist! sayso 01-03-2009, 12:26 PM There is a big difference between indulgence, and compulsion. The people you speak of aren't indulging in what they do, they are compelled to do it. It literally makes me sick to my stomache that you would liken pedophiles to Satanists simply because of what you deem to be "indulgence" One of the 11 Satanic Rules of Earth is "Do not harm little children" another is about not making sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Your claim reminds me a lot of claims of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), all of which were proven to be false. It seems to me the ones molesting little kids are members of the Judeo-Christian faiths:D Anyone who claims to be a Satanist and does things like that to kids, is decidedly not a Satanist! It's a quote from your bible which you provided, not mine. I Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence! This statement makes no qualifications (conditions) that there are somethings that one should not indulge in. According to satanism by your own words one should indulge and not abstain. in·dulge Pronunciation: \in-ˈdəlj\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): in·dulged; in·dulg·ing Etymology: Latin indulgēre to be complaisant Date: circa 1623 transitive verb 1 a: to give free rein to b: to take unrestrained pleasure in : gratify2 a: to yield to the desire of : humor <please indulge me for a moment> b: to treat with excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration. intransitive verb: to indulge oneself. Indulge implies excessive compliance and weakness in gratifying another's or one's own desires. They simply yield to their own desire as you do. To say that they are compelled to do these things is saying that they are being forced to do them. Who is forcing them? IncitingRiots 01-03-2009, 01:20 PM Thanks for the dictionary definition of indulgence, it was not needed but thanks anyway. No, that statement doesn't say anything about the qualifications, but if one were to read more than just the first page they would learn. None of that changes the fact that you so arrogantly tried to liken pedophiles to Satanists because of what you consider to be indulgence. To answer your last question; who is forcing them? The answer is quite simple. They are forcing themselves. For some sick and twisted reason I will never understand they feel the need to do these sorts of things. They know it is illegal and immoral yet they do it anyways. They are weak-willed scum of the earth and I wouldn't mind personally executing every last one of them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concerning MacG: "I bet that among these people they see the gentle love and affection for these kids that you fail to see because of your p***ionate baseless bias. Who are you to say they don't real love just because you find it repulsing? So what if people consider it a disease, who are "they" to make judgements and demonize a segmment of our society?" I am disgusted that you would actually try to defend these people! Are you a Catholic Priest? That would make sense if you were. We have laws for a reason. Children are easily taken advantage of and are very naive. What these people do is wrong regardless of the legality. Even if for some horrid reason it were legalized; it would still be wrong. If these people truly loved anybody they would be able to respect the laws and wait until the person comes of legal age. I can't believe I have to argue this. And no, apparently we don;t share a common ground. You are a pedophile apologist, and I think you should executed with the people you are defending! MacG 01-03-2009, 02:16 PM Concerning MacG: "I bet that among these people they see the gentle love and affection for these kids that you fail to see because of your p***ionate baseless bias. Who are you to say they don't real love just because you find it repulsing? So what if people consider it a disease, who are "they" to make judgements and demonize a segmment of our society?" I am disgusted that you would actually try to defend these people! Are you a Catholic Priest? That would make sense if you were. We have laws for a reason. Children are easily taken advantage of and are very naive. What these people do is wrong regardless of the legality. Even if for some horrid reason it were legalized; it would still be wrong. If these people truly loved anybody they would be able to respect the laws and wait until the person comes of legal age. I can't believe I have to argue this. And no, apparently we don;t share a common ground. You are a pedophile apologist, and I think you should executed with the people you are defending! IR, I thought that you wanted intelligent debate, I was palying the Devils' Advocate (no pun intended). Which is why we do have something in common afterall for I was not really defending them. My point was who are you to ***ert your moral values on society? Or judge other's values to be wrong? The FEW Catholic Priests out of the many thousands that have lived out their evil on those abused are the plane crashes of the Catholic Faith. It is still considered safe to fly but maybe not however for those who survived one of the crashes. Regarding the term evil. I meant no offense to you by its use, what term do you use to describe such acts? Is it evil? Or what defines evil to you? Ah, perhaps that should be answered in another thread. I do find it interesting that there are rules respecting anything other than yourself and the santanic principles. This exposes my bias and I am a bit more informed. Perhaps I mistook you for a relativist whose feet are planted frimly in mid-air, as you do actually have a standard to measure other things by. My ignorant understanding of satanism was pretty much, all for me, too bad for you and whatever the Bible says make it opposite. My apologies. Blessings, MacG IncitingRiots 01-03-2009, 02:39 PM "My point was who are you to ***ert your moral values on society? Or judge other's values to be wrong?" Point well taken, but I could ask you the same question. I don't feel like I am ***erting my values on society at all. There are universal morals and then there are individual morals. It seems to me that pedophilia should fall under the category of being universally wrong. Then again, I am sure you make the same argument about ****sexuality. I can sense a circular argument taking shape. "Regarding the term evil. I meant no offense to you by its use, what term do you use to describe such acts? Is it evil? Or what defines evil to you?" I didn't even notice you use the term evil so I took no offence to it. To me evil and good are really subjective. What one person deems to be evil another person might consider it to be good. For the sake of argument let's use Hitler as an example. What he did is seen by people the world over as being evil. To him he thought what he was doing was good. I am not condoning genocide, just using an example. The person who gives half their paycheck to charity every month and is seen as a good person is just as capable of going on a killing spree, as the serial killer; who is seen as evil, is capable of loving a puppy. To me there really is no such thing as evil, there is only good and bad. Even then nothing is really good or bad, it just is. Notions of good, evil, right and wrong ultimately depend, I think, on moral subjectivity. sayso 01-03-2009, 03:41 PM Thanks for the dictionary definition of indulgence, it was not needed but thanks anyway. No, that statement doesn't say anything about the qualifications, but if one were to read more than just the first page they would learn. None of that changes the fact that you so arrogantly tried to liken pedophiles to Satanists because of what you consider to be indulgence. To answer your last question; who is forcing them? The answer is quite simple. They are forcing themselves. For some sick and twisted reason I will never understand they feel the need to do these sorts of things. They know it is illegal and immoral yet they do it anyways. They are weak-willed scum of the earth and I wouldn't mind personally executing every last one of them. Aren't you applying a double standard to say that as a satanist you may indulge in whatever you like but another may not if what they desire is different then what you desire? I am sorry if I misunderstood but I thought that when you listed "The nine statements of the satanic bible" you said that they (the statements) say it best. I took that to mean that your entire belief could be summed up in these statements. Here's another statement you listed: VIII Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! So does this mean that satan represents pedophilia since it qualifies as a "so-called sin"? This either means what it says or it doesn't, right? The way I see it, you personally may not completely understand or believe in all the tenants of your own religion. As a Satanist I see myself as my own god, the master of my life and my universe. I do not believe in any anthoprmorphic deity of ultimate good or ultimate evil. For some sick and twisted reason I will never understand they feel the need to do these sorts of things. They know it is illegal and immoral yet they do it anyways. They are weak-willed scum of the earth and I wouldn't mind personally executing every last one of them. Double standard again. You as a satanist can be your own god, unaccountable to anyone or anything; master of your own universe. However, if someone else lives by this same self-centered standard indulging in their own whims without restraint then because you see it as immoral they should be executed. IncitingRiots 01-03-2009, 05:45 PM "Aren't you applying a double standard to say that as a satanist you may indulge in whatever you like but another may not if what they desire is different then what you desire?" I never said people couldn't do what ever desire; they can. However, one must be aware of the consequences of their actions. That is what "responsibility to the responsible" means. "I thought that when you listed "The nine statements of the satanic bible" you said that they (the statements) say it best. I took that to mean that your entire belief could be summed up in these statements." No, Satanism can not entirely be summed up by those nine statements, or even the entire Satanic Bible. There is alot to learn about TLHP and you certainly can not get it all from one book. Satanism is a journey, not a destination. The reason I listed those nine statements is because you asked how I can be a Satanist without worshipping Satan. I cordially obliged you in answering your question by informing you that the "Satan" in Satanism is a metaphor and entirely different than the Christian concept of Satan. "So does this mean that satan represents pedophilia since it qualifies as a "so-called sin"? This either means what it says or it doesn't, right?" The "sins" that statement refers to the "Seven Deadly Sins". One could argue that pedophilia falls under lust, which, I suppose it could. However, committing an act of pedophilia breaks two of the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth: "Do not harm little children" and "Do not make sexual advances unless given the mating signal". These "rules" are really more indicative of things the Satanist would avoid doing anyway by their own nature. It really seems now that this discussion has turned from the issue of gay marriage towards you trying to link Satanism with pedophilia. You are doing a horrible ***, if I do say myself. "The way I see it, you personally may not completely understand or believe in all the tenants of your own religion." If that is the way you see it; you are blind my friend. "Double standard again. You as a satanist can be your own god, unaccountable to anyone or anything; master of your own universe. However, if someone else lives by this same self-centered standard indulging in their own whims without restraint then because you see it as immoral they should be executed." You are putting words in my mouth once again and it is becoming quite annoying. I never said I am unaccountable to anyone or anything. Everyone is is accountable. As I said people must be aware of the consequences of their actions. Sure people can do what ever they want, but, if some sick freak were to molest any of my friends' kid or my nephews; I would see to it they got was coming to them. Then I too, would have to deal with the consequences of my actions. I would be accountable to the State, but when I die; I will not be accountable to anything. sayso 01-04-2009, 02:32 PM It really seems now that this discussion has turned from the issue of gay marriage towards you trying to link Satanism with pedophilia. No that isn't really what I'm trying to do. I am aware that in all religions it is wrong to generalize. Simply because someone claims to be of a certain religion that does not mean that they will hold strictly to that religion's belief and statements of doctrine. Just as there are some who claim to be Christian, who do compromise and do despicable things, there are those in all religions including satanism who do despicable things, because in each case it is the individual who decides whether or not they will follow the "rules" of their own religion. The only thing that is different about your religion is that you are your own god so that means you make the rules right? Or is your statement about being your own god wrong when it involves satanism? Who is the god who made up the satanic bible? You are putting words in my mouth once again and it is becoming quite annoying. Sorry, I didn't mean to annoy you. I'm just trying to understand exactly what restrictions satanism puts on it's followers and if they have no leader who made the rules. So I guess you are saying that satanists believe in obeying man made laws, huh? IncitingRiots 01-04-2009, 04:19 PM "Just as there are some who claim to be Christian, who do compromise and do despicable things, there are those in all religions including satanism who do despicable things, because in each case it is the individual who decides whether or not they will follow the "rules" of their own religion." This is true, but I think someone who claims to follow a religion, system of belief etc. but thinks they can pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey isn't actually a member of that religion. If you have to pick and choose then you are probably subscribing to the wrong set of beliefs. "The only thing that is different about your religion is that you are your own god so that means you make the rules right?" Well yes I make my own rules, so does everyone in one way or another. However, we live in a society based on laws and rules that we have to follow in order to function in said society. Yes one can choose to ignore these rules and laws, but they do so at their own peril. "Who is the god who made up the satanic bible?" No "god" made up The Satanic Bible. It was written by Anton Lavey and much of it is influenced by the writings of people like Ragnar Redbeard, Ayn Rand, H L Mencken, Jack London and Frederich Neitzche. "I'm just trying to understand exactly what restrictions satanism puts on it's followers and if they have no leader who made the rules." They aren't really really restrictions. As I stated these "rules" are nothing more than examples of types of behavior a true Satanist would naturally avoid. They aren't listed to tell you how to "be" a Satanist, they are listed to tell you if you "are" a Satanist. The same goes for The Nine Satanic Sins. They aren't really "sins" just things a Satanist would naturally avoid out of their own volition. "So I guess you are saying that satanists believe in obeying man made laws, huh? " Well many do. As do most people out there regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Not breaking the law is just plain common sense. There are those who feel that, as their own gods, the laws of man don't apply to them. They are en***led to that opinion but have only themselves to blame if they decide to break these laws and get caught. Personally I am an Anarchist. I feel I don't need a cop to tell me the right thing to do, nor do I need some government trying to dictate what I can and can't do. Unfortunately we do have a government and I don't think that is going to change in my life time so I am bound by these rules simply because I enjoy my own freedom. That is not to say that I would just go around murdering innocent people for no reason, because I wouldn't and if I really wanted to I would do it regardless of the consequences, but I sure wouldn't mind the freedom to grow a giant field of marijuana in my back yard. Columcille 07-23-2009, 03:47 PM AttorneyCompany, Could you expound on your position. What you have here is a cut and paste from http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=422 or http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1279/gay-marriage-debate-2009 To me it seems your only purpose is to link to your name to the http://dir.apostilleinusa.com/ Does that mean you are a spammer? Austin Canes 08-28-2009, 11:05 AM Hey All, Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church? MacG The reality is that... unless we apply a "God-qualifier" to any/every law contrived or implemented, it will at best be unfair and at worst (and most grievously) UNCONS***UTIONAL, according to our U.S. Cons***ution. Certainly, relatively-few 'heterosexual' people... would desire for DIVORCE laws to be subjected to such a 'qualification'. I due time, the California "Proposition 18" will be tested/examined before the American people in the highest court(s) of this land. I'm certain many properly and eagerly await that time. Columcille 08-29-2009, 08:47 AM The reality is that... unless we apply a "God-qualifier" to any/every law contrived or implemented, it will at best be unfair and at worst (and most grievously) UNCONS***UTIONAL, according to our U.S. Cons***ution. Certainly, relatively-few 'heterosexual' people... would desire for DIVORCE laws to be subjected to such a 'qualification'. I due time, the California "Proposition 18" will be tested/examined before the American people in the highest court(s) of this land. I'm certain many properly and eagerly await that time. I think the Supreme Court will turn it down. There would be some serious problems by nationalizing it, it would affect our relationship with other countries, and it would put a larger strain on INS, and INS needs some serious reform already. I know, I married a foriegner. I think it better that the individual states decide on their own. Legislation should not be coming from the bench anyways, the will of the people of California turned it down. Austin Canes 08-29-2009, 12:22 PM I think the Supreme Court will turn it down. We'll see, but law/politics are not so predictable, in my mind. I hope that the Supreme Court will set a precedent that ends the legal wrangling over the human rights of ****sexual people, once and for all in America. There would be some serious problems by nationalizing it, it would affect our relationship with other countries, and it would put a larger strain on INS, and INS needs some serious reform already. Let those nations get over it. Human rights matter MOST. TO me, immigration is a mostly separate issue. I know, I married a foriegner. It will likely all be worked through/out, just as it was in your case. I think it better that the individual states decide on their own. I do not agree, but I see your point. Legislation should not be coming from the bench anyways, the will of the people of California turned it down. There are no valid reasons to discriminate against ****sexual people, as many would have it. To me, the Cons***ution speaks more clearly on this than many individuals states do. Even so, we shall see what comes of the many court cases and various legislation in the years ahead. The effects of Prop-18 upon the people of California and the nation, are capricious and arbitrary (in reality); it will be challenged for some time. Columcille 08-29-2009, 12:58 PM Let those nations get over it. Human rights matter MOST. TO me, immigration is a mostly separate issue. Human rights in those other countries do matter, and so our relationship could severly affect any human rights victories we have won so far. The ****sexuals in our country fair a lot better than in the Middle East and elsewhere. And if you want to see how we meddle in foriegn affairs, and the lessons learned from it, I suggest you read about how the CIA helped in Iran, and how that seriously backfired. If you want America to be viewed even more as a society of infidels, thereby causing more of a religious conservative backlash within Islam nations, I think it would be tragic toward the progress we have made for women in those countries we have liberated. I think there are more human rights violations worldwide against women than against ****sexuals, because ****sexuality is a very minor grouping and also you should be concerned with the human rights violations against women, because where they progress with them, the ****sexuals have hope in progress also. If anything, it is best settle on a state by state basis. Small town America does not need some city slicker to tell them how to run their business, and vice versa. oatmeal 08-29-2009, 01:45 PM Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling...... ****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives, and pursue happiness. But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them. You can change and redefine state laws; but God's holy word does not change. As far as why we are seeing this thing blossom and grow out of all proportion to it's real size, I believe you will find the answer to that in JohnD's post. asdf 08-29-2009, 01:54 PM But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, Matrimony can only be regarded as "holy" if it is consecrated by a given religious body. I support the rights of religious bodies to determine who they will and will not marry. The Catholic church will not bless the union of divorcees. There is neither reason nor basis to enshrine such restriction in civil law - if only for the quite obvious reason that not everyone is Catholic! Likewise, whether you or your religious body believes that "God has withheld" marriage from same-sex couples, that does not stand as a reasonable basis for restricting them under civil law. but indeed, the very act that defines them. That you regard the sex act as the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people is most telling. Austin Canes 08-29-2009, 02:33 PM Human rights in those other countries do matter, and so our relationship could severly affect any human rights victories we have won so far. Everything is 'connected' somehow; but to say that we should prohibit ****sexuals the relationships they do have rights to (in America), because of human rights concerns abroad, isn't very significant. The ****sexuals in our country fair a lot better than in the Middle East and elsewhere. A LOT OF THINGS are far-better for Americans than those in other nations. We already know that. And if you want to see how we meddle in foriegn affairs, and the lessons learned from it, I suggest you read about how the CIA helped in Iran, and how that seriously backfired. You are talking about affecting this other nations; I've been talking about "America"; didn't you notice that? If you want America to be viewed even more as a society of infidels, thereby causing more of a religious conservative backlash within Islam nations, I think it would be tragic toward the progress we have made for women in those countries we have liberated. We've sucked up many criticisms for less-valid reasons; allowing ****sexual people to marry is America, bears little upon the choices in many of the nations you are mentioning. Even so, we don't need more excuses, to keep discriminating against ****sexual people here. I think there are more human rights violations worldwide against women than against ****sexuals, because ****sexuality is a very minor grouping and also you should be concerned with the human rights violations against women, because where they progress with them, the ****sexuals have hope in progress also. (I addressed your concerns above; those are generally separate issues.) If anything, it is best settle on a state by state basis. I do NOT agree; and we differ on that. Small town America does not need some city slicker to tell them how to run their business, and vice versa. I think some of the greatest problems are with small-mind America, and that has nothing to do with the population of any particular geographic location. oatmeal 08-29-2009, 03:53 PM Matrimony can only be regarded as "holy" if it is consecrated by a given religious body. I support the rights of religious bodies to determine who they will and will not marry. The Catholic church will not bless the union of divorcees. There is neither reason nor basis to enshrine such restriction in civil law - if only for the quite obvious reason that not everyone is Catholic! Whatsoever God has joined(man and woman)let no man put asunder. If two be joined in matrimony it is deemed holy by God, save for the cause of divorce. Likewise, whether you or your religious body believes that "God has withheld" marriage from same-sex couples, that does not stand as a reasonable basis for restricting them under civil law. God created man and woman, not civil law.....The ins***ute of marriage belongs to God for his purpose, not civil law. That you regard the sex act as the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people is most telling. Words have a meaning: actions speak more clearly than words; We have come to a point in America where we are redefining words and there meanings. God will not be mocked: He changes not. Columcille 08-29-2009, 07:59 PM I think some of the greatest problems are with small-mind America, and that has nothing to do with the population of any particular geographic location. Austin Canes, I would call your bold quote an inappropriate slur of the people in the mid-west and the south. Small town America is what keeps your city slicker grocery stores stocked and well feed. It is also a back-bone of the most patriotic people I have ever the pleasure to serve with in the Marines and in the Army. Those would be "fighting" words, and while I am a peaceful man, it does not mean that I am not prone to temptations. Austin Canes 08-29-2009, 10:19 PM Austin Canes, I would call your bold quote an inappropriate slur of the people in the mid-west and the south. And I would say that you are being overly-sensitive and missing my point. I'm not particularly talking about the people/regions you mentioned. You are quite mistaken. Small town America is what keeps your city slicker grocery stores stocked and well feed. I understand the general view of small-town America, and it isn't necessarily closed-minded or bigoted; this isn't 1940. I live in a smaller conservative place; I understand the reasonable values of such people as you refer to. Not all the "city-slickers" reside and/or operate in the 'cities'; people are people... no matter wherever you go. It is also a back-bone of the most patriotic people I have ever the pleasure to serve with in the Marines and in the Army. I have performed substantial military service myself, and I'm proud to say that the best-of-the-best come from ALL OVER America. Those would be "fighting" words, and while I am a peaceful man, it does not mean that I am not prone to temptations. BE PEACEFUL and be disciplined; understand, rather than striking out in foolish anger (as many do these days). I'm not here to be against you personally, but to share what my views, beliefs and vision with you as a fellow American. sunofmysoul 09-01-2009, 08:02 AM Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling...... ****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives, and pursue happiness. But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them. You can change and redefine state laws; but God's holy word does not change. As far as why we are seeing this thing blossom and grow out of all proportion to it's real size, I believe you will find the answer to that in JohnD's post. a question. God commanded in the beginning for us to multiply and fill the earth... procreation was a large part of the initial beginning of marriage. Do we now believe that all marriage is for this purpose? Or is one of the primary purposes, changing? Now that we have filled the earth, can marriage have room for those who do not meet the ability to fulfill this command? (we now use birth control which is food for thought...) A second question, would be what of those who do not fit into the "foreordained ins***ute" definition of male or female? what of the intergender? thanks, soms Columcille 09-01-2009, 10:33 PM I have performed substantial military service myself, and I'm proud to say that the best-of-the-best come from ALL OVER America. I am from Seattle, Washington and joined the service at the MEPS station in Seattle. The best of the best do come from ALL OVER America, but from my interaction with others in the military... coming from a percentage of the population of each state. I would say that the small town America or perhaps demographicallys speaking "red county" country is more supportive of the troops. I left Seattle behind and moved to Tennessee, to stay; tree huggers in Washington can be fairly emotional and angry with troops, but they are ******** of the soldier's plight, and the worst ones misplace their anger onto the troops rather than on congress that sent them. Some of their "ideals" are so high minded, as though if we are peaceful with the terrorists countries that somehow those dictators are going to see the light and turn their guns into plowshares. What naivete! I thought this sort of criticism stuck more to idealism of Christianity, but the roles are now reversed. Austin Canes 09-01-2009, 11:09 PM I am from Seattle, Washington and joined the service at the MEPS station in Seattle. The best of the best do come from ALL OVER America, but from my interaction with others in the military... coming from a percentage of the population of each state. I would say that the small town America or perhaps demographicallys speaking "red county" country is more supportive of the troops.That may be true, but some of "red" mindset, isn't what the troops are actually about. So, what many troops views as being 'supportive', is often objective. I've been around military people most of my life, and I know there is are variety of moral values and political views represented amongst them. I left Seattle behind and moved to Tennessee, to stay; tree huggers in Washington can be fairly emotional and angry with troops, but they are ******** of the soldier's plight, and the worst ones misplace their anger onto the troops rather than on congress that sent them.One guy I knew was from Seattle, he went back there (after getting out)... and stayed supportive of the military for the remainder of his life; he was very fond of his military service and experience; he was one of the best troops I'd ever known. There were many others I know and have known from big cities and small towns (red/blue); and without any doubt, I realize that there are great soldiers with diverse viewpoints and values in America's Armed Forces. I'm not so concerned that they come from any particular background, as long as they do the *** and do it well. Some of their "ideals" are so high minded, as though if we are peaceful with the terrorists countries that somehow those dictators are going to see the light and turn their guns into plowshares. What naivete! I thought this sort of criticism stuck more to idealism of Christianity, but the roles are now reversed.Well, I cannot answer for every person skating near the fringe (I tend to discount the words and ways of extremists of any type); it's not prudent to regard HYPE and irrationality to a significant degree. Do it for too long, and you just end up 'loony'. TRiG 09-21-2009, 12:11 PM ****sexuality is not about love but sexWho do you think you are? TRiG.:) sunofmysoul 09-22-2009, 07:28 AM Greetings IR First of all many people do see ****sexuality as a sin and our God does say this act is an abomination. He is your God too by the way whether you want Him or not, and that is not a slam against you just a fact. I cannot stop people from "wanting" to do anything but a society without morals and laws will soon crumble. There are many people who "want" to steal, rape, kill and a variety of other acts God also considers to be sin and I'm sure you would not want these to become legal. Now I am not equating the desires of ****sexuals with rape and murder, I am making a point about where ignoring God's law will lead. Everyone does deserve to love and be loved, but ****sexuality is not about love but sex. I certainly understand TRiG's frustration with this sentence. It stems from ignorance, so knowing this I shall try to ask you to consider the alternative...Is heterosexuality not about love , but only sex? Does it not more depend on the desire, the act, and not the orientations? Yes a heterosexual act, or a ****sexual act can be about the sex. But what we so easily miss, and are not perhaps ready to understand is that ****sexuals would like the same freedom and privilege we so easily take for granted, to love and commit themselves to another, have a relationship that is NOT just about the sex, but about love, commitment, friendship, courage, sacrifice, sharing, caring, and all that good stuff that comes in a relationship. Your statement only reveals the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ****sexuality. There are many men who love other men but do not engage in sex with them. We were not created to sodomize one another man or women. God made man and woman obviously different to fit together in marriage, each one honoring and respecting the other in love. We were not created to do whatever we please to, or with someone else. There are men who think they love small children and wish to have sex with them, should that be allowed? Condoning immoral behavior by saying it is legal does hurt my family because surly it will lead to worse and more perverse behavior. Making something legal does not make it right. I will agree with that. Consider that old guys were allowed to marry little girls in biblical times. (pedophilia would be allowed biblically speaking as long as one married the child) We now find that to be unacceptable. (as we gain knowledge in science, and evolve in our understanding we are able to make more enlightened decisions) We now realize that young girls getting pregnant at an early age is not only physically harmful to both the mother and child, but that in our present age, the child is not emotionally ready to be a parent. Henceforth we see more and more states, making stricter laws about age limits. (slowly but hopefully surely). Sin has a detremental effect on society so the idea that what one does in privacy does not harm others is false. There are absolute truths and morals and logically must come from One who is absolutly moral and truthful. God has given us boundries to protect us, we would do well to listen to His law. But as I know and you know humans have a hard time keeping away from things that will harm us and that will seperate us from God. That is why we need a Savior and Redeemer and when we finally realize that we need something that we can't do for ourselves break the hold of sin on our lives, God offers us freedom and life through Jesus Christ. Thanks for listening IR. ah here i would struggle with absolute morals, as I do not believe we can really use those, but rather an absolute standard that we would base our decisions off of. (always choosing the greater good or the lesser evil).... Austin Canes 09-22-2009, 10:41 AM I certainly understand TRiG's frustration with this sentence... Yeah, it's not reasonable to say that ****sexual people are not and cannot be in 'real' love. The physical aspect is not all that defines ****sexuality; but that is what many religious people are taught. In fact, the ignorance and distortion about that is so 'pervasive', that many a GAY person has slipped under the religious-radar, simply by having a wife and several children. The numbers of divorced (from heterosexual marriages), ****sexual people (with kids) I've known, proved to me a long time ago, that sexual-orientation (or iden***y) is about far more than what people do with their body parts. ...Your statement only reveals the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ****sexuality...You are correct. ...ah here i would struggle with absolute morals, as I do not believe we can really use those, but rather an absolute standard that we would base our decisions off of. (always choosing the greater good or the lesser evil)....Very sensible and reasonable. alanmolstad 08-14-2011, 06:50 PM While I believe the term, "marriage" should be reserved for legal unions between members of different sex, I have no problem with members of the SAME SEX being allowed to forum the same types of legal unions called "Domestic partnerships" or "Civil unions" This means the the GAYs should be protected under the law in the same manner as straight people are...as well as binding the gay under the same laws too. By this I mean that getting a "Dissolved Civil Union" should be the same mess as for straight people getting a divorce...(meaning lawyers and lots of screaming). In this way then the religion's people of faith can feel that they have protected the idea of the Christian "marriage" and at the same time have offered the Gays the same protections and demands given to others who are not Gay. The term "marriage" is reserved for the straight unions, ...without any meanings to this other that the term will simply mean "Union between two of different sex" sorta like the term "straight" simply means in this context to have a tradition view of sexuality....and "gay means to be attracted sexualty to a member of the same sex. The terms themselves do not cause anyone to believe their rights are missing....they are just terms to help us understand who is turned on by who.... asdf 08-15-2011, 12:15 AM While I believe the term, "marriage" should be reserved for legal unions between members of different sex, I have no problem with members of the SAME SEX being allowed to forum the same types of legal unions called "Domestic partnerships" or "Civil unions" This means the the GAYs should be protected under the law in the same manner as straight people are...as well as binding the gay under the same laws too. By this I mean that getting a "Dissolved Civil Union" should be the same mess as for straight people getting a divorce...(meaning lawyers and lots of screaming). In this way then the religion's people of faith can feel that they have protected the idea of the Christian "marriage" and at the same time have offered the Gays the same protections and demands given to others who are not Gay. The term "marriage" is reserved for the straight unions, ...without any meanings to this other that the term will simply mean "Union between two of different sex" sorta like the term "straight" simply means in this context to have a tradition view of sexuality....and "gay means to be attracted sexualty to a member of the same sex. The terms themselves do not cause anyone to believe their rights are missing....they are just terms to help us understand who is turned on by who.... Hi Alan, First of all I'd like to say I (greatly!) appreciate your empathy and ability to see that gay people are deserving of protection and the validation of their relationships under civil law. That's a pretty fundamental baseline in my opinion, even for those who consider same-sex relationships to be immoral. I understand that you're saying that your proposed definition of "civil union" or "domestic partnership" should entail exactly the same rights, responsibilities and protections under law as "marriage". Again, that's a step in the right direction, but it's one that doesn't work for me, and I believe it will not ultimately be deemed acceptable. "Separate but equal" is a concept that has had a long history in U.S. law—from separate Colored and White drinking fountains to segregated schools to anti-miscegenation laws. The concept has been ruled uncons***utional—and rightly so. To set up a separate and parallel ins***ution from the one that heterosexual people are able to participate in, you enshrine into law that gay people are Other, that their relationships are almost-but-not-quite as valued by society as opposite-sex relationships. We already have a perfectly good word and a perfectly good ins***ution to refer to the voluntary union between two people in a committed, monogamous, lasting intimate relationship—marriage. I understand that some religious people object. The solution is not to allow one sectarian religious view of marriage to define reality for all Americans—the solution is to allow religious exemption (which currently already exists), allowing churches to continue to perform marriages only for those they choose. Churches have discretion over those they choose to marry. The Catholic church (for example) is, and will remain, free to perform marriages only between a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman. Non-Catholics, divorcees and same-sex couples need not apply. They can (or should be able to) go to the justice of the peace for that. This is pretty much textbook First Amendment stuff here—no compulsion for the Catholic church to violate its conscience; no compulsion for the civil authorities to kowtow to Catholic teachings. alanmolstad 08-15-2011, 04:11 AM I believe we should reserve the term "Marriage" to mean: "A legal union between two people of different sex" This meaning does not place a value on itself, but simply helps people to understand the sex of the people in the union. Its like the terms "****sexuality" or "Gay" when used in this context do not place a value on the sexuality but are just terms used to help people understand what form of sexuality we are talking about. The benefit of reserving the term "marriage" to mean the union of different sexes is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people of faith like myself. after all, it was a gay person who came up with the term "Domestic partnership" to describe this form on single-sex legal union after all.... I am just saying that we should make legally clarifying this different meaning to the terms to avoid a pointless debate. Marriage - union of different sex Domestic partnership = union of the same sex alanmolstad 08-15-2011, 04:19 AM My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union) In the real world it would break down to being like this: You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage" From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union. However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership" Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex. Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"... Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on... asdf 08-15-2011, 11:54 AM The benefit of reserving the term "marriage" to mean the union of different sexes is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people of faith like myself. The benefit of reserving "whites only" drinking fountains is that we show respect to the feelings and traditional beliefs of people who don't like black people. :eek: after all, it was a gay person who came up with the term "Domestic partnership" to describe this form on single-sex legal union after all.... Probably. But it was a kludgy, compromising, temporary, stop-gap method that I don't believe will stand the test of time—when the more elegant and efficient method is to simply allow marriage equality. asdf 08-15-2011, 11:58 AM My suggestion for a clear diffinition between the two different forms of union with a totally different use of words is also something that would REALLY help the averagfe person get a heads-up before going to a social event.....(ie a marriage or a Civial union) In the real world it would break down to being like this: You open your mail one day and find an invitation to a co-worker's child's "marriage" From the use of the term "marriage" you know a head of time what to expect....you know this will be an event where a man and a women are going to be united in legal union. How about you know from the names on the invitation? Or you know by knowing the people to whose wedding you are going? However lets say you open the same invitation and see you are asked to attend the union of Cris and Pat in "Domestic Partnership" Now you know a head of time to expect that this is a union between two people of the same sex. Everyone walks in the door of the church that day knowing what to expect, and no one gets grossed out, pukes, or points fingers. Everyone there "understands"... Everyone there knew going in what to expect to see going on... Perhaps bigots who would be induced to vomiting at the sight of two men or two women publicly affirming their love should simply stay away from weddings in which they don't know the people. That's an absolutely terrible reason to create a separate, parallel ins***ution to marriage. alanmolstad 08-15-2011, 07:26 PM Perhaps bigots who would be induced to vomiting at the sight of two men or two women publicly affirming their love should simply stay away from weddings . that is one of the reasons my idea is so good.....it gives everyone a heads-up before things get out of control. I also believe my idea allows for people to have different views oin the matter without everyone needing to get in each others face over it. If a gay couple want to make their relationship binding, then they get to... Nothing about the straight's marriage and the gay's Domestic Partnership is different...only the terms used are simply in context of making things more clear to everyone. to clarify that one union is between members of different sex, and another union if between members of the same sex. The terms are different, like being called "Straight" or "gay" is simply a means to distinguish a person's sexual iden***y. No judgement is employed in calling me "Straight" or in calling another "gay" The same with the term marriage and Domestic partnership....the terms are different and simply explain things better. asdf 08-16-2011, 02:51 PM that is one of the reasons my idea is so good.....it gives everyone a heads-up before things get out of control. I also believe my idea allows for people to have different views oin the matter without everyone needing to get in each others face over it. If a gay couple want to make their relationship binding, then they get to... Nothing about the straight's marriage and the gay's Domestic Partnership is different...only the terms used are simply in context of making things more clear to everyone. to clarify that one union is between members of different sex, and another union if between members of the same sex. The terms are different, like being called "Straight" or "gay" is simply a means to distinguish a person's sexual iden***y. No judgement is employed in calling me "Straight" or in calling another "gay" The same with the term marriage and Domestic partnership....the terms are different and simply explain things better. It's catering to people with bigoted and ****phobic views, creating a permanent undercl***, employing the old "gay panic defense" argument, using the exact same arguments that gave us Jim Crow laws, and fetishizing/exoticizing gay people. But other than that, yeah, great idea. :cool: alanmolstad 08-17-2011, 04:57 AM I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want... thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?" Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides. I also believe that the people on both lunatic ends of the question that disagree with me are not actually seeking equality nor respect for traditional understandings,,,,,rather they just want to hurt the other side. shame on them..... thats all i can say to some people,,,,,shame on them. asdf 08-17-2011, 05:12 PM I believe my views are a good way for both sides of the issue to get what they really want... As I said from the beginning, I think your proposal is a step in the right direction. Acknowledging the humanity of gay and lesbian people is a crucial first step, and one that many people don't seem to make. thats the question I would ask anyone who thinks my idea is wrong..."What are you really after?" Get right down to the bare bones of the real goal you are seeking....and you will find that my idea fits nicely there with both sides. That is indeed a great question. Here's how I'd break it down. What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law. Legitimization in the eyes of society. That they are not treated as pariahs by their own government. "The other side" could be seeking one of two things, neither of which I believe is well-served by your suggestion of a "separate but equal" ins***ution parallel to marriage. They could be seeking: Complete delegitimation of gay and lesbian people. Denial that they exist, or trying to force them either into the closet or into "reparative therapy". No recognition of their humanity, no acknowledgment that they have or want to form meaningful, intimate relationships. The religious liberty to determine standards of morality according to their own consciences. The ability to refrain from participation in, or blessing of, same-sex relationships. The freedom to denounce ****sexuality. For those who want 1), I simply have nothing to say, except my confidence that they will lose in the marketplace of ideas. For those that want 2), I can appreciate and respect that, though I think it's wrong and harmful to young gay people. I support the rights of religious groups & organizations to refrain from conducting marriages they deem immoral. But that's no reason to create a parallel ins***ution of "domestic partnership". Going back to my example of the Catholic Church, they may (as an organization), decide that marriage is only a union of a never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman, but that's no reason to rename a union of two Jews, or two men, or two divorcees, into something other than "marriage", simply to pander to Catholics' religious beliefs. Civil government is not, and should not be, in the business of determining orthodox spirituality. (That's for the best, for both Church and State.) alanmolstad 08-18-2011, 05:20 AM What I'm really seeking for my gay and lesbian friends: simple, straightforward equality in the eyes of civil law. then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law? TRiG 08-18-2011, 11:10 AM then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law? Frankly, I care very little how "offended" bigots might be at anything. TRiG. alanmolstad 08-18-2011, 08:15 PM Frankly, I care very little how "offended" bigots might be at anything. TRiG. Im sure there are just as many guys of not more on the other side that are ready to tell me that "They are not worried about offending perverts"... Thus you see the wisdom in my idea in that it offends people on both ends of the question ... asdf 08-19-2011, 11:30 AM then can you understand how offended by my ideas are the people who don't want the Gays to be equal under the law? Of course. What does their offense have to do with whether your suggestion is a just solution? Thus you see the wisdom in my idea in that it offends people on both ends of the question ... That's a very odd criterion for determining the wisdom of a particular idea. alanmolstad 08-19-2011, 06:07 PM That's a very odd criterion for determining the wisdom of a particular idea. sooner or later you will also find the wisdom in knowing that justice is never found on the lips of people at the far extremes.... asdf 08-19-2011, 06:51 PM sooner or later you will also find the wisdom in knowing that justice is never found on the lips of people at the far extremes.... Perhaps one day you will find the wisdom in knowing that just because everybody dislikes an idea that solves nobody's desires, doesn't mean it's the right solution. alanmolstad 08-20-2011, 07:05 AM an idea that solves nobody's desires, . ahh but my idea does.... think about this issue from both sides and you will come to see that my idea actually dose give to both sides what they were really deep-down seeking. Consider: What does the Gays want? They want to be able to form life-long legal unions and have all the same legal rights reconized as do married husbands and wives. My idea does this. On the flip side, what do people who read the Bible and respect the Lord seek? They want the concept of "Biblical marriage" reserved for only members of different sex. ( "God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!") My idea reserves for all time the term 'marriage" to refer to only members of different sex. Thus,my idea is better than any other i have yet heard of of allowing both sides to achieve what they are really seeking..... Both sides might have their lunatic ends who will always feel "It's not good enough" but we cant allow this subject to be driven by the nut-***s that are in this discussion for more personal reasons that have nothing to do with the general question of a person's legal rights. If you actually are seeking nothing more than legal rights, or the protection of Biblical marriage?.......my idea works. asdf 08-20-2011, 02:26 PM ahh but my idea does.... You continue to say that, but you haven't dealt with any of the critiques I have offered. think about this issue from both sides and you will come to see that my idea actually dose give to both sides what they were really deep-down seeking. In the first place, when one "side" of the "issue" comprises people with anti-reality, anti-equality, bigoted views, I don't feel the need to accommodate their perspective. I don't think that 50 years ago, the truth lay somewhere between Bull Connor and Martin Luther King. Consider: What does the Gays want? They want to be able to form life-long legal unions and have all the same legal rights reconized as do married husbands and wives. Among other things, as I explained above. My idea does this. And neglects the rest. On the flip side, what do people who read the Bible and respect the Lord seek? They want the concept of "Biblical marriage" reserved for only members of different sex. ( "God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!") They're welcome to only perform and recognize marriages they consider "Biblical" within their church. They are not welcome to impose it on the general populace through force of U.S. civil law. Both sides might have their lunatic ends who will always feel "It's not good enough" but we cant allow this subject to be driven by the nut-***s that are in this discussion for more personal reasons Just because there are two "sides" to an issue does not mean that those on both "sides" are equally "nut-***s" and "lunatics". Feel free to have the last word. This isn't a conversation, anyway. You don't seem to even be reading, let alone responding to, what I post. BigJulie 10-20-2011, 05:02 PM [QUOTE]You continue to say that, but you haven't dealt with any of the critiques I have offered. In the first place, when one "side" of the "issue" comprises people with anti-reality, anti-equality, bigoted views, I don't feel the need to accommodate their perspective. I don't think that 50 years ago, the truth lay somewhere between Bull Connor and Martin Luther King. Being gay is not the same as being black or Hispanic. If I look at a baby, right from the start, I can identify that baby as the race they belong to. ****sexuality is a behavior, not a biological characteristic. For this reason, we shouldn't lump bigotry against race as the same thing as, if you want to call it, bigotry for a behavior. Now, if I want to take this to the extreme, couldn't I make any behavior that I want to do and society doesn't accept it as bigoted. Let's say that I want to have sexual relations with animals and society doesn't accept it? Are they bigots? What about with children whose parents give their consent? There are whole animal rights movements that think that sport hunting is inhumane. Are they okay to call those who hunt bigots? The gay movement right has tried to play this on both sides of the fence. On one side, they want to say they are born that way. On the other side, they say it is their choice to do what they want. I think Alan has a good idea. Allow the gays to have the freedom to unite or gain protections, but don't call it "marriage." A marriage, as defined today, is a union between a man and a woman. A man is not the same as a woman and a woman is not the same as a man. This is obvious, not just by visual inspection :), but also there are unique traits (biological things such as differrences in eye-sight, hearing, how we respond to sound, movement, etc.) that make us uniquely a man or a woman. A gay person obviously recognizes these differences or there would be no such self-description as "gay." My thought is, if a gay person can tell the difference between a man or a woman when choosing a partner, certainly, they should not be upset if likewise we recognize the difference between a gay partnership and a marriage. asdf 10-20-2011, 05:45 PM Being gay is not the same as being black or Hispanic. If I look at a baby, right from the start, I can identify that baby as the race they belong to. ****sexuality is not a race. You are correct—but nobody is claiming otherwise. ****sexuality is a behavior, not a biological characteristic. You are mistaken. Attractional orientation is far deeper than "a behavior"—it speaks to attractions, likes, predilictions. I was heterosexual long before I engaged in sexual activity—indeed long before I knew what sex was. When I was a child, the entirety of the set of people to whom I felt attractions or schoolboy crushes were women/girls. For this reason, we shouldn't lump bigotry against race as the same thing as, if you want to call it, bigotry for a behavior. Bigotry is bigotry. Nobody is saying racial bigotry is the same as bigotry against non-heterosexuals—rather we are saying it is ****ogous. Now, if I want to take this to the extreme, couldn't I make any behavior that I want to do and society doesn't accept it as bigoted. It depends on if there's a basis for the bigotry, apart from tradition and religious preference. N.B. If you insist on reducing ****sexuality to the same-sex sex act, I'm afraid the ship has sailed on whether "society" is permitted to forbid it under law: "anti-sodomy" laws have been ruled uncons***utional for over 8 years now (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lawrence_v_texas). Let's say that I want to have sexual relations with animals and society doesn't accept it? Are they bigots? What about with children whose parents give their consent? Two words: Informed Consent (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Informed_Consent). There are whole animal rights movements that think that sport hunting is inhumane. Are they okay to call those who hunt bigots? You can call them whatever you want: you can't restrict their behavior using the force of civil law without a rational justification. The gay movement right has tried to play this on both sides of the fence. On one side, they want to say they are born that way. On the other side, they say it is their choice to do what they want. It's really quite simple: behavior is a choice; attractional orientation is not. You could choose to listen to heavy metal music; could you choose to like it? I think Alan has a good idea. Allow the gays to have the freedom to unite or gain protections, but don't call it "marriage." I appreciate your willingness to consider equal protection under the law for gay people. Honestly. Thank you. A marriage, as defined today, is a union between a man and a woman. And as it was defined 40 years ago, it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race. And as it was defined 100 years ago, it was the union between a man and his property. And as it was defined 500 years ago, it was the union between a king and his national ally. And as it was defined in Biblical times, it was the union between a man and as many women as he wished, or a man and his rape victim, or a man and the spoils of war. ... Marriage has undeniably evolved over time. Allowing a small minority, who has traditionally been excluded, to marry will not upend the social order—and will certainly have no effect on my marriage with my wife. A man is not the same as a woman and a woman is not the same as a man. This is obvious, not just by visual inspection :), but also there are unique traits (biological things such as differrences in eye-sight, hearing, how we respond to sound, movement, etc.) that make us uniquely a man or a woman. A gay person obviously recognizes these differences or there would be no such self-description as "gay." My thought is, if a gay person can tell the difference between a man or a woman when choosing a partner, certainly, they should not be upset if likewise we recognize the difference between a gay partnership and a marriage. Perhaps you should meet some gay people and see what they think of your suggestion. Thanks for the discussion. :) BigJulie 10-20-2011, 08:35 PM [QUOTE=asdf;99401] You are mistaken. Attractional orientation is far deeper than "a behavior"—it speaks to attractions, likes, predilictions. I was heterosexual long before I engaged in sexual activity—indeed long before I knew what sex was. When I was a child, the entirety of the set of people to whom I felt attractions or schoolboy crushes were women/girls. And human sexuality goes far deeper than just preferences---ask any rape victim or sexual abuse victim. Sexuality is socialized as well as other things. Yet, it is still a behavior that defines it. Bigotry is bigotry. Nobody is saying racial bigotry is the same as bigotry against non-heterosexuals—rather we are saying it is ****ogous. But, maybe the gay rights movement is stretching this too far. Bigotry against race is far different rather than closer and to use the Martin Luther King argument is not right to blacks and what they went through. The argument has been said that ****sexuals have never had to sit on the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, etc. What the gay right movement wants is to be recognized as different but accepted as the same. It depends on if there's a basis for the bigotry, apart from tradition and religious preference. What if it is "bigotry" because there are those in society who feel that the union that can and often does produce a child should be protected precisely because it can bring children into the world. Nature dictates that a ****sexual union cannot produce a child. Anyway you slice it, it is not the same thing. If it is not, then why should we pretend it is? Two words: Informed Consent (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Informed_Consent). Yes, has marriage been desecrated to little more than "informed consent"? You can call them whatever you want: you can't restrict their behavior using the force of civil law without a rational justification. I am not restricting their behavior. But why should I think that that behavior is the same when it is clearly different. You could choose to listen to heavy metal music; could you choose to like it? Ever heard of Pavlov? Sexuality is not just some biological setting. If you want to talk about statistics of ****sexuality, should we bring up the diseases (not talking about AIDS here) like hepa***is, because the body is not meant to function in the way they behave? Increased violence---you explain why there is an increase in violence in ****sexual relationships (don't know myself). What about the higher number of partners (also well researched.) So, the question is, how as a society have we gone from understanding ****sexuality is a harmful behavior to embracing it? I appreciate your willingness to consider equal protection under the law for gay people. Honestly. Thank you. I am willing to consider equal protection under the law--I am also willing to be honest about the stats that come with ****sexuality and the obvious problems that go with it. Are you willing to do that as well? And as it was defined 40 years ago, it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race. And as it was defined 100 years ago, it was the union between a man and his property. And as it was defined 500 years ago, it was the union between a king and his national ally. And as it was defined in Biblical times, it was the union between a man and as many women as he wished, or a man and his rape victim, or a man and the spoils of war. ... It is still defined this way. Every single one of these definitions can be used. It speaks to a contractual agreement for the protection of those within the stewardship. Today, it is the children. Children still need to be protected and there is a reason that statistics show that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are still married. They don't do as well with divorce. They don't do as well with single parents. They don't do as well with adoption. That's the stats. Marriage has undeniably evolved over time. Allowing a small minority, who has traditionally been excluded, to marry will not upend the social order—and will certainly have no effect on my marriage with my wife. But just as divorce, single parenthood, infidelity, out-of-wedlock children, etc. etc. have had a large toll on this society and a large cost to society, it is naive to think we could lose one more protection for children and it also not affect society. Men and women are not the same. There is more similarity between a 5 year old girl and an 80 year old woman than there is between a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman. Medically, biologically, we are not the same creatures. If you don't believe in God, then at least accept Darwin created differnces in parents for a reason. Perhaps you should meet some gay people and see what they think of your suggestion. Thanks for the discussion. :) I know many. They are very nice---but I would say this to their face as readily as to yours. Men and women are different. Children deserve more than to be a pet to someone's dream of what they want in life. asdf 10-21-2011, 12:42 AM And human sexuality goes far deeper than just preferences---ask any rape victim or sexual abuse victim. Sexuality is socialized as well as other things. Indeed—but sexual orientation goes far deeper than just sexuality. Which is why I prefer the term attractional orientation to be more clear. Yet, it is still a behavior that defines it. No more than there is a behavior that defines me as heterosexual. But, maybe the gay rights movement is stretching this too far. Bigotry against race is far different rather than closer and to use the Martin Luther King argument is not right to blacks and what they went through. Perhaps—but many civil rights leaders, from John Lewis to Coretta Scott King, see the parallels. The argument has been said that ****sexuals have never had to sit on the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, etc. This is true. But they have been bullied, discriminated against in employment, har***ed, and—more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law. What the gay right movement wants is to be recognized as different but accepted as the same. I'm not sure I follow. What if it is "bigotry" because there are those in society who feel that the union that can and often does produce a child should be protected precisely because it can bring children into the world. Nature dictates that a ****sexual union cannot produce a child. Anyway you slice it, it is not the same thing. If it is not, then why should we pretend it is? Heterosexual unions and opposite-sex marriages do not revolve around the ability to procreate. Yes, has marriage been desecrated to little more than "informed consent"? What? No. Informed consent is necessary, but not sufficient, for a marriage. I am not restricting their behavior. But why should I think that that behavior is the same when it is clearly different. Nobody is asking you to think any such thing. We're not arguing about your thoughts—we're arguing about the status under US law. Ever heard of Pavlov? Yes. There's no legitimate science to suggest that ****sexuality can be learned (or unlearned) as a Pavlovian response. Sexuality is not just some biological setting. If you want to talk about statistics of ****sexuality, should we bring up the diseases (not talking about AIDS here) like hepa***is, because the body is not meant to function in the way they behave? Even ***uming (for the sake of argument) that your "statistics" are based on sound, evidence-based scientific research, would it not be a solution to the problem to channeling sexual impulses within the context of a committed, monogamous, faithful, loving, lifelong relationship like marriage? Increased violence---you explain why there is an increase in violence in ****sexual relationships (don't know myself). My hypothesis is to blame The Closet. Being forced into a ghetto of societal disapproval, often facing rejection by family and friends and employers, hiding oneself from bigots . . . has to add a great deal of stress and uncertainty to a person. What about the higher number of partners (also well researched.) Applies to gay men, not lesbian women. So, the question is, how as a society have we gone from understanding ****sexuality is a harmful behavior to embracing it? Pretty much the same way we've gone from understanding left-handedness as "sinister", evil and unlucky to "embracing it"—viz., reality. I am willing to consider equal protection under the law--I am also willing to be honest about the stats that come with ****sexuality and the obvious problems that go with it. Are you willing to do that as well? "The stats" do not come with ****sexuality—they come with promiscuity and unsafe sex, whether same-sex or opposite sex. It is still defined this way. Every single one of these definitions can be used. It speaks to a contractual agreement for the protection of those within the stewardship. Um, no. My wife is not my property. She is not my rape victim. She is not a spoil of war, nor a political arrangement. She's certainly not one of many women. Today, it is the children. According to your tradition, perhaps. According to U.S. civil law? Nonsense. Children still need to be protected and there is a reason that statistics show that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are still married. They don't do as well with divorce. They don't do as well with single parents. They don't do as well with adoption. That's the stats. I've seen studies comparing two-parent households with single-parent households and step-households and foster-households, but not with adoptive two-parent households. Could you cite your source? Anyway, ***uming you're correct, what's your solution? Prohibiting divorce under civil law? Prohibiting adoption? (Full disclosure: I am an adoptee, and do not take kindly to smears against adoption.) But just as divorce, single parenthood, infidelity, out-of-wedlock children, etc. etc. have had a large toll on this society and a large cost to society, it is naive to think we could lose one more protection for children and it also not affect society. Men and women are not the same. There is more similarity between a 5 year old girl and an 80 year old woman than there is between a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman. Medically, biologically, we are not the same creatures. If you don't believe in God, then at least accept Darwin created differnces in parents for a reason. I know many. They are very nice---but I would say this to their face as readily as to yours. Men and women are different. Children deserve more than to be a pet to someone's dream of what they want in life. Marriage is not about children. It's a red herring. BigJulie 10-21-2011, 09:23 AM [QUOTE=asdf;99405]Indeed—but sexual orientation goes far deeper than just sexuality. Which is why I prefer the term attractional orientation to be more clear. Well, things that science has found to be deeper as well are things such as mental illness, alchoholism, etc. these, at least have found a genetic link. ****sexuality has yet to do that. Alcholism is a harmful behavior as well, but society recognizes it as such and does not embrace it. No more than there is a behavior that defines me as heterosexual. And one of the reasons that we have marriage is so that your "heterosexual" tendencies do not harm the possible offspring as the result of that tendency. That is one reason we have marriage--to give children a safe, protected place to grow. We can see what happens to the children when this union is desecrated and the ending result on society. Perhaps—but many civil rights leaders, from John Lewis to Coretta Scott King, see the parallels. And many blacks are offended by what they "see." It is not the same and to pretend it is is just using the black experience, once again, for their own social gains. This is true. But they have been bullied, discriminated against in employment, har***ed, and—more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law. A marriage law will not change this---people who are bullies are bullies. Oh boy, are you suggesting we give ****sexuals "affirmative action" laws? And nobody even knows a ****sexual is ****sexual unless they announce it themselves, either verbally or by their behavior. I've been bullied for being Mormon, made fun of by a teacher in school in front of the cl***, been put down at work. I survived. If you believe what you are is okay--bullying doesn't make a difference. And a marriage law is not going to change this. Heterosexual unions and opposite-sex marriages do not revolve around the ability to procreate. Which is WHY they should not be given the name of "marriage" which one of the absolute possiblities with marriage is procreation--even for those who use birth-control. Nobody is asking you to think any such thing. We're not arguing about your thoughts—we're arguing about the status under US law. Why should state law not acknowledge a difference between a heterosexual union and a ****sexual union when clearly, there is a difference? Yes. There's no legitimate science to suggest that ****sexuality can be learned (or unlearned) as a Pavlovian response. But there are plenty of examples of ****sexuals who were in heterosexual relationships and then ****sexual relationships and then back. Obviously, ****sexuality is not just one way or the other. And in tribal countries, ****sexuality is often used as a way for more powerful men to control less powerful men. Even ***uming (for the sake of argument) that your "statistics" are based on sound, evidence-based scientific research, would it not be a solution to the problem to channeling sexual impulses within the context of a committed, monogamous, faithful, loving, lifelong relationship like marriage? Statistics also note that for ****sexuals, they do not define "marriage" as a "committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship." They want to be "married" but have a more open ended idea of what it is. For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/****sexuality/ho0075.html My hypothesis is to blame The Closet. Being forced into a ghetto of societal disapproval, often facing rejection by family and friends and employers, hiding oneself from bigots . . . has to add a great deal of stress and uncertainty to a person. A hypothesis found to be incorrect when looking at the Netherlands where ****sexuality is far more accepted. Applies to gay men, not lesbian women. Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies ***ociated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63 Pretty much the same way we've gone from understanding left-handedness as "sinister", evil and unlucky to "embracing it"—viz., reality. Just read this whole article. Being left handed does not increase your risk for early death, among other things. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/****sexuality/ho0075.html "The stats" do not come with ****sexuality—they come with promiscuity and unsafe sex, whether same-sex or opposite sex. Which "marriage" is---monogamous, safe sex. But our society is desecrating what marriage is---plenty of infidelity, promiscuty, etc. But read the stats, ****sexuality does not desire to conform to "marriage" standards, rather to have the label without the standard. Um, no. My wife is not my property. She is not my rape victim. She is not a spoil of war, nor a political arrangement. She's certainly not one of many women. But you do have a stewardship over her well-being as well as she to you in a marriage relationship. I've seen studies comparing two-parent households with single-parent households and step-households and foster-households, but not with adoptive two-parent households. Could you cite your source?I could look it up, or you could. My husband does this type of stuff by profession....adoptions are good about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time, the children struggle with iden***y issues and from my cousin who adopted three children and has 10 of her own---she stated that having genetic similarities helps a parent to understand their children better--sheis somewhat flying blind trying to help one of her adopted children who is having some problems. In other words, if OCD tends to run in the family, you recognize it and there have been generations that have figured out how to deal with it. Anyway, ***uming you're correct, what's your solution? Prohibiting divorce under civil law? Prohibiting adoption? (Full disclosure: I am an adoptee, and do not take kindly to smears against adoption.) Well, no-fault divorces certainly have not helped this country at all. This whole idea that adults should be happy and that chlidren will adjust has proven false. Infidelity and single parenthood in on the rise---do you really think that this is not affecting your own household or how much you pay in taxes---how much you must work to pay for other's children as well? etc. And the money is just one small portion to the reality. How are these kids doing in the cl***rooms? How about crime? It is rediculous to think we live in an island and other's behavior does not affect us. Marriage is not about children. It's a red herring. And this statement here is exactly why you support gay "marriage" because you do not understand the depth of the word and what it means TO children. asdf 10-23-2011, 11:24 PM Well, things that science has found to be deeper as well are things such as mental illness, alchoholism, etc. these, at least have found a genetic link. I find the comparison insulting and offensive. ****sexuality has yet to do that. I'm afraid you're mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence that attractional orientation is genetically influenced. There's a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research at the Wiki page on Biology and sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation). Alcholism is a harmful behavior as well, but society recognizes it as such and does not embrace it. Alcoholism is a harmful behavior. ****sexuality is not a behavior at all. Alcoholism is detrimental to the individual as well as families & society. People in stable same-sex relationships are not. And one of the reasons that we have marriage is so that your "heterosexual" tendencies do not harm the possible offspring as the result of that tendency. That is one reason we have marriage--to give children a safe, protected place to grow. We can see what happens to the children when this union is desecrated and the ending result on society. I'm sorry, but there is no multi-million dollar lobby to prevent the infertile from marrying, or to prohibit single parents from raising children. Again, certain ideas about the role of parenting may be important in your religious tradition, but they don't hold ground when given scrutiny (say, in a court of law). And even if marriage were defined around couples' fitness to be stable, healthy parents, there is no evidence that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children. And many blacks are offended by what they "see." It is not the same and to pretend it is is just using the black experience, once again, for their own social gains. Shrug. A marriage law will not change this---people who are bullies are bullies. Oh boy, are you suggesting we give ****sexuals "affirmative action" laws? And nobody even knows a ****sexual is ****sexual unless they announce it themselves, either verbally or by their behavior. I've been bullied for being Mormon, made fun of by a teacher in school in front of the cl***, been put down at work. I survived. If you believe what you are is okay--bullying doesn't make a difference. And a marriage law is not going to change this. Which is why I said "and more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law." Which is WHY they should not be given the name of "marriage" which one of the absolute possiblities with marriage is procreation--even for those who use birth-control. No. It is not an "absolute possibility". Post-menopausal women, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had hysterectomies, the infirm, the handicapped, the asexual, ... are all permitted to marry. The government does not have a compelling interest in whether, what kind, how much, and how fertile your sexual relationship is. Why should state law not acknowledge a difference between a heterosexual union and a ****sexual union when clearly, there is a difference? What is the difference? But there are plenty of examples of ****sexuals who were in heterosexual relationships and then ****sexual relationships and then back. Obviously, ****sexuality is not just one way or the other. And in tribal countries, ****sexuality is often used as a way for more powerful men to control less powerful men. Sometimes. And in other "tribal" cultures, ****sexual and "third sex" people are fully accepted and integrated into society. Yes, there can be some fluidity and grey areas in sexual iden***y, gender expression, and attractional orientation, but that is all the more reason to be accepting and understanding of non-heteronormative expressions—particularly when considering the evidence that efforts to change orientation are almost universally impossible. Statistics also note that for ****sexuals, they do not define "marriage" as a "committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship." They want to be "married" but have a more open ended idea of what it is. Source? N.B. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a greater incidence of consensual nonmonogamy and "open relationships" among same-sex couples as among opposite-sex couples. One explanation (among many, I'm sure) could be that gay and lesbian people tend to have been rejected by conservative religious movements. A hypothesis found to be incorrect when looking at the Netherlands where ****sexuality is far more accepted. Source? Just read this whole article. Being left handed does not increase your risk for early death, among other things. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/****sexuality/ho0075.html the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships. Even if these were true, the mind boggles at how one uses a statistic like this, ostensibly showing the instability of GLB relationships, as a cudgel against allowing them the validation and incentive to stability that is civil marriage. Which "marriage" is---monogamous, safe sex. But our society is desecrating what marriage is---plenty of infidelity, promiscuty, etc. But read the stats, ****sexuality does not desire to conform to "marriage" standards, rather to have the label without the standard. You're welcome to personally adhere to whatever idiosyncratic, personally defined, religiously based "definition" of marriage you like—you're not welcome to impose that on others with the force of civil law. But you do have a stewardship over her well-being as well as she to you in a marriage relationship. Which is a completely different issue, and is a very far cry from the historical understandings of marriage I cited above. I could look it up, or you could. You ***erted it. You can substantiate it, or not, as you like. My husband does this type of stuff by profession....adoptions are good about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time, the children struggle with iden***y issues and from my cousin who adopted three children and has 10 of her own---she stated that having genetic similarities helps a parent to understand their children better--sheis somewhat flying blind trying to help one of her adopted children who is having some problems. In other words, if OCD tends to run in the family, you recognize it and there have been generations that have figured out how to deal with it. I am white; my mom is Filipina. Not much genetic similarity there at all. In any case, good luck trying to tear apart families by outlawing adoption—or whatever it is your endgame is. Well, no-fault divorces certainly have not helped this country at all. This whole idea that adults should be happy and that chlidren will adjust has proven false. Infidelity and single parenthood in on the rise---do you really think that this is not affecting your own household or how much you pay in taxes---how much you must work to pay for other's children as well? etc. And the money is just one small portion to the reality. How are these kids doing in the cl***rooms? How about crime? It is rediculous to think we live in an island and other's behavior does not affect us. Of course others' behavior affects us; of course no man is an island entire of itself. I don't know anyone claiming otherwise, so you're fighting a straw man here. And this statement here is exactly why you support gay "marriage" because you do not understand the depth of the word and what it means TO children. You're pining for something that never existed. BigJulie 10-24-2011, 08:20 AM [QUOTE=asdf;99496]I find the comparison insulting and offensive. And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not. Can you imagine then, how offensive it is for LGB's to high-jack another's completely non-behavior oriented experiences as a comparison to their own? I'm afraid you're mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence that attractional orientation is genetically influenced. There's a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research at the Wiki page on Biology and sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation). Please provide something other than a WIKI. Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society. Alcoholism is a harmful behavior. ****sexuality is not a behavior at all. Alcoholism is detrimental to the individual as well as families & society. People in stable same-sex relationships are not. Did you even read the article I provided you. Let's get gross here for a moment---the body is not meant to conform to ****sexual sexual practices. As a result, damage is done to the body and it becomes suseptible to all kinds of diseases. ****sexuality is a behavior---you can't be sexual until you act on a feeling. You can't be anything that is determined by a behavior at all unless you act. You can't be a baseball player until you stand at a plate. You can't be a pianist until you sit at a piano. I might feel to hurt someone, but I am not considered violent until I act. I'm sorry, but there is no multi-million dollar lobby to prevent the infertile from marrying, or to prohibit single parents from raising children. Again, certain ideas about the role of parenting may be important in your religious tradition, but they don't hold ground when given scrutiny (say, in a court of law). Marriage isn't based on the fact that some couples may be infertile. Marriage is based on the fact that when a man and a woman get together, offspring is a possibility and offspring is ONLY a possibility when a man and a woman have intercourse. Marriage is that union. Yes, I know that we have desecrated marriage to the point that the purpose has been lost--but look at the end result of our society. Crime, drug abuse---so many problems in society can be linked to the failure in the home. Every teacher who has ever taught children will tell you, children from homes where the parents are not home, single parents, chidren of divorce--these kids are struggling. And even if marriage were defined around couples' fitness to be stable, healthy parents, there is no evidence that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children. A man is different than a woman and a woman is different than a man. It takes a man and a woman to have a child and as such, the child has a right to be raised by both and the best scenario is for the child to have their biological parents who raises them in love. This "best practice" has been desecrated over and over again. Now, to think that a child does not need a mother or a father is ludicrous. A ****sexual recognizes a differences when choosing a partner--and now the child is not supposed to notice a difference of not having one or the other (and society too)? ****sexual "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin for the well-being of children. No. It is not an "absolute possibility". Post-menopausal women, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had hysterectomies, the infirm, the handicapped, the asexual, ... are all permitted to marry. The government does not have a compelling interest in whether, what kind, how much, and how fertile your sexual relationship is. Acceptions to the rule should not make the rule. We don't do a fertility test for marriage, we just understand that offspring is a possible result. And, all situations, in which you gave---if these people did adopt, there would be a man and a woman to raise the child. While adoptions are a bandaid--these homes would still at least, at minimum recognize that a man and a woman are not the same and that a child should have both. What is the difference? A man and a woman is different than 2 men or 2 women. Men and women are different. If ****sexuals themselves did not recognize tihs difference, there would be no reason to be ****sexual. Sometimes. And in other "tribal" cultures, ****sexual and "third sex" people are fully accepted and integrated into society. Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes. Yes, there can be some fluidity and grey areas in sexual iden***y, gender expression, and attractional orientation, but that is all the more reason to be accepting and understanding of non-heteronormative expressions—particularly when considering the evidence that efforts to change orientation are almost universally impossible. You say that, but the ****sexual community has gone to great lengths to prevent counsellors from helping those turn away from ****sexual tendencies. The huge number of gay people who report bi-sexual behavior leads me to believe this is not a sexual orientation issue, but more a fidelity issue. N.B. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a greater incidence of consensual nonmonogamy and "open relationships" among same-sex couples as among opposite-sex couples. One explanation (among many, I'm sure) could be that gay and lesbian people tend to have been rejected by conservative religious movements. The data says otherwise, you are just sucking this out of your thumb and showing me that you did not read the link I gave you. Source? I gave you the link for the whole article. Did you read it? Even if these were true, the mind boggles at how one uses a statistic like this, ostensibly showing the instability of GLB relationships, as a cudgel against allowing them the validation and incentive to stability that is civil marriage. It is true and in light of what stats has revealed and in light of what happens to chlidren in our already desecrating the marriage union, why do we want to go one step further into unbridaled p***ions? You're welcome to personally adhere to whatever idiosyncratic, personally defined, religiously based "definition" of marriage you like—you're not welcome to impose that on others with the force of civil law. What do you think a law is if it not the collective wisdom imposed by society for the safeguarding of society? So, you are wrong---I can define marriage and I can impose that on others. We do this with other things such as child pornography, pornography in general, etc. So, yes, we impose ourselves on others all of the time. This is why you will get a ticket if you race down the street like a maniac. And yes, I view the protection of children worth my time to sit and make my point to you. Which is a completely different issue, and is a very far cry from the historical understandings of marriage I cited above. Every historical relationsip has a stewardship--a king to his country, his country to him. Christ to his church, his church to him. A man to a woman, a woman to him---and the resulting children to their parents and their parents to them. So, yes marriage is a contractual agreement, but marriage between a man and a woman is unique in that it has the possiblity of bringing others into the world. If you sat and argued for single-parenthood or divorce--I would be making these same arguments as to why marriage is important. You ***erted it. You can substantiate it, or not, as you like. As you are adopted, I thought you would be interested in looking up these stats. I am white; my mom is Filipina. Not much genetic similarity there at all. In any case, good luck trying to tear apart families by outlawing adoption—or whatever it is your endgame is. I am not trying to outlaw adoption, I merely recognize that it is a bandaid for infedility. It is not the best situation for a kid, but better than a single parent home or being brought up in a home that there parents are abusive, etc. Of course others' behavior affects us; of course no man is an island entire of itself. I don't know anyone claiming otherwise, so you're fighting a straw man here. I am glad you recognize then that there is a reason to have a vested interest in how we define marriage for the sake of children. You're pining for something that never existed. You fight for the "rights" of ****sexuals. I will fight for the rights of the children---truly the abused in our society while the adults run around and claim their right to divorce, be unfaithful, unchaste, have sex with whomever they want and then try to define it anyway they want. asdf 10-27-2011, 04:51 PM My reply is too long; I'll have to split it into two posts. And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not. How many times do we have to go over this—sexual behavior is (um, rather by definition) based on behavior; attractional orientation is not. Please provide something other than a WIKI. Seriously? You're complaining about source objectivity while linking me to "catholiceducation.org"? I'm dumbstruck. Nonetheless, read what I offered at Wiki again: "a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research". Take the first example, Twin Studies (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies). You'll find a summary within the text, as well as footnotes leading to the studies, in this case to the empirical, peer-reviewed scientific journals American Journal of Sociology, the American Neurological ***ociation's Journal of nervous and mental disease, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Archives of sexual behavior. Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society. You have yet to establish that a ****sexual orientation is harmful, and even if you had, it does not follow that same-sex relationships should be criminalized, or driven underground, or any other method of legal discrimination. Even if your slanderous comparison to addictions were accurate, the government does not prohibit people from purchasing alcohol (even alcoholics!) or tobacco. Did you even read the article I provided you. I read it about as thoroughly as I'd read this book— “THE NEGRO A BEAST” . . . OR . . . “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD” The Reasoner of the Age, the Revelator of the Century! The Bible as it is! The Negro and His Relation to the Human Family! The Negro a beast, but created with articulate speech, and hands, that he may be of service to his master—the White man. The Negro not the Son of Ham, Neither can it be proven by the Bible, and the argument of the theologian who would claim such, melts to mist before the thunderous and convincing arguments of this masterful book. —(pdf (http://biblical-truth.info/In%20the%20Image%20of%20God%20-%20by%20Charles%20Carroll.pdf)), printed in 1900, arguing that black people are not humans. (That's a heck of a ***le, though, I must admit.) Or the 1894 book Revolted Woman: Past, Present, and to Come (http://books.google.com/books?id=FewqAAAAMAAJ), arguing that if women gain civil equality, they will have deformed children and destroy the human race. Which is to say, no. I skimmed through it as a curiosity, for its bad logic and bigotry, but I felt no need to closely ****yze its arguments. Let's get gross here for a moment---the body is not meant to conform to ****sexual sexual practices. As a result, damage is done to the body and it becomes suseptible to all kinds of diseases. 1. Many gay men do not have **** sex. 2. Virtually no lesbians have **** sex. 3. Many heterosexual couples have **** sex. **** sex is not a "****sexual sexual practice". ****sexuality is a behavior---you can't be sexual until you act on a feeling. You can't be anything that is determined by a behavior at all unless you act. You can't be a baseball player until you stand at a plate. You can't be a pianist until you sit at a piano. I might feel to hurt someone, but I am not considered violent until I act. You're welcome to your private idiosyncratic definition, but you shouldn't expect reality to bend to your will. As I've said before—from my earliest childhood memories, the entirety of my schoolboy crushes—whether on actors, cl***mates, or whatever—were women and girls. All of this before I even knew what sex was. I have always been heterosexual. Marriage isn't based on the fact that some couples may be infertile. Marriage is based on the fact that when a man and a woman get together, offspring is a possibility and offspring is ONLY a possibility when a man and a woman have intercourse. Marriage is that union. Yes, I know that we have desecrated marriage to the point that the purpose has been lost--but look at the end result of our society. Crime, drug abuse---so many problems in society can be linked to the failure in the home. Every teacher who has ever taught children will tell you, children from homes where the parents are not home, single parents, chidren of divorce--these kids are struggling. A man is different than a woman and a woman is different than a man. It takes a man and a woman to have a child and as such, the child has a right to be raised by both and the best scenario is for the child to have their biological parents who raises them in love. This "best practice" has been desecrated over and over again. Now, to think that a child does not need a mother or a father is ludicrous. A ****sexual recognizes a differences when choosing a partner--and now the child is not supposed to notice a difference of not having one or the other (and society too)? ****sexual "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin for the well-being of children.You're welcome to believe all this, but none of it has anything to do with the legality of marriage, either descriptively or prescriptively. Acceptions to the rule should not make the rule. We don't do a fertility test for marriage, we just understand that offspring is a possible result. And, all situations, in which you gave---if these people did adopt, there would be a man and a woman to raise the child. While adoptions are a bandaid--these homes would still at least, at minimum recognize that a man and a woman are not the same and that a child should have both. A man and a woman is different than 2 men or 2 women. Men and women are different. If ****sexuals themselves did not recognize tihs difference, there would be no reason to be ****sexual. I have yet to see evidence that two men or two women are incapable of providing healthy, stable, loving homes for their children, either adoptive or natural. In any case, adoption law is a separate issue from marriage law. Married couples who are unstable or have mental health issues are prohibited from adopting, no? So if the empirical evidence actually showed that gay people are bad at parenting, then prohibit them from parenting. Prohibiting them from marrying is a non sequitur. Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes.Source? I've never heard anything of the sort. asdf 10-27-2011, 04:52 PM You say that, but the ****sexual community has gone to great lengths to prevent counsellors from helping those turn away from ****sexual tendencies. The huge number of gay people who report bi-sexual behavior leads me to believe this is not a sexual orientation issue, but more a fidelity issue. You're welcome to believe that. Reality will continue to disagree with you. The data says otherwise, you are just sucking this out of your thumb and showing me that you did not read the link I gave you. I gave you the link for the whole article. Did you read it?What reason do I have to believe that catholiceducation.org provides a fair, accurate, and well-balanced summary of legitimate, empirical scientific research? It is true and in light of what stats has revealed and in light of what happens to chlidren in our already desecrating the marriage union, why do we want to go one step further into unbridaled p***ions? I have no idea why you would think that two people committing their lives to each other, pledging their mutual love, and creating familial bonds equates to "unbridled p***ions". It's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in some time. What do you think a law is if it not the collective wisdom imposed by society for the safeguarding of society? So, you are wrong---I can define marriage and I can impose that on others. We do this with other things such as child pornography, pornography in general, etc. So, yes, we impose ourselves on others all of the time. This is why you will get a ticket if you race down the street like a maniac. And yes, I view the protection of children worth my time to sit and make my point to you. You are cons***utionally prohibited from "depriv any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Prohibiting loving couples from establishing committed, loving relationships; with the same rights, benefits and protections opposite-sex relationships are automatically given; on the basis of nothing more than religious belief and traditional animus; is a pretty clear violation. We'll see. I have no doubt that anti-marriage equality laws will be overturned; I just hope (and work) for it to be sooner rather than later. But I have every reason to believe that marriage equality will be as uncontroversial within 50 years as our views on Jim Crow laws are today. Every historical relationsip has a stewardship--a king to his country, his country to him. Christ to his church, his church to him. A man to a woman, a woman to him---and the resulting children to their parents and their parents to them. So, yes marriage is a contractual agreement, but marriage between a man and a woman is unique in that it has the possiblity of bringing others into the world. If you sat and argued for single-parenthood or divorce--I would be making these same arguments as to why marriage is important. As I said, your beliefs about mutual submission within marriage are not the historical view in the instances I cited upthread. As you are adopted, I thought you would be interested in looking up these stats. Sure, I'll take a look if you care to provide a link to a credible source. I've seen some research indicating no difference between the well-being of adoptees and biological children when other factors are controlled for, but I'm willing to look if you'd like to support your ***ertions to the contrary. I'm not going to go out of my way to track down research to support your ***ertions. I'm not [I]that interested. I am not trying to outlaw adoption, I merely recognize that it is a bandaid for infedility. It is not the best situation for a kid, but better than a single parent home or being brought up in a home that there parents are abusive, etc. If adoption is worse than biological parents but better than no parents/orphanages/single parent homes/abusive parents/..., you've got a hierarchy, but no basis for prohibiting some of those adoptive parents from being married to each other. It's just a weird red herring. I am glad you recognize then that there is a reason to have a vested interest in how we define marriage for the sake of children. That's not what I said. If you want to have a conversation with me, please don't put words into my mouth. You fight for the "rights" of ****sexuals. I will fight for the rights of the children---truly the abused in our society while the adults run around and claim their right to divorce, be unfaithful, unchaste, have sex with whomever they want and then try to define it anyway they want.Some people are gay. One day you may get over it. asdf 10-28-2011, 10:25 AM Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US. Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws. BigJulie 11-01-2011, 05:44 PM Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US. Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws. Just for those who want to read the article (yes, from a catholic site) but written by an M.D. with well cited resources. Here it is. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/****sexuality/ho0075.html asdf made it plainly obvious she did not read it--along with her statements that she didn't. I think the two sides have been presented if readers read the article--then they can decide for themselves. asdf 11-01-2011, 11:39 PM Just for those who want to read the article (yes, from a catholic site) but written by an M.D. with well cited resources. Here it is. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/****sexuality/ho0075.html asdf made it plainly obvious she did not read it--along with her statements that she didn't. I think the two sides have been presented if readers read the article--then they can decide for themselves. Oh, by all means, I'd encourage people to read "both sides" too—one "side" offering a broad sweep of the mainstream evidence-based peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the other "side" offering a Catholic propaganda site offering skewed post facto rationalizations in a badly veiled attempt to justify a predetermined theological belief. Teach the controversy! ;) BigJulie 11-22-2011, 03:23 PM Oh, by all means, I'd encourage people to read "both sides" too—one "side" offering a broad sweep of the mainstream evidence-based peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the other "side" offering a Catholic propaganda site offering skewed post facto rationalizations in a badly veiled attempt to justify a predetermined theological belief. Teach the controversy! ;) Here is the first third of the list of what you call "Catholic proganda" offering what you say is a skewed "post facto" rationalizations--that this M.D. uses as resources. In fact, I don't know if I recall much of any real data asdf has provided. It appears asdf appears to use insults as an argument against real data and research in concluding her opinion. Endnotes "Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States, 2000," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), available at www.cdc.gov. Becky Birtha, "Gay Parents and the Adoption Option," The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, "Make Room for Daddy — and Poppa," The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi- 0203240463mar24.story Ellen C. Perrin, et al., "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002). Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch). Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, ****sexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978. Leon McKusick, et al., "Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project," Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999). This was evident by the late 80's and early 90's. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities," Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., "Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of ****sexual Men," American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991). A lesbian pastor made this ***ertion during a question and answer session that followed a presentation the author made on ****sexual health risks at the Chatauqua Ins***ute in Western New York, summer 2001. Paul Van de Ven, et al., "Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey," p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001. Rotello, pp. 43-46. Ibid., pp. 165-172. Hoover, et al., Figure 3. "Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.) Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, "Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most," San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL. Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991). Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000). James Price, et al., "Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by Women's Sexual Orientation," Journal of Community Health, 21(2): 89-105 (1996); Daron Ferris, et al., "A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia," The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6): 581-584, p. 581 (December 1996); C. Skinner, J. Stokes, et al., "A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): 277-280, Abstract (1996). The Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation (GLMA) recently published a press release en***led "Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers" (July 17, 2002), www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710gaythings.html. The list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepa***is Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and **** Papilloma. R. R. Wilcox, "Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male ****sexuals," British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981). Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Rotello, pp. 75-76. Rotello, p. 92. Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984). S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in ****sexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983). Anne Rompalo, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in ****sexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); "**** Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/****health/; "Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men," LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/. "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999). Heredia, "Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most." "Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepa***is B in the United States," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepa***is B and C are viral diseases of the liver. Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, "Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales," British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., "Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents," Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). See appendix A. BigJulie 11-22-2011, 03:25 PM Here is the second part of the list of resources used which asdf sees as merely propoganda. Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., "Changing patterns of **** cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989," American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994). James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, "Spectrum of AIDS-***ociated malignant disorders," The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998). "**** Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/****health/; J. E. Barone, et al., "Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum," Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983). Henry Kazal, et al., "The gay bowel syndrome: Clinicopathologic correlation in 260 cases," Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2): 184-192 (1976). Glen E. Hastings and Richard Weber, "Use of the term 'Gay Bowel Syndrome,'" reply to a letter to the editor, American Family Physician, 49(3): 582 (1994). Ibid.; E. K. Markell, et al., "Intestinal Parasitic Infections in ****sexual Men at a San Francisco Health Fair," Western Journal of Medicine, 139(2): 177-178 (August, 1983). "Hepa***is A among ****sexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992). Rompalo, p. 1640. H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., "Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in **** s****ings from HIV-positive ****sexual men," Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995). B. L. Carlson, N. J. Fiumara, et al., "Isolation of Neisseria meningitidis from anogenital specimens from ****sexual men," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 7(2): 71-73 (April 1980). P. Paulet and G. Stoffels, "Maladies anorectales sexuellement transmissibles" ["Sexually-Transmissible Anorectal Diseases"], Revue Medicale Bruxelles, 10(8): 327-334, Abstract (October 10, 1989). "Hepa***is A among ****sexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992). Ibid. C. M. Thorpe and G. T. Keutsch, "Enteric bacterial pathogens: Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter," in K. K. Holmes, P. A. Mardh, et al., (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases (3rd edition), p. 549, New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professionals Division, 1999. Tim Bonfield, "Typhoid traced to sex encounters," Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2001; Erin McClam, "Health Officials Document First Sexual Transmission of Typhoid in U.S.," ***ociated Press, April 25, 2001, www.thebody.com/ cdc/news_updates_archive/apr26_01/typhoid.html. A representative of the Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, confirmed this report and provided a link to the AP story on October 4, 2002. Jeffrey Martin, et al., "Sexual Transmission and the Natural History of Human Herpes Virus 8 Infection," New England Journal of Medicine, 338(14): 948-954, p. 952 (1998). Alexandra M. Levine, "Kaposi's Sarcoma: Far From Gone," paper presented at 5th International AIDS Malignancy Conference, April 23-25, 2001, Bethesda, Maryland, www.medscape.com/viewarticle/420749. "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, p. 576, Washington: American Psychiatric ***ociation, 2000; Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, pp. 554-555, New York: Summit Books (1979). Jay and Young, pp. 554-555. Sade, Marquis de, Justine or Good Conduct Well Chastised (1791), New York: Grove Press (1965). Michigan Rope internet advertisement for "Bondage and Beyond," which was scheduled for February 9-10, 2002, near Detroit, Michigan, www.michiganrope.com/ MichiganRopeWorkshop.html. The explicit nature of the advertisement was changed following unexpected publicity, and the hotel where the conference was scheduled ultimately canceled it. Marsha Low, "Hotel Ties Noose Around 2-Day Bondage Meeting," Detroit Free Press, January 25, 2002, www.freep.com/news/locoak/ nrope25_20020125.htm. Allyson Smith, "Ramada to host 'Vicious Valentine' Event," WorldNet Daily, February 14, 2002, www.worldnetdaily. com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26453; "Vicious Valentine 5 Celebrates Mardi Gras, Feb 15-17, 2002," www.leatherquest.com/events/vv2002.htm. The sadistic rape of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising on September 26, 1999, left him dead. See Andrew Sullivan, "The Death of Jesse Dirkhising," The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1, 2001. Jay and Young, pp. 554-555. Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation, "MSM: Clinician's Guide to Incorporating Sexual Risk ***essment in Routine Visits," www.glma.org/medical/clinical/msm_***essment. html. S. Bygdeman, "Gonorrhea in men with ****sexual contacts. Serogroups of isolated gonococcal strains related to antibiotic susceptibility, site of infection, and symptoms," British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(5): 320-324, Abstract (October 1981). As of January 1, 1999, the National Cancer Ins***ute (NCI) estimated the cancer prevalence in the United States to be 8.9 million. "Estimated US Cancer Prevalence Counts: Who Are Our Cancer Survivors in the US?," Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Ins***ute, April 2002, www.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/prevalence. In 1999, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated 1,221,800 new cancer cases in the US and an estimated 563,100 cancer related deaths, "Cancer Facts and Figures 1999," p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 1999, www.cancer.org/ downloads/STT/F&F99.pdf; in 2000, the ACS estimated 1,220,100 new cancer cases and 552,200 deaths from cancer, "Cancer Facts and Figures 2000," p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2000, www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F00.pdf; in 2001, the ACS estimated a total number of 1,268,000 new cases of cancer and 553,400 deaths, "Cancer Facts and Figures 2001," p. 5, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2001, www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F2001.pdf. This results in an estimated growth of 2,041,200 new cancer cases over the past three years and an estimated 10,941,200 people with cancer as of January 1, 2002. In 2001 there were 793,025 reported AIDS cases. "Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. The federal spending for AIDS research in 2001 was2,247,000,000, while the spending for cancer research was not even double that at $4,376,400,000. "Funding For Research Areas of Interest," National Ins***ute of Health, 2002, www4.od.nih.gov/officeofbudget/ FundingResearchAreas.htm. Ibid.; "Fast Stats Ato Z: Diabetes," CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 04, 2002, www.cdc.gov/nchs/ fastats/diabetes.htm; "Fast Stats A to Z: Heart Disease," CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 06, 2002, www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/heart.htm. Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation Press Release, "Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers" (July 17, 2002), www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html. The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health. Michael, et al., p. 176 ("about 1.4 percent of women said they thought of themselves as ****sexual or bisexual and about 2.8% of the men identified themselves in this way"). See Appendix A. Skinner, et al., Abstract; Ferris, et al. p. 581; James Price, et al., p. 90; see Appendix A. Katherine Fethers, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000). Ibid., p. 347. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 348. Ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., "Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women," American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., "HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney's gay and lesbian community," Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., "Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998," National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999. BigJulie 11-22-2011, 03:26 PM And here is the third part of the citations used for this "propaganda" article according to asdf. I list this just so others can see how well researched this article is, in case they are interested in the other side of this argument. Fethers, et al., p. 347 and Table 1. Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., "Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease," Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995). E. H. Koumans, et al., "Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, "Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient," Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000). Kathleen M. Morrow, Ph.D., et al., "Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation, 4(4): 159-165, p. 161 (2000). Ibid., p. 159. For example, Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum, "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 228-242 (1994); Richard C. Pillard, "Sexual orientation and mental disorder," Psychiatric Annals, 18(1): 52-56 (1988); see also Mubarak S. Dahir, "The Gay Community's New Epidemic," Daily News (June 5, 2000), www.gaywired.com/story detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1. Katherine A. O'Hanlan, M.D., et al., "****phobia As a Health Hazard," Report of the Gay & Lesbian Medical ***ociation, pp. 3, 5, www.ohanlan.com/phobiahzd.htm; Laura Dean, et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings & Concerns," Journal of the Gay & Lesbian Medical ***ociation, 4(3): 102-151, pp. 102, 116 (2000). "Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed," Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Press Release, March 30, 2001, http://lambdalegal.org/cgibin/ pages/documents/record?record=814. Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001). Ibid. Ibid., p. 89. Ibid., p. 90 (emphasis added). Ibid. Erica Goode, "With Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message," New York Times, August 19, 2001. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. "Officials Voice Alarm Over Halt in AIDS Decline," New York Times, August 14, 2001. "A uniform definition of a circuit party does not exist, partly because such parties continue to evolve. However, a circuit party tends to be a multi-event weekend that occurs each year at around the same time and in the same town . . . ." Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., "The Circuit Party Men's Health Survey: Findings and Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men," American Journal of Public Health, 91(6): 953-958, p. 953 (June 2001). Ibid., p. 955. Ibid., p. 956. Ibid., pp. 956-957, Tables 2 & 3. Ibid., pp. 956-957. Ibid., p. 957. The authors' recommendation was more education. Julie Robotham, "Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms," Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: 2000 Male Out Survey, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia. R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. "Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death," CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for ****sexual prac***ioners. Press Release, Smoking costs nation$150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002, www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/ pressrel/r020412.htm.
Hogg, et al., p. 660.
Ibid.
"Hepa***is A vaccination of men who have sex with men — Atlanta, Georgia, 1996-1997," Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, 47(34): 708-711 (September 4, 1998).
Robert T. Michael, et al., p. 89.
Ibid., p. 101.
Camille Paglia, "I'll take religion over gay culture," Salon.com online magazine, June 1998, www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/ paglia/gayculture.htm.
Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., p. 955.
Joseph Harry, Gay Couples, p. 116, New York: Praeger Books, 1984.
Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female ****sexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.
The existence of limited ****sexual relationships in primitive cultures, or even extensive ****sexuality in declining civilizations, such as those cited by advocates of same-sex marriage, does not challenge the existence of a prevailing norm. See, for example, William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Chapter 2, New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Joseph D. Unwin, "Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour," pp. 18-19, reprint of Oxford University Press publication of speech given before the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, March 27, 1935.
For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc., www.ncsfreedom.org.
"The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate cons***utional protections . . . ." 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, "A Meta-****ytic Examination of ***umed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," Psychological Bulletin, 124(1): 22-53 (July 1998).
Paglia, June 23, 1998.
Rotello, p. 42.
Goode, August 19, 2001.
Ibid.
See Michael Hamrick, The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits, pp. 3-4 (Corporate Resource Council, 2002).
David Gelman, et al., "Tune In, Come Out," Newsweek, p. 70, November 8, 1993.
"Iowa study suggests tolerance of ****sexuals is growing," ***ociated Press, March 23, 2001.
Sally Kohn, The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits, p. 1, the Policy Ins***ute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, www.ngltf.org/ downloads/dp-/dp_99.pdf.
John Horgan, "Gay Genes, Revisited," Scientific American, p. 26, November 1995.
Matthew Brelis, "The Fading 'Gay Gene,'" The Boston Globe, March 20, 2002, p. C1.
Michael, et al., p. 172.
Lynn Scherr, "Lesbian Leader Loves a Man," ABCNews.com, April 17, 1998.
"Former Lesbian Anne Heche Engaged to Cameraman," ABCNews.com, June 1, 2001 (emphasis added), reprinted at www.gaywired.com/index.cfm?linkPage=/storydetail.cf m&Section=68&ID=5304.
"The Facts: Anne Heche," Eonline.msn, April 1, 2002, www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,31319,00.html.
"Sinead Drops out of Wotapalava Tour," JAM! Music, May 31, 2001, www.canoe.ca/JamMusicArtistsO/oconnor_ sinead.html.
John Stoltenberg, "Living with Andrea Dworkin," Lambda Book Report, May/June 1994, reprinted at www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LivingWithAnd rea.html.
Julie Robotham, "Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms," The Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: "2000 Male Out Survey," National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
Michael, et al., p. 172.
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, "Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales," British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., "Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents," Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). [/QUOTE]

BigJulie
01-12-2012, 01:02 PM
Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US.

Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws.

Did anyone else find it interesting that when M***. accepted "gay marriage" that by so doing, Catholic Charities were shut down because they would not adopt children into gay households. Accordingly, it has been reported that 50% of all adoptions in M***. were done through Catholic Charities.

In other words, it appears that the argument for "gay marriage" is actually an argument against religious adoption agencies. *sigh*

asdf
01-12-2012, 01:11 PM
Did anyone else find it interesting that when M***. accepted "gay marriage" that by so doing, Catholic Charities were shut down because they would not adopt children into gay households. Accordingly, it has been reported that 50% of all adoptions in M***. were done through Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities were not shut down—they chose to shut themselves down rather than refrain from discriminating against same-sex families. If you're going to accept taxpayer money in providing a public service, you have to abide by public non-discrimination laws.

In other words, it appears that the argument for "gay marriage" is actually an argument against religious adoption agencies. *sigh*

In other words, Catholic Charities put their antipathy for gay people ahead of their desire to help children. That's what calls itself "family values" in the US.

BigJulie
01-14-2012, 01:01 PM
Catholic Charities were not shut down—they chose to shut themselves down rather than refrain from discriminating against same-sex families. If you're going to accept taxpayer money in providing a public service, you have to abide by public non-discrimination laws.

In other words, Catholic Charities put their antipathy for gay people ahead of their desire to help children. That's what calls itself "family values" in the US.

The union between a man and a woman and the definite possibility of offspring is a sacred union to many religious organizations.

Were it not for religion, the word "marriage" nor the meaning of it would not exist. It appears that the government wants to rape the church of what it holds precious.

Is that what gay rights mean? That if we do not accept this behavior, that our ins***utions are penalized? What does this mean for adoptions? For the right of who to marry? Can a pastor turn down a couple because they are gay or will his church be taken from him? Are we going to force doctors to perform abortions because of women's rights, and pastors to perform gay marriages because of gay rights?

asdf
01-14-2012, 01:44 PM
The union between a man and a woman and the definite possibility of offspring is a sacred union to many religious organizations.

Fantastic. More power to them.

Why do you believe that what is "sacred to many religious organizations" should have any impact on civil law in a multicultural, multi-faith, secular, Cons***utional Republic like the US of A?

Were it not for religion, the word "marriage" nor the meaning of it would not exist.

Nonsense. Marriage has existed across pretty much every culture throughout recorded history. As has religion, but there's no reason to believe that marriage came about as a result of religion.

It appears that the government wants to rape the church

That's an extremely offensive metaphor.

Is that what gay rights mean? That if we do not accept this behavior, that our ins***utions are penalized?

Of course not. It means that if you accept government funds, you must not discriminate. You're more than welcome to refrain from accepting government funds.

What does this mean for adoptions?

Uh, perhaps that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against?

For the right of who to marry?

You will remain free to marry the consenting adult of your choosing.

Can a pastor turn down a couple because they are gay

Yes.

or will his church be taken from him?

No.

Are we going to force doctors to perform abortions because of women's rights,

Red herring.

and pastors to perform gay marriages because of gay rights?

No.

Pastors are not currently coerced by the government into performing marriages they object to. If your pastor doesn't want to perform the marriage between Rush Limbaugh and his fifth wife, he is not coerced into doing so. Catholic priests regularly refuse to perform marriages for non-Catholics. No violation of the law there at all. Churches can even discriminate based on race.

Your church is, and will remain, free to refrain from performing marriages except between a white heterosexual cisgendered fundamentalist Mormon man and a white heterosexual cisgendered fundamentalist Mormon woman.

You're simply not permitted to establish those requirements on those outside your religion by the force of US law.

BigJulie
01-14-2012, 07:59 PM
Fantastic. More power to them.

Why do you believe that what is "sacred to many religious organizations" should have any impact on civil law in a multicultural, multi-faith, secular, Cons***utional Republic like the US of A? We've always had laws regarding behavior and what is acceptable to society and what isn't.

Nonsense. Marriage has existed across pretty much every culture throughout recorded history. As has religion, but there's no reason to believe that marriage came about as a result of religion. I'll tell you what, go back through history and see if you can find one instance of 'marriage" that doesn't first originate with a religion.

That's an extremely offensive metaphor. It is what is happening when a government can come in and dictate that very ins***ution in which marriage is founded.

Of course not. It means that if you accept government funds, you must not discriminate. You're more than welcome to refrain from accepting government funds. I am not sure that Catholic charities received any government funds.

"TULSA, OKLAHOMA, January 4, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Catholic charitable organization has rejected government funding so it can uphold traditional Christian teachings and serve the poor with less bureaucratic red tape. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Tulsa has chosen to rely strictly upon the donations of private individuals and ins***utions."

So, how do you feel about Catholic charities being forced to accept gay couples for adoption even if they don't accept government funds?

Uh, perhaps that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against? They are not being discriminated against. Being gay is not a skin color or race. Mariage is the union of a man and a woman. Gays are not being discriminated against, they want to redefine marriage as something other than it is. If I wanted to set up a place to sale books, I could. If I wanted to call that place a public library, I couldn't.

You will remain free to marry the consenting adult of your choosing.

Red herring. Same issues---first we decide what is a "right" and then we force people do do as we think (especially if they get government funds).

[

You're simply not permitted to establish those requirements on those outside your religion by the force of US law.[/QUOTE]
The law is a consensus of people as to what laws we should have. How do you think laws are established? You do know that people vote for those who they want to create laws and keep them enforced, right? You seem to think laws come out of thin air, which they don't.

asdf
01-15-2012, 06:12 PM
We've always had laws regarding behavior and what is acceptable to society and what isn't.

Indeed, but laws must be based promoting the common good, not simply in religious conviction, personal animus, or traditional prejudice.

I'll tell you what, go back through history and see if you can find one instance of 'marriage" that doesn't first originate with a religion.

You're the one claiming that marriage originated with religion. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

It is what is happening when a government can come in and dictate that very ins***ution in which marriage is founded.

The government already does dictate the ins***ution of marriage. The government allows equal access to marriage to divorced couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows equal access to interracial couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows inter-religious marriages, even if your religion disapproves.

To compare any of that to rape is extremely offensive.

I am not sure that Catholic charities received any government funds.

They did.

"Chicago—Catholic Charities announced Monday that it was ending its legal battle over Illinois' civil unions law and no longer was providing state-funded services."

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.

(...) The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and M***achusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?_r=1

"TULSA, OKLAHOMA, January 4, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Catholic charitable organization has rejected government funding so it can uphold traditional Christian teachings and serve the poor with less bureaucratic red tape. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Tulsa has chosen to rely strictly upon the donations of private individuals and ins***utions."

So, how do you feel about Catholic charities being forced to accept gay couples for adoption even if they don't accept government funds?

If they reject government funds, they have the right to discriminate. I think it's unfortunate, of course, but they're within their rights to do so.

They are not being discriminated against.

You're welcome to believe that. Reality disagrees with you.

Being gay is not a skin color or race.

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

Mariage is the union of a man and a woman.

According to your religious beliefs, and the laws of some locations. In other locations that is not so.

Gays are not being discriminated against, they want to redefine marriage as something other than it is.

Marriage is a civil arrangement that confers some 1000+ rights and benefits to opposite-sex couples that it denies to same-sex couples. That is pretty much a textbook definition of discrimination. Nobody is "redefining" anything.

If I wanted to set up a place to sale books, I could. If I wanted to call that place a public library, I couldn't.

:rolleyes:

The law is a consensus of people as to what laws we should have. How do you think laws are established? You do know that people vote for those who they want to create laws and keep them enforced, right? You seem to think laws come out of thin air, which they don't.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
- U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

BigJulie
01-15-2012, 09:20 PM
Indeed, but laws must be based promoting the common good, not simply in religious conviction, personal animus, or traditional prejudice. And there are many in society that feel that the "common good" is to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

You're the one claiming that marriage originated with religion. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

Etymology

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Interesting that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother.

The government already does dictate the ins***ution of marriage. The government allows equal access to marriage to divorced couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows equal access to interracial couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows inter-religious marriages, even if your religion disapproves. But, all these marriage ultimately are defined by a husband and wife in which offspring are a possibility as a result of intercourse. Not so with ****sexuality.

To compare any of that to rape is extremely offensive. It is how I see it. I see the government as raping the church of an ins***ution begun by it. Unless you can show otherwise...

They did.

"Chicago—Catholic Charities announced Monday that it was ending its legal battle over Illinois' civil unions law and no longer was providing state-funded services."

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.

(...) The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and M***achusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?_r=1

If they reject government funds, they have the right to discriminate. I think it's unfortunate, of course, but they're within their rights to do so. And goes with it that more children will be helped by gay marriages when in fact, in reality, more children are hurt by it.

You're welcome to believe that. Reality disagrees with you.You are speaking to a Mormon, remember..where the state came in and said that a marriage was between one man and one woman? Hence, the state does make it its right to define marriage. Or do you think that polygamists were being discriminated against as well?

According to your religious beliefs, and the laws of some locations. In other locations that is not so. And people are welcome to go where the laws comform to what they want in a society.

Marriage is a civil arrangement that confers some 1000+ rights and benefits to opposite-sex couples that it denies to same-sex couples. That is pretty much a textbook definition of discrimination. Nobody is "redefining" anything. It did not start as a "civil arrangement"--it started as a religious arrangement. The rights came as laws to protect women and the offspring that may occur from a marriage. I do not disagree with "civil unions" in which gay couples can have those same protections.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
- U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943
Actually, the congress can undo the courts by creating a law.

Congress can check the power of the Supreme Court through the process of Cons***utional Amendment. While the Supreme Court can rule that a particular law is uncons***utional, it cannot rule that the Cons***ution itself is uncons***utional. If the Congress (and 3/4 of the state legislatures) approve a cons***utional amendment, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Cons***ution.

Even the Supreme Court has a check and a balance.

asdf
02-01-2012, 12:02 AM
And there are many in society that feel that the "common good" is to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

That's nice. Thankfully, one needs more than a "feeling" to establish civil law in a Cons***utional Republic.

Interesting that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother.

:confused: So "mother" = "religion"?

In any case, you're obviously reading what you want to read. Your source did not say that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother — it said that the word "matrimony" is derived from the word mother.

But, all these marriage ultimately are defined by a husband and wife in which offspring are a possibility as a result of intercourse. Not so with ****sexuality.

You're mistaken.

It is how I see it. I see the government as raping the church of an ins***ution begun by it. Unless you can show otherwise...

You haven't offered anything except the imagery of violent sexual ***ault. You'd have to flesh out the metaphor a bit more before there's even anything to argue against.

And goes with it that more children will be helped by gay marriages when in fact, in reality, more children are hurt by it.

I'm afraid that reality does not agree with your perception of it.

You are speaking to a Mormon, remember..where the state came in and said that a marriage was between one man and one woman? Hence, the state does make it its right to define marriage. Or do you think that polygamists were being discriminated against as well?

You can throw in as many red herrings as you like. The fact remains that there are 1000+ rights and benefits under federal law that are automatically given to opposite-sex couples that are denied to same-sex couples.

And people are welcome to go where the laws comform to what they want in a society.

I'm afraid that's not how Cons***utional Republics work. You can't deny civil rights to a minority in one jurisdiction on the grounds that They Could Just Move.

It did not start as a "civil arrangement"--it started as a religious arrangement.

You have yet to establish that.

The rights came as laws to protect women and the offspring that may occur from a marriage.

Yes, the rights are beneficial to men, women and children. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a couple reproduce naturally for their marriage to be authentic.

I do not disagree with "civil unions" in which gay couples can have those same protections.

That's good. Many of your co-religionists are still fighting that battle.

However, "separate but equal" has been ruled uncons***utional, so I don't believe that it will ultimately stand.

Again, you are personally free to regard a same-sex married couple as not-really-married, or civil-unioned, or whatever you'd like to think about when you think about them. It's just that your opinion on the matter is an insufficient basis for civil law.

Actually, the congress can undo the courts by creating a law.

Congress can check the power of the Supreme Court through the process of Cons***utional Amendment. While the Supreme Court can rule that a particular law is uncons***utional, it cannot rule that the Cons***ution itself is uncons***utional. If the Congress (and 3/4 of the state legislatures) approve a cons***utional amendment, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Cons***ution.

Even the Supreme Court has a check and a balance.

Indeed, and ultimately that's what you would need in order to codify marriage discrimination in U.S. law—a 3/4 majority in the Congress to overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, which guarantee that no state shall "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".

Have fun with that. And have fun telling yourself that you're "pro-Cons***ution" while actively working to overturn it.

BigJulie
02-02-2012, 11:22 AM
[QUOTE=asdf;114555]That's nice. Thankfully, one needs more than a "feeling" to establish civil law in a Cons***utional Republic. Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right. I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.

:confused: So "mother" = "religion"? No, offspring...which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.

In any case, you're obviously reading what you want to read. Your source did not say that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother — it said that the word "matrimony" is derived from the word mother. In which "marriage" is derived.

You're mistaken.

I'm afraid that reality does not agree with your perception of it. The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.

You can throw in as many red herrings as you like. The fact remains that there are 1000+ rights and benefits under federal law that are automatically given to opposite-sex couples that are denied to same-sex couples. Easily solved by a "civil union."

I'm afraid that's not how Cons***utional Republics work. You can't deny civil rights to a minority in one jurisdiction on the grounds that They Could Just Move. First it has to be established that it is a civil right. As noted, this is a behavioral issue. If we argue that a behavior is a civil right, then we could argue that a lot of behaviors that society does not like are a civil right.

You have yet to establish that. Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.

Yes, the rights are beneficial to men, women and children. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a couple reproduce naturally for their marriage to be authentic. Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.

That's good. Many of your co-religionists are still fighting that battle.

However, "separate but equal" has been ruled uncons***utional, so I don't believe that it will ultimately stand.

Again, you are personally free to regard a same-sex married couple as not-really-married, or civil-unioned, or whatever you'd like to think about when you think about them. It's just that your opinion on the matter is an insufficient basis for civil law. And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law." I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships. I see a huge difference in these relationships. In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.

Indeed, and ultimately that's what you would need in order to codify marriage discrimination in U.S. law—a 3/4 majority in the Congress to overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, which guarantee that no state shall "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".

Have fun with that. And have fun telling yourself that you're "pro-Cons***ution" while actively working to overturn it. Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?

asdf
02-02-2012, 07:31 PM
Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right.

I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.

I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.

You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.

No, offspring...

Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".

which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.

Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.

In which "marriage" is derived.

That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.

Exceptions to the rule do not make the rule.

They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.

Infertile couples may not stay infertile.

:rolleyes:

Vasectomies can be reversed.

And hysterectomies?

The fact of the matter is, the rule (not the exception) of marriage is that offspring are a very distinct possibility. In fact, I think we could say statistically that married couples are 92% more likely to have children than a ****sexual couple (based on infertility rates). Which means that if a heterosexual couple gets married, their chances of having a child is 92% while the ****sexual couple is 0%.

That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.

The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.

What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.

Easily solved by a "civil union."

Separate is (still) not equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?

First it has to be established that it is a civil right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".

As noted, this is a behavioral issue.

You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.

Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.

You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.

Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.

Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?

And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law."

Indeed. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, on the other hand, are excellent bases on which to establish civil law.

I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships.

No, not really.

I see a huge difference in these relationships.

Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples?

In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.

That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.

If you'd been reading my words, rather than projecting onto me whatever it is you imagine, you might have noticed that my argument from the very beginning has been based in civil law, as established by We The People, in Cons***utional Republic of the U.S. of A.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?

It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.

BigJulie
02-03-2012, 05:49 PM
[QUOTE=asdf;114736]I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality. And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.

You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus. You have never provided your "scientific consensus" but the web-site I gave you had a very well researched document. It appears to me that you ignore research if it is not done by someone who does not have your bias.

Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"? And to be a "mother" you must have offspring...hence the root word of "marriage" is derived from the acknowledgement of offspring.

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother". No, now I give you two examples of how it comes to be---one is that we can see it is found in religious texts and it is through religion that those in this country deemed "marriage' worthwhile to society and we can also see that "marriage" implies having offspring. This is a Biblical notion as well.

Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place. Where are you coming fomr---consummation creates children....or do you think they come into the world by some other means?

That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium. Which is derived from the word mother---hence, implied in marriage is to have offspring.

They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist. Nope, the fact that not all couples will have children is an exception to the rule.....unless you think children come by some other means that a man and a woman.

That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not. Actually---it very much is concerned with whether a couple has children or not. That is why stats are kept on such things. In fact, if a nation does not have children, then it better start immigrating people as their government will fail...that is a proven fact. So, marriage is the ins***ution in which a society best sees to protecting its future generations.

What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children. Because less children are being serviced by Catholic charities adoption services and hence, more children are being harmed rather than helped by gay marriage. What---is now your argument going to also state that those who provide services must be forced to give up their civil liberties on how they provide services?

Separate is (still) not equal. Skin color and behavior are two different things. This argument is silly. If behavior could all be determined as equal, that opens a whole slippery slope of what behaviors should be considered equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen? I leave that up to those who want the rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family". The U.S. Supreme Court, also in the case of polygamy, determined it had the right to define what marriage was.

You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality. Yes, hetersexuality is also a behavior. Marriage is an ins***ution that defines how society looks on that behavior and the possible ramifications (offspring) and what would be best boundaries for that behavior.

You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise. I give you the Bible as my proof that marriage is a religous ins***ution first and foremost. Please provide an older document that states otherwise if you think you have proof that marriage is not a religious ins***ution first and foremost.

Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing? The fact that a marriage can be annuled for infertility or is never consummated shows that marraige is more than just what happens at a wedding. Marriage is for the protection of offspring. That becomes obvious when you see how the law surrounding marriage has always worked. The fact that you would ask me if this is a "good" thing makes me realize that your views of marriage are not congruent with why the laws of have been created in the first place. This is not whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but merely to acknowledge that marriage is for the protection of offspring---and if there no possibility of offspring or consumation of the marriage; then society do not look at is as a "marriage" and thus they can get the marraige annulled rather than a divorce.

Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples? Yes, many---and well. Their relationships are not the same.

That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start. I am saying that if I gay person can tell the difference between a man and a woman when choosing a partner, we also can see a difference. It is wrong on one hand for them to say--I am gay because I see a difference and prefer the difference and on the other hand ask us to not see the difference that are the very criteria for their choice.

It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.
It is not a red-herring. This issue has been brought up before...does the state have the right to determine what is a "marriage" based on what they think is best for society. In the case of polygamy--it was decided. Now, you want to argue that there are basic fundamental rights that all humans have regarding marriage. If gays or lesbians think they have this right, then why not polygamists? That is a very real and pertinent question. The state decided against the civil liberties before of adults choosing for themselves how to define marriage---why do you think they should not decide in the case of gay marriage, but should in the case of polygamists marriages?

Libby
02-03-2012, 07:07 PM
And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.

People who are same sex attracted, actually, have exactly the same kinds of relationships that heteros do. They love someone, they commit to one another, they live their lives together and often even raise children together. No differences of any consequence, whatsoever. Not that I want to go into details, but they even enjoy sex in many of the same ways that heteros do. There is no observable differences in their relationships, as compared to heterosexual relationships, at all.

Libby
02-03-2012, 07:15 PM
This is kind of a hot ****on issue for me (which is why I don't like discussing it with friends who differ, cause it makes me crazy!...:)) but, I have to say, the churches (not just LDS, but any who insert themselves in this issue) do so much harm, IMO.

****sexuality is not a sin, nor is it a "challenge", as so many like to try and present it. It is a natural way of being, put into nature, by God, himself, as a variation, an anomaly that God intended..and it is a test, not for the same sex attracted, but for those of us who are NOT. We have failed this test, to date, but I am hopeful that things are getting better (they ARE getting better) and we will someday all be enlightened on this topic, as most of us have become on race.

BigJulie
02-04-2012, 11:08 AM
Libby---you are being mislead by the media and are not paying attention to the facts. Read the article I put on here as to the research behind same sex couples.

I will just give you one example---the human body is not made for ****sexual sex and between men, this means a mul***ude of diseases (and I am not speaking of AIDS). The body is not meant to be used in certain ways or it causes problems.

Another example, I have a good friend who is gay. She was trying to get into a university and asked me to read her life story. Can I say that she became both the victim and the perpetrator in her lesbian relationship. My way of helping her was to help her write out some of the obvious mental health issues she was having from her essay.

If you get to know someone one a very personal level who is gay, you will find that the research holds..you will recognize it. For me, this is not a religious issue as much as a society issue---what I think is best for children.

A gay couple, by its very nature, says that one of the biological parents are missing. Men and women are not the same...we have many differences both physically as well as emotionally. Children need both a man and a woman to raise them--and it is best if it is their biological parents. We see what happens to children who are the product of the desegration of marriage.

Read a book called "Gender Matters" by Leonard Sax, Ph.D., M.D.---note how many differences there are in men and women.

An interesting study about ****sexuality in men notes that ****sexual men do not have less testosterone, but more. This in and of itself has many implications.

Libby
02-04-2012, 12:36 PM
Julie, I have read that kind of "research" (many years ago). It is nothing but right wing propaganda.

I have two relatives who are same sex attracted, plus one friend. I've been around them all of my life, so I know their lifestyles and that of some of their friends, very well. Their lives are not any different from ours, except they have suffered a lot more discrimination.

BigJulie
02-04-2012, 01:35 PM
Julie, I have read that kind of "research" (many years ago). It is nothing but right wing propaganda.

I have two relatives who are same sex attracted, plus one friend. I've been around them all of my life, so I know their lifestyles and that of some of their friends, very well. Their lives are not any different from ours, except they have suffered a lot more discrimination.

This is why I gave the long list of the research references---they are not right wing propaganda as you suggest.

You know, years ago, a show came out about Brady bunch---it showed such a happy family who were the joining of two families---it all looked so good.

But the realities are much different. After years of research, it is found that children are not a resiliant as once hoped and the scars of divorce last a life-time. Trust issues, bonding issues---all of these are being manifest in our society.

So, you say you know your friends well. I don't think that is enough to undo the research. I agree that there is discrimination as far as how people treat people who are gay. That is not right. But to say that a union between a gay couple is the same as a straight couple is also not right. There are differences, the ability to procreate being the chief difference.

Libby
02-04-2012, 02:18 PM
I agree that there is discrimination as far as how people treat people who are gay.

Yes, and that discrimination is, most unfortunately, based on religious views. People are seriously starting to rethink this issue (as they should), because it is being shown to be very harmful to people who are born same sex attracted.

BigJulie
02-04-2012, 08:10 PM
Yes, and that discrimination is, most unfortunately, based on religious views. People are seriously starting to rethink this issue (as they should), because it is being shown to be very harmful to people who are born same sex attracted.

Actually Libby---you do realize that a lot of things are genetic...alcoholism, many many types of mental health issues, many addictions (which is why we call them a disease), etc.

As I would never feel it is right to treat anyone badly with anyone type of problem, I would also not consider it right to treat someone who is ****sexual badly. That said, I would lie to them if I said that their ****sexuality will not lead to life long problems such as disease; the inability to have children in that relationship, etc. To me, this is not being prejudice, this is being realistic. I wish you would read the article I posted. It is an eye opener and my husband who was a therapist for years said that he has never experienced otherwise. He said the dirty little secret that every therapist knows that that ****sexuality does not lead to happiness and carries with it a myriad of problems. So, they ignore the ****sexuality and try their best to help them with all the problems that correlate with the behavior.

Now, lest you think that our countries cause problems by not accepting ****sexuality, many studies have been done in the Netherlands where ****sexuality is accepted.

And you know what is never discussed--****sexuality in prisons and in war torn countries where ****sexuality is not an expression of love, but of power.

Libby
02-05-2012, 01:39 AM
Julie, heterosexuality doesn't, necessarily, lead to "happiness", either. I have known tons of heterosexuals who were very unhappily married, whose lives and the lives are their children were terribly dysfunctional....and why? Not because they are heterosexual, but because of choices those individuals made, within those relationships. I have heard of husbands bringing home AIDS and other sexual diseases to their spouses, physical and mental abuse, all kinds of problems, which is why the divorce rate stands at about 50/50. And, these problems can happen to anyone...religious, non-religious, hetero or other. Bad relationships and sexual disease are not, at all, caused by sexual orientation (and yes I have heard all the nonsense about more disease in the ****sexual group, which is nothing but propaganda, to make people feel better about discriminating against these people). :(

There are plenty of same sex couples who have perfectly normal "lifestyles", just like you and me. They work, raise kids, pay the bills and do the best they can, with what they've got, just like the rest of us.

Promiscuity causes disease, not sexual orientation.

BigJulie
02-06-2012, 08:12 PM
Julie, heterosexuality doesn't, necessarily, lead to "happiness", either. I have known tons of heterosexuals who were very unhappily married, whose lives and the lives are their children were terribly dysfunctional....and why? Not because they are heterosexual, but because of choices those individuals made, within those relationships. I have heard of husbands bringing home AIDS and other sexual diseases to their spouses, physical and mental abuse, all kinds of problems, which is why the divorce rate stands at about 50/50. And, these problems can happen to anyone...religious, non-religious, hetero or other. Bad relationships and sexual disease are not, at all, caused by sexual orientation (and yes I have heard all the nonsense about more disease in the ****sexual group, which is nothing but propaganda, to make people feel better about discriminating against these people). :(

There are plenty of same sex couples who have perfectly normal "lifestyles", just like you and me. They work, raise kids, pay the bills and do the best they can, with what they've got, just like the rest of us.

Promiscuity causes disease, not sexual orientation.

Yes, it is sad that we have desecrated marriage to the point we have---but to me, that is not reason to ignore the ideal and what we are hoping for in marriage. The desecration of marriage has lead to many many problems for our society. To call ****sexual unions "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin.

I feel bad that you think the discussion of "diseases" is just propganda. I can ***ure you, it is not. Fecal matter and sexuality do not mix and cause many problems with the bowels and otherwise. I wish you would read the article----it is very well researched and backed.

That said, how do you feel about polygamy? If you feel ****sexual marriage is a right, do you feel polygamy is as well?

P.S. The largest number of polygamists in the U.S. are not Mormon. According to studies, it is Islams who are the greatest practicer of polygamy in the U.S. as it is part of the religoin to this day.

Libby
02-07-2012, 02:07 AM
Did you know that a large number of heterosexual couples have **** sex? And, that, a large number of ****sexual males..do not? Whether the stats are correct or not (and I doubt it), doesn't make ****sexuality right or wrong. It is just something for people to use as a club...seriously.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal, as long as the partners are of consenting age. My problem with Joseph's polygamy had to do with the age of some of the girls he took to wife, and that he married already married women. Otherwise, I honestly would not have had a problem with it.

Libby
02-07-2012, 02:28 PM
Prop. 8 overturned in California, court says State can’t ban gay marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.html)

celebration after the August 2010 decision (AP/Jeff Chalu)

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as uncons***utional the state's voter-p***ed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially recl***ify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The Court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Gay marriage will still not be allowed in the state, leaving time for Prop 8 defenders to challenge the decision.

BigJulie
02-07-2012, 02:40 PM
Did you know that a large number of heterosexual couples have **** sex? And, that, a large number of ****sexual males..do not? Whether the stats are correct or not (and I doubt it), doesn't make ****sexuality right or wrong. It is just something for people to use as a club...seriously.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal, as long as the partners are of consenting age. My problem with Joseph's polygamy had to do with the age of some of the girls he took to wife, and that he married already married women. Otherwise, I honestly would not have had a problem with it.

While there may be some heterosexual couples that have **** sex and some ****sexual couples that don't--clearly, the largest group that does is ****sexual men. This is why I believe that when I went to a conference in a largely ****sexual area, all of the tables were covered with a pamplet discussing hepa***is and other diseases and the pamplet was obviously aimed at ****sexual men...had picture of two men half dressed on the front...

So, the exceptions, in my mind, should not make the rule. That said, I still wish you would read a book called "Gender Matters' by Leonard Sax Ph.D, M.D. The book is not about ****sexuality, marriage or anything of that sort. It just a book that discusses in depth the differences found between men and women.

I still strongly believe that as it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world, the child is best raised by a mother and a father (as they are different). If a ****sexual couple wants children, by definition, the child is at least out of one of their biological parents. And I research shows that men and women are different enough that children benefit from both. Nature deems this as well.

It is interesting how you feel about polygamy. I wonder if this will open the door to openly polygamous relationships in which the state will need to recognize multiple mothers for welfare rights, rights to the estate, etc. I wonder how taxes would be figured out--child custody, etc.

Libby
02-07-2012, 04:21 PM
Julie, the disease aspect, even if all of what you believe is true, is not a reason to declare ****sexuality "sinful" and most especially not a reason to declare marriage between two people, of the same sex, illegal.

Marriage between two people is about love and commitment. Studies have always shown that there is no significant difference between children raised with same sex parents and children raised with opposite sex parents. Both can have warm, nurturing families...or any number of problems, depending on individuals.

It's really time for America to stop discriminating against those who are same sex attracted. As was outlined in this latest court ruling, there is no good reason to deny rights to this cl*** of people. It is time to stop making them second cl*** citizens by trampling their rights, and start treating them, as we or anyone would want to be treated.

BigJulie
02-09-2012, 05:00 PM
Julie, the disease aspect, even if all of what you believe is true, is not a reason to declare ****sexuality "sinful" and most especially not a reason to declare marriage between two people, of the same sex, illegal.

Marriage between two people is about love and commitment. Studies have always shown that there is no significant difference between children raised with same sex parents and children raised with opposite sex parents. Both can have warm, nurturing families...or any number of problems, depending on individuals.

It's really time for America to stop discriminating against those who are same sex attracted. As was outlined in this latest court ruling, there is no good reason to deny rights to this cl*** of people. It is time to stop making them second cl*** citizens by trampling their rights, and start treating them, as we or anyone would want to be treated.

I disagree that there is no difference in raising a child in a same sex relationship and one in a heterosexual relationship.

I personally find it arrogant for two women to say that a child does not need a father or two men to say a child does not need a mother.

To say that marriage is between a man and a woman is not descrimination, it is merely practical to recognize a difference for which even ****sexuals use gender as a qualification in what is attractive or not. How is it that they can claim to recognize a difference when choosing a mate, but then ask us to be blind when determining if that relationship is different based on the SAME qualifications they use when choosing a mate.

Libby
02-09-2012, 11:00 PM
Well, there are all kinds of nurturing families that do not have your typical one mother, one father makeup, and the kids turn out great. It's not arrogant, if the person you love is same sex...that's just the way it is. It's not like they purposely set up that scenario and arrogantly proclaim there is no need for a mother or father. It just happens, and it is not bad for kids. Some really great kids have come out of same sex families. And some really awful kids have come out of hetero families (quite often, it seems).

BigJulie
02-11-2012, 02:05 PM
Well, there are all kinds of nurturing families that do not have your typical one mother, one father makeup, and the kids turn out great. It's not arrogant, if the person you love is same sex...that's just the way it is. It's not like they purposely set up that scenario and arrogantly proclaim there is no need for a mother or father. It just happens, and it is not bad for kids. Some really great kids have come out of same sex families. And some really awful kids have come out of hetero families (quite often, it seems).

Yes, I am sure there are all types of families where the children turn out great...but we need to look at what is best for children. For example, if you look at the "lost boys of Sudan"--they were ripped from their families, forced to travel by foot in horrific situations, thousands died, suffered from starvation, etc. Yet, in spite of all of this, there are some who came to America and there is one who graduated from college with his degree in Economics. Would I use him as an example that it is okay to raise children in war-torn countries, rip them from their parents, keep them near starvation and with little education because "some of them turned out great"?

I am old enough to have seen so many studies over the years. When it comes to traditional families--there has been "discrimination" going on for years. First there was the argument that if you lived with someone first, you could see if you were "compatible" or not. All the studies at the time were this, in the short-term, seemed like a good idea. Those who were against it were seen as freakishly old-fashioned, etc. Well, years later and now the studies are out that living together first increases a couple's rate of divorce. Does this mean that every couple who lived together are going to get divorced? No. Could I find one example of a great couple? I am sure I could.

Do you remember Candice Bergman (sp?) having a child with no known father? A sperm donor? Remember how that raised eye-brows and out come the same arguments. Why can't a single mother raise a perfectly happy child. Examples come out and studies backing this...and then, low and behold...so many woman follow suit and they don't need a man to raise a child. Forward this to many years later and more studies done. It turns out that a child does need a father...not just for sons, but for daughters as well. It turns out the father-child relationship is important to the growth and well-being of the child.

Do you remember the Brady Bunch? Remember the idea that divorced families could bring families together, join them--and do just fine. It was idealized on T.V. How many people got divorced and remarried thinking they could find some type of happiness in a new marriage. The studies at the time said that kids were resilient to divorce. I am sure we could even find examples of kids from divorced and remarried families who were doing great. Anyway, the years go by and more extensive studies are done and what are the findings? That divorce has long-term damaging effects on children.

What about the stats on adoption? Statistically, kids have a harder time when they are adopted. That is just the stats.

So, now here we are with the idea of gay marriage. Marriage--years ago, stopped being about the protection of children (and women who bear the children) and has become about "love, companionship, etc." People bounce in and out of relationships. The kids are just a by-product of this "love" in some instances.

Ask any school teacher the effects of these kids being the by-product of love rather than the cause of marriage. So, now I listen and hear the argument that two men can do as good of a *** raising a child or two women can. I am just waiting for the data to come out years from now---as it always has, that children really do best with a mother and father who--by nature, are not the same.

Libby
02-11-2012, 02:49 PM
I bet I am way older than you! :D

Yes, studies come and go, and they are often biased, including the ones that favor the mother/father dynamic.

In this day and age we are seeing so many different family make ups, that I think it will be shown that all are viable ways of raising children (and not just the exceptions).

War, of course, will always be a terrible thing for children...but, not at all comparable to gay marriage...my goodness.

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but will probably be pointless, as I think we each hold strong opinions on this subject. It's not one of my favorites to argue with friends. It is a very sensitive subject.

The world is changing on this issue, though, and I am very glad to see it. So much harm has been done to people (and kids!) who are same sex attracted, it makes me beyond sad to think about it. I pray that things will continue to improve and they will not bear the stigma that has been imposed on them in the past.

BigJulie
02-11-2012, 06:58 PM
I bet I am way older than you! :D

Yes, studies come and go, and they are often biased, including the ones that favor the mother/father dynamic.

In this day and age we are seeing so many different family make ups, that I think it will be shown that all are viable ways of raising children (and not just the exceptions).

War, of course, will always be a terrible thing for children...but, not at all comparable to gay marriage...my goodness.

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but will probably be pointless, as I think we each hold strong opinions on this subject. It's not one of my favorites to argue with friends. It is a very sensitive subject.

The world is changing on this issue, though, and I am very glad to see it. So much harm has been done to people (and kids!) who are same sex attracted, it makes me beyond sad to think about it. I pray that things will continue to improve and they will not bear the stigma that has been imposed on them in the past.

I think the thing that we do agree on strongly is the way we treat people, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. While I do believe that marriage is for the protection of children, and I understand that on this point we disagree, I believe strongly in treating all with love and respect. I considered it an honor when a gay friend asked me to read his life essay that she wrote to get into a masters program and wanted my opinion. Regardless if somone knows my position on marriage, they should never question my love and concern for them as a person.

I think on this point, we agree.

Libby
02-12-2012, 02:49 AM
I think the thing that we do agree on strongly is the way we treat people, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. While I do believe that marriage is for the protection of children, and I understand that on this point we disagree, I believe strongly in treating all with love and respect. I considered it an honor when a gay friend asked me to read his life essay that she wrote to get into a masters program and wanted my opinion. Regardless if somone knows my position on marriage, they should never question my love and concern for them as a person.

I think on this point, we agree.

Yes, we can certainly agree on that, Julie, that all people, regardless of orientation or any other aspect of their physical or spiritual makeup, deserve to be treated with respect.

And, I do not disagree that marriage is, at least in part, for the protection of children. That is just another good reason it should be extended to same-sex partners, many of whom have children. Why should they be considered second cl*** citizens? I saw a YouTube on this, just recently, as a matter of fact...kids of gay parents talking about how they felt like second cl*** citizens, different or less, because their parents couldn't marry. That's wrong, IMO.

But, I've said enough, already. I think I started out saying I didn't want to get deeply into this! :)

BigJulie
02-12-2012, 10:31 PM
Yes, we can certainly agree on that, Julie, that all people, regardless of orientation or any other aspect of their physical or spiritual makeup, deserve to be treated with respect.

And, I do not disagree that marriage is, at least in part, for the protection of children. That is just another good reason it should be extended to same-sex partners, many of whom have children. Why should they be considered second cl*** citizens? I saw a YouTube on this, just recently, as a matter of fact...kids of gay parents talking about how they felt like second cl*** citizens, different or less, because their parents couldn't marry. That's wrong, IMO.

But, I've said enough, already. I think I started out saying I didn't want to get deeply into this! :)

A child shouldn't feel like a second cl*** citizen...but a child should also have a mother and a father...as that is what it takes to have a child. I try to picture, who is not important in the equation? The mother? The father? Which one would you say was not important to your upbringing? Your mom? Your dad? What is the difference between a male role model and a female role model? Shouldn't a child have both?

Libby
02-13-2012, 02:02 PM
I think every child should have loving parents, no matter the gender....or loving grandparents or whatever adults in their life, who really care about them and love them.

BigJulie
02-13-2012, 03:07 PM
I think every child should have loving parents, no matter the gender....or loving grandparents or whatever adults in their life, who really care about them and love them.

I guess that the difference for us is that I see that gender does make a difference and you don't think it does.

I have found this to be the case with many of my evangelical friends--a belief that men and women are basically the same and it is only the "skin" that makes the difference. I see gender as a vital part of who we are and our differences are great. If a person doesn't believe in God--then certainly nature dictates what is best for the child---a father and a mother.

Okay---so I have a family member who is gay (a step-brother). His mom got divorced before she married my dad. My gay step-brother helped father a child for a lesbian couple 20 or so years ago. The child eventually needed to know who is dad was. Can I just say, this is not healthy. From personal experience, these relationships are not healthy for a child. A gay couple who has children automatically have a necessity for either the father or the mother being out of the equation. Kids do not do well with this. This is my experience.

Libby
02-13-2012, 03:39 PM
Julie, I think kids are always going to be curious about their biological parents, whether they are gay or not. My cousin gave up a child for adoption 43 years ago, and just recently heard from her daughter...who was very curious about her biological parents. She has not told her adoptive mother, because she knows she won't take it well. Healthy? Definitely, some issues to work through, and likely some pain to go with it, but that is life.

I know the LDS position on gender, but I don't share it (and is one of the many reasons I could not go back to the church). I believe reincarnation or something of that nature is much more likely..and that we have all been, both, man and woman, over the millions of years our souls have been progressing. What a marvelous way to really learn from all perspectives, yes? :) So, I do believe in eternal progression, both here and in other dimensions, with the goal being a return to God, but I don't believe our soul has a gender. I don't believe God has a gender. That is for we who are earthbound and focused on duality. That duality does not exist with God. God is One.

BigJulie
02-13-2012, 06:42 PM
Julie, I think kids are always going to be curious about their biological parents, whether they are gay or not. My cousin gave up a child for adoption 43 years ago, and just recently heard from her daughter...who was very curious about her biological parents. She has not told her adoptive mother, because she knows she won't take it well. Healthy? Definitely, some issues to work through, and likely some pain to go with it, but that is life.

I know the LDS position on gender, but I don't share it (and is one of the many reasons I could not go back to the church). I believe reincarnation or something of that nature is much more likely..and that we have all been, both, man and woman, over the millions of years our souls have been progressing. What a marvelous way to really learn from all perspectives, yes? :) So, I do believe in eternal progression, both here and in other dimensions, with the goal being a return to God, but I don't believe our soul has a gender. I don't believe God has a gender. That is for we who are earthbound and focused on duality. That duality does not exist with God. God is One.

Yes, the stats show that kids who are adopted often (actually, my husband the therapist says "always") question who their biological parents are. Stats also show that more than 50% of adopted kids have iden***y issues because of the lack of knowledge surrounding their parents.

From my own experience, having children of your own genes does make a difference---character traits are famlial and as such, helps each parent identify with their children. Adoptive parents are often frustrated by the lack of knowledge toward these familial traits and according to my husband, once again, can dissociate themselves more easily with characteristics that they do not find appealing. They still love their children, they just can say---this is not my fault that he/she is like this.

So, with gay "marriage' we guarentee that the child does not have at least one of their biological parents along with no role model of the opposite sex. To me, this is just guinea-pigging our kids once again for the sake of the adults.

My sister also noted that when "marriage" is about love instead of children, then any thing should go with "marriage"---a father could marry his grown daughter. Polygamy, of course. Siblings could get married. All the laws that we have to protect children in "marriage" (and their genetic pools) could be simply wiped away. Who then does not have a "right" when it comes to marriage? As long as their are adults involved and "love"---then who would not have this right?

Libby
02-13-2012, 08:46 PM
I think, the high risk of genetic diseases, when people are marrying too close to family, is a good reason for not allowing that. Besides which, it really is very rare that anyone would even want to do that.

As for parenting, usually gay parents have their own children (since it has been very difficult for them to adopt) and often they have had them within traditional marriage, so that both parents are still involved.

At any rate, even with the difficulties of adoption, I don't think we would want to stop people from doing that, right? Even if the kids and parents have some adjustment difficulties, I'm sure it is, most of the time, better than being raised by a single parent or two young parents, with little ability to care for those children.

BigJulie
02-25-2012, 10:45 PM
I think, the high risk of genetic diseases, when people are marrying too close to family, is a good reason for not allowing that. Besides which, it really is very rare that anyone would even want to do that.

As for parenting, usually gay parents have their own children (since it has been very difficult for them to adopt) and often they have had them within traditional marriage, so that both parents are still involved.

At any rate, even with the difficulties of adoption, I don't think we would want to stop people from doing that, right? Even if the kids and parents have some adjustment difficulties, I'm sure it is, most of the time, better than being raised by a single parent or two young parents, with little ability to care for those children.

I think the question then becomes what do you want to call "marriage" and is there a standard in which we want to promote the bringing up of children. As you have noted, marriage has already been desecrated to the point that our society is seeing problems the scope of which is overwhelming. If we want to lower our basic standard in which we give kids one less advantage (that of having a mother AND a father), then I can see your point. What I see is that I would like to believe as a society, we still see marriage as a protection for bringing children into the world as we can see the dire consequences for what is happening when this standard is ignored.

02-26-2012, 07:54 AM
regardless of the changing legal rights given the GAYS, we know they dont enter into the Kingdom....

So whatever victories they gain in this life, it is oh so very temporary...

BigJulie
02-26-2012, 02:11 PM
regardless of the changing legal rights given the GAYS, we know they dont enter into the Kingdom....

So whatever victories they gain in this life, it is oh so very temporary...

What if they are gay and believe in Christ? As a Mormon, I don't relegate all to hell as you do. As a Mormon, I know that it is through marriage and having children that we meet our full potential and joy in life (something God wants for us) and that children do best with their mother and their father. When that is not possible, still having a mother and father is best (as men and women are not the same), but I would never state that a person who is gay is more likely to go to hell then the next guy---God is the final judge and only He can judge fairly and with true love.

02-26-2012, 02:49 PM
then you need to confess your sins, or face a future with them forever hung around your neck as you toss forever in a sea of fire.....

Libby
02-26-2012, 05:36 PM
What if they are gay and believe in Christ? As a Mormon, I don't relegate all to hell as you do. As a Mormon, I know that it is through marriage and having children that we meet our full potential and joy in life (something God wants for us) and that children do best with their mother and their father. When that is not possible, still having a mother and father is best (as men and women are not the same), but I would never state that a person who is gay is more likely to go to hell then the next guy---God is the final judge and only He can judge fairly and with true love.

I tried to "rep" you for that (but wouldn't let me :)), even though I don't agree with all of this (that it is only through marriage that we can connect with God), but I sure do agree with you, that gays can be Christians and that judgment is God's call. I can't help but think that those who are so judgmental of gays, are going to experience some rather negative repercussions.

Libby
02-26-2012, 05:42 PM
I think the question then becomes what do you want to call "marriage" and is there a standard in which we want to promote the bringing up of children.

Yes. The standard should be parents who love and care for their children, and don't abuse them physically or psychologically. That is the only standard I care about.

As you have noted, marriage has already been desecrated to the point that our society is seeing problems the scope of which is overwhelming. If we want to lower our basic standard in which we give kids one less advantage (that of having a mother AND a father), then I can see your point. What I see is that I would like to believe as a society, we still see marriage as a protection for bringing children into the world as we can see the dire consequences for what is happening when this standard is ignored.

Not sure why you believe, allowing SS marriage would "lower the standard". It might very well raise the standard (depending on what you believe the standard to be - for me, the standard should be love and respect). I know for certain it will give children more protection and sense of well being, rather than making them outcasts of society. Same for SS attracted people, who really do need to be treated with more respect.

02-26-2012, 05:43 PM
gays burn....that's their fate....

so sorry if that is upsetting for you...but that's what fate awaits them in the flame..

BigJulie
02-26-2012, 06:33 PM
Alan, let me give you two situations I am aware of. Both men are married, both have gay tendencies. The first man leaves his wife and goes to the life he thinks he is genetically called to. He eventually ends up with AIDS and goes back to his wife as he is dying. (He gave her AIDS prior to fully leaving). They love each other and he asks her to forgive him. He is remorseful for waht he has done to his wife and children. She cares for him until his death.

Second story. The second man does not leave his wife, but has a gay affair. He eventually tells his wife what he has done. He loves his wife and his children. They are working through it.

Both men believe in God. Both men see what these tendencies are doing or have done to their families.

In your mind, are these men going to hell?

(These are true stories, btw)

BigJulie
02-26-2012, 06:36 PM
Yes. The standard should be parents who love and care for their children, and don't abuse them physically or psychologically. That is the only standard I care about.

Not sure why you believe, allowing SS marriage would "lower the standard". It might very well raise the standard (depending on what you believe the standard to be - for me, the standard should be love and respect). I know for certain it will give children more protection and sense of well being, rather than making them outcasts of society. Same for SS attracted people, who really do need to be treated with more respect.

The reason I believe it would lower the standard is because men and women are fundamentally different. (If not, there would be no reason to be gay in the first place.) Because they are fundamentally different, the standard is to have both a man and a woman raising a child (the highest standard is their own biological child). Think about it Libby--how is your mom and dad fundementally different. What makes your dad different than your mom? Which do you think a child should give up in this standard?

Libby
02-26-2012, 06:56 PM
gays burn....that's their fate....

so sorry if that is upsetting for you...but that's what fate awaits them in the flame..

It is not "upsetting" to me, because I know that it's not true.

Libby
02-26-2012, 07:13 PM
The reason I believe it would lower the standard is because men and women are fundamentally different. (If not, there would be no reason to be gay in the first place.) Because they are fundamentally different, the standard is to have both a man and a woman raising a child (the highest standard is their own biological child). Think about it Libby--how is your mom and dad fundementally different. What makes your dad different than your mom? Which do you think a child should give up in this standard?

I don't believe they are different enough to hinder a same-sex couple from raising a perfectly fine child. Studies and stats have born that out.

Men and women are physically and even, somewhat, psychologically different, it's true, and I understand the "balance" you are looking at, but the qualities that make a good parent can exist, even in a balanced way, in a same sex coupling, as well.

I saw some statistics, awhile back, that showed that single mothers had a lot of difficulties, in raising their children. A lot of school dropouts and delinquency. Strangely, though, single fathers did not have those kinds of problems and their kids were well within the average range. What researchers finally determined was that economic status was actually the important variable, and the differences had little or nothing to do with "gender". Women, usually, don't make as much money as men (even still), and therefore, they and their children had all of the problems of poverty...poor housing, poor schools, lack of supervision, etc.

Anyway, bottom line, I think we are moving away from the idea that every family, to be ideal, must be the traditional one man/one woman model. We are finding that families of all kinds can nurture and provide for the needs of children. We need to recognize those "other" families as legitimate, as well.

02-26-2012, 09:41 PM
The gays burn, toast, boil and bubble, every moment awake, every moment in torment...a world of suffering without end, without pause, without relief.

BigJulie
02-26-2012, 11:44 PM
I don't believe they are different enough to hinder a same-sex couple from raising a perfectly fine child. Studies and stats have born that out.

Men and women are physically and even, somewhat, psychologically different, it's true, and I understand the "balance" you are looking at, but the qualities that make a good parent can exist, even in a balanced way, in a same sex coupling, as well.

I saw some statistics, awhile back, that showed that single mothers had a lot of difficulties, in raising their children. A lot of school dropouts and delinquency. Strangely, though, single fathers did not have those kinds of problems and their kids were well within the average range. What researchers finally determined was that economic status was actually the important variable, and the differences had little or nothing to do with "gender". Women, usually, don't make as much money as men (even still), and therefore, they and their children had all of the problems of poverty...poor housing, poor schools, lack of supervision, etc.

Anyway, bottom line, I think we are moving away from the idea that every family, to be ideal, must be the traditional one man/one woman model. We are finding that families of all kinds can nurture and provide for the needs of children. We need to recognize those "other" families as legitimate, as well.

Actually, studies shows that SS raised children fair as well as children of divorced parents (with step-parents)---but as we know, children of divorced children do not do as well as children of intact, non-divorced parents. As I said, it is lowering our standards to think that children do not need a mother or a father.

Libby
02-27-2012, 01:10 AM
Actually, studies shows that SS raised children fair as well as children of divorced parents (with step-parents)---but as we know, children of divorced children do not do as well as children of intact, non-divorced parents. As I said, it is lowering our standards to think that children do not need a mother or a father.

Hmm, I've never seen that kind of comparison. The studies I've seen are comparisons between heterosexual and same sex couples who have children.

In this paper, we provide an overview of variability across jurisdictions in family law relevant to lesbian and gay parents and their children, showing that some courts have been negatively disposed to these families. We summarize recent research findings suggesting that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as are heterosexual parents to provide home environments that support positive outcomes among children. Research findings suggest that unless and until the weight of evidence can be shown to have shifted, parental sexual orientation should be considered irrelevant to disputes involving child custody, visitation, foster care, and adoption.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01578.x/abstract

I just picked that quickly off of google. The actual studies should be online, as well, but haven't taken the time to find them.

Libby
02-27-2012, 01:25 AM
Another...

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

BigJulie
02-27-2012, 02:32 PM
Hmm, I've never seen that kind of comparison. The studies I've seen are comparisons between heterosexual and same sex couples who have children.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01578.x/abstract

I just picked that quickly off of google. The actual studies should be online, as well, but haven't taken the time to find them.

Do you see the wording here---they provide similar enviroments. One of the biggest critiques of studies done regarding ****sexual unions is that they rely on the subjectivity of the couple--asking questions to the couple regarding the home. The study I read is actually a pro-gay marriage study and yet it still acknowledged that children of gay couples fair the same as children of divorces couples. I think the thing that no one is wiling to acknowledge is that in a gay marriage where children are involved, one parent is automatically taken out of the equation. The other thing that no study is willing to look at is the effects of a lack of mother or a lack of father from the child's point of view.

I don't know if you remember years ago when single motherhood became so popular. Remember all the studies that stated that a single mother could parent as well without a father involved? Do you remember the whole Candice Bergmen contraversy? Well--here is an experiment that has been running for years. Many children are being parented without a father--they are being raised by their grandmothers and mothers. What are the stats regarding this now? That the role of a father is important not only to sons, but to daughters as well.

So, I ask you which role is not important for the child? The mother or the father? While I understand that there are many homes missing one or each of these---is this the standard we want for creating a family?

Libby
02-27-2012, 06:40 PM
Not sure what "wording" you are referring to, Julie?

Again, many social scientists find that economics has a much greater impact on children, than whether or not they have two parents (same sex or hetero).

While most people agree that children are better off in families with two parents (as long as both parents are nonabusive), many believe that the adverse impact of single-parent families on children has been exaggerated. According to Sara S. McLanahan, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, children who grow up with one parent are “disadvantaged across a broad array of outcomes”; they are more likely to drop out of school, commit crime, or become pregnant. However, she concludes, “the evidence . . . does not show that family disruption is the principal cause” of these problems. According to McLanahan, “If all children lived in two-parent families, teen motherhood and idleness would be less common, but the bulk of these problems would remain.”

In addition, some social scientists and others argue that the causal connection between single-parent families and social problems is unclear. While most experts concede that children from single-parent families are more likely to experience problems such as poor school performance and poverty, many believe it is erroneous to automatically ***ume that these difficulties are caused by the absence of one parent. According to Arlene Skolnick, a research psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley, and Stacey Rosencranz, a graduate student at Stanford University, “Single parenthood may be correlated with many problems affecting children, but the causes may lie elsewhere—for example, in economic and emotional problems affecting parents that lead to difficulties raising children and greater chances of divorce.” Other commentators contend that for the large number of single-parent families who live in inner cities, a shortage of educational and employment opportunities is more likely to impact the quality of children’s lives than the number of parents they have.

http://www.enotes.com/single-parent-families-article

BigJulie
02-28-2012, 01:23 PM
Not sure what "wording" you are referring to, Julie?

Again, many social scientists find that economics has a much greater impact on children, than whether or not they have two parents (same sex or hetero).

http://www.enotes.com/single-parent-families-article

This is what I read with your quote---in short, children of single parents fair worse overall, but we don't know if it is because they are raised by single parents.

Sociologically speaking, they are trying to come up with other social solutions other than the family. If the lack of family is not at fault, but the failing of society, then the government can fix it (read into this, more social programs).

BigJulie
02-28-2012, 01:27 PM
Here is the quote you gave me:

In this paper, we provide an overview of variability across jurisdictions in family law relevant to lesbian and gay parents and their children, showing that some courts have been negatively disposed to these families. We summarize recent research findings suggesting that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as are heterosexual parents to provide home environments that support positive outcomes among children. Research findings suggest that unless and until the weight of evidence can be shown to have shifted, parental sexual orientation should be considered irrelevant to disputes involving child custody, visitation, foster care, and adoption.

Translation: there are no longitutal studies done yet for the outcomes of same-sex raised children so until then we can only use "environmental" factors---are they being fed, going to school, have someone doing homework with them, etc.?

If you go back through history, you will find these same type of comments regarding divorce and single-parenthood. It took years before the longitutal data came out and what they now see is that there kids of divorce and single-parenthood do not fair as well. Now, I find it interesting that they are trying to even back away from the correlation of single-parenthood and increased problems for the child.

Libby
02-28-2012, 10:19 PM
I was gonna say...I don't think studies are really showing that it's about single parents or divorced families. As I said before, the evidence seems to point more towards economics than family dynamics.

BigJulie
03-04-2012, 06:43 PM
I was gonna say...I don't think studies are really showing that it's about single parents or divorced families. As I said before, the evidence seems to point more towards economics than family dynamics.

The correlation would be that children from families with means are happy and well-socialized and that poor children are not happy and not well-socialized. From someone who has been studying economics, I say that these studies are just the result of a pro-social government giving grants to those who support the idea that more money thrown at a problem will solve the problems. As we can see from many, many failed social experiments, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. If you don't believe in God, then surely nature dictates what is best for a child (a mother and a father).

02-26-2013, 08:19 AM
Hey All,

Out here in California we have Proposition 8 being that a yes vote will ammend the cons***ution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Do gay folks have a secular right to a state marriage vs a marriage "in the eyes of God" meaning the church?

MacG

I believe that the gays should be allowed to form legal unions that require the courts to split up.
I believe the term "marriage" should be preserved for a union between man and woman.

aaronpaul
03-09-2015, 01:14 PM
Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling......
****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives,
and pursue happiness.
But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them.

asdf
03-09-2015, 03:48 PM
Since God ins***uted marriage and authored it's definition, I believe the state should hold to His ruling......
****sexuals are free to breathe, eat, provide their shelter, defend their lives,
and pursue happiness.
But it is interminably clear that God has witheld from them not only holy matrimony, but indeed, the very act that defines them.

It really shouldn't surprise me any more, but still sometimes it takes me aback that some Christians have so little faith in God and in God's work that they have to rely on civil law to validate their beliefs. It's not enough for you to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before your God—nor to live at peace with all men as far as it depends on you—nor even to exercise your freedom to refrain from engaging in or affirming same-sex relationships in your family and faith community.

No, you demand the utter domination and supremacy of your worldview to be enshrined in and enforced by civil governance. You demand the authority to withhold equal justice under the law from those who don't believe as you do.

When I step back and think about it, it's striking how anti-democratic, anti-republican, anti-the-very-idea-of-America it is, but also how anti-faith, anti-hope, anti-love, . . .indeed anti-Christ.