No (means no) profanity! No personal insults or name calling!
I think those pushing gay marriage would argue that enabling gays to marry would encourage them to stay with it longer. Just playing devil's advocate.
I honestly think that the people pushing this don't care about any of the peripheral issues, as long as they have marriage. Maybe I'm wrong but......
Great post and great information. My only nit with the whole bit is that I don't see how the problems above follow from SSM. It seems like the child problems are more a result of a lenient culture that tolerates parents birthing children out of wedlock and the ease that parents can be divorced. I'm sure Tom C. will jump in here, so I'll pose him a few questions:
In addition to outlawing SSM, would it be acceptable for the state to impose penalties upon couples having children without being married?
Also, should the state levy some punishment on parents who get divorced while having minor children at home?
It seems like these two approaches would deal with Scandinavia's 'problems' much more effectively than outlawing SSM.
I, too, find it interesting that most of the arguments against gay marriage stem from the current realities of heterosexual marriage...
I suspect that tolerance of gay marriage in those "liberal districts" is not the cause of their low marriage rate, but another effect of the same root cause (whatever that might be, most likely simply abandonment of belief in the need for marriage at all).
I'd be leery of trying to use this in an attempt to demonstrate cause-and-effect, just as you indicated at the end of the post (and in previous posts).
Statistical information from Norway on marriages and divorces here:
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjec...jects/02/02/30/
The number of annual marriages has been approximately constant since 1994. This is not to minimize Kurtz's point about the alarming number of children growing up in single-parent homes.
My idea is that no fault divorce should be eliminated. A divorce would be available for breach of contract. The partner who breached the contract would be penalized, if it went to court, in what would amount to an application of contract law. When I was a kid, divorce, and out of wedlock childbirth were scandalous. That's the way it should be.
If you can accept that the only socially essential need filled by marriage is ensuring that biological parents raise their kids wherever it is possible, it should not be hard to understand that homosexual marriage does not fit - and since this function of marriage is of fundamental importance, nothing else should be shoehorned in.
As a successful investor, I understand that conglomerates are not valued as highly as single purpose corporations, and that's because a conglomerate doesn't do particular things as well as a dedicated corporation does. (yes, that's an analogy. I don't claim it proves something. I'm just trying to illustrate what I am talking about - that marriage dedicated to its single essential function will serve that function best). Homosexual marriage does not belong with heterosexual marriage because in reality, homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage will serve very different purposes. Furthermore, the homosexual lobby is powerful, which increases the chances that marriage will end up serving the needs and wants of homosexuals rather than the needs and wants of society and children.
Tom, I keep seeing this "marriage is only for child raising" line over and over again. What about couples who don't have children or can't have children? What about couples who get married and wait 5 or 10 years to have kids? I dread asking this, I'm guessing that they're an abomination or something similar...
*peeking out* Ok, ok, ok, ok, I can't resist any longer. Here's a different train of thought on the entire homosexual marriage/gay rights issue. As I'm getting the impression this blog is run by a Christian *grin*, allow me to interject Romans 1:24-27, which states that at times, homosexuality is a *result* of rejecting God on a fundamental level. So to analyze sexual orientation as a Cause (meaning, I'm gay so this and that, or I'm straight so this or that), instead of an effect of a much deeper issue (trauma, rejection, abuse, etc.), could shed some light on a few things. Yes, I realize I'm asking to be tarred and feathered.
P.S. The main reason I state this is that there is an underlying assumption that sexual orientation is a trait of a person that cannot change. You can't make a white man black, but you can switch orientations. I am not convinced that sexual activity of any kind is anything more than a choice, and as such, discrimination against such choices are not on the same level as race, ergo, false analogy.
Also, judical fiat is not the way to accomplish these goals. The judges that are currently marrying same sex couples are hailed as heros because they are making fiat decisions that appease a minority interest. This is an extremely dangerous precedent to establish.
That article made my head hurt. Correlation != Causation.
The article seems to somehow want to blame the idea of gay marriage for what is happening over there, epitomized in the line "Clearly, in a place where de facto gay marriage has gained almost complete acceptance, marriage itself has almost completely disappeared."
I could easily pull up all manner of statistics about how marriage has been hurt by legalizing interracial marriage, divorce rates have definitely gone up since then. Yet the fact that interracial marriage is legalized is not to blame for that.
If you're going to attack the concept of gay marriage, stick to the valid arguments, such as the economic impact it would have on straight couples in the form of insurance and such or the impact on taxes. It doesn't matter what side of the political fence you sit on, you should avoid using bad statistics or bad logic to support your movement. It does nothing but taint it.
If you're going to attack the concept of gay marriage
Well let's start by getting it straight about who's doing the attacking.
More black is white, up is down, yes is no from the naked emperor (who figured out how to deconstruct simple truth from Foucault et al).
Rae, so all the homosexual animals out there are also rejecting god on a fundamental level?
Its been clear there is biochemistry involved, for quite some time now. There are just too many behaviors that express along similar lines for it to be a 'choice' that is independantly made.
Course, one argument to this is that we're not animals, and we can control our behavior, and that religion is a tool that can help this. While I think any behavior can be censored by a strong enough individual, it doesn't seem to work well if we just set up an opposing social/moral force. Eventually the wall cracks in what often seems the majority of people (obesity, the catholic church scandal).
Human society is far more sophisticated than any animal society. If we do not control simple animal instincts, we cannot fit in any society. There are also animal models of many human diseases and dysfunctional behaviours. It does not follow that the modelled disease or behaviour is benign. I claimed that long lasting human societies require exclusive heterosexual marriage. There is no comparable animal model of human society. All the animal models would be monstrosities far worse than the Soviet society - which failed.
But Tom, all societies are ones that will fail eventually. There is no society that has been around since the beginning, whenever that was.
Your argument that heterosexual marriage is intrinsic to human societies has very little correlations. Societies have existed, and failed, for reasons completely distinct from gay/straight marriages. Also, its only recently that the biological imperative has been removed, and just reading Donald's site here, you should be able to understand that marriage started to fail as an instutition right when that happened. Historical societies have little in common with what is going on now.
I did not argue that societies fail because heterosexual marriage fails. I argued that such societies never get off the drawing board, which is why we don't see them. Some little commune with rolling marriages starts up (you don't really think it's a modern idea do you?), a generation or two later, it's gone because kids raised that way aren't going to learn social values needed to provide continuity. A child poorly raised, raised in a way injurious to his well being, is not likely to defend the order that raised him. He will be as selfish as the parent that walked from the marriage and left him.
The fact that marriage is on the rocks is no reason to leave it that way. The ill social effects are already apparent. It's time to fix marriage, not pound nails into its coffin.
"Its been clear there is biochemistry involved, for quite some time now."
Jeff - You state as established fact something which is anything but.
Intellectual honesty requires one to least admit there's an ongoing and highly-contested debate.
I could cite statements from researchers and academics who could hardly be described as being driven by conservative or religious motives(Masters & Johnson, Alfred Kinsey, John DeCecco), which flat-out reject biological or genetic determinism as a cause for homosexuality.
The origin(s) of homosexuality is/are a tangential point in the debate here, but a critical issue in principle. Misrepresenting something as established fact which is not established fact, and then using that as a foundation for other arguing points, just ain't kosher.
This explains why Scandinavia has such high rates of violent crime, poverty, etc.
Ha! Just kidding.
I'll be succint in trying to connect some dots. Part of the argument for SSM is that to outlaw such would be discriminatory against homosexuals. It is then often stated that SSM is a civil rights issue along the lines of segregation based on race, suffrage based on gender, etc. Why these arguments do *not* convince me is that race and gender are things you cannot change, at least, at the time the laws were passed, they could not be changed (pre-transgender operations). However...........it is not settled in scientific circles that sexual orientation is "hardwired", and also there is that nature vs. nurture, etc.
Rae, there is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating against behaviour irregardless the source of the drive. The ability to control impulses is a sine qua non for existing as a free person in any society.
This is the exact reason why the homosexual lobby insists so strenuously that you 'can't seperate the behaviour from the person'. That's just nonsense.
Rae, there is nothing inherently wrong with discriminating against behaviour irregardless the source of the drive.
There quite well is something inherently wrong with discriminating against harmless behavior if such behavior is inborn.
There's no reason to believe that people choose to be gay. First, we're talking about the third-most basic instinct here (after eating and drinking) being messed up. It's not something you can choose anymore than you could choose to enjoy the taste of dirt. Second, it's hard to imagine anybody choosing to be the target of such hate and discrimination. It doesn't make sense.
There you are with your 'hate' word again.
You argue like this:
You: How's A worse than B
Me: A does this B doesn't
You: Yeh, but C does
Me: C isn't B
You: You think C doing it is OK?
Me: I didn't say that. You asked me to compare A and B. C isn't relevant.
You: You think C is OK!
Me: I object, I said nothing of the sort.
You: Wow! You think C doing it is OK.
So I don't want to talk to you, because you are either dishonest, or a halfwit.
If you want to think that it's OK to do something as long as you don't choose to want to do it, go for it. I don't care what you think.
Tom, I think that a _free_ society would choose to only discriminate against a behavior if that behavior was detrimental to the society at large. For instance, I'd argue that obesity is a bigger social problem than homosexuality. It results in detrimental higher health care costs for everyone. I can't seem to find a similar detrimental cost to society that merits discrimination against gays. So, what is special or detrimental about homosexuality or sodomy that merits discrimination, while we allow obesity and gluttony to go unchallenged?
The entire gay marriage debate is symptomatic of a far more serious sociological disease. But just as you treat a fever while also treating the flu, the gay marriage debate cannot be ignored. Tolerance of differences is desirable. But tolerance of evil is evil. The more serious disease is a judiciary run amok, and an unaccountable education industry. We will not be able to return social sanity until we first limit the power of the judiciary, and then retake control of schools so that reasonable values are taught.
It does not matter if being gay is a choice or not.
Gay marriage cannot exist, no matter what anyone says, does, or wants.
Create a new word, if necessary. That is all it takes. Why can't we be diverse? Why do we have to change the meaning of centuries old instutions? Are we not sophisticated enough to create a new institution?
By the way, gluttons are not asking society to redefine gluttony as healthy. They may advertise to convince us to become gluttons, and they try to confuse us with sweet talk, but KFC never says that fried chicken is a vegetable.
Bri,
You said: "Create a new word, if necessary."
I've said this many times, but isn't this just semantics?
If every state creates "civil union", which affords all the same rights and benefits, just as long as we don't call it marriage... then it's O.K.??
Tom,
I don't think you know a darn thing about what freedom actually is...
The default should be NO RESTRICTIONS, maximum freedom, UNLESS there are concrete, specific reasons which support the need for restrictions... The burden of proof should be on those who support more restrictions, not the other way around.
AS for all your rubbish theories on "essential function", and "end of civilization as we know it" arguments, you don't have one iota, one sliver, one shred of evidence to support your point of view... none, zip, nada... you can keep repeaating it with asa much self-righteousness, arrogance, and snarkiness you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Bri,
Then what the heck are you arguing about? Just a word??? If that's the case, you have shown that "the emperor has no clothes." You admit that its just semantics, and that you have no problem with the substance of the debate.
the rose smells nice
the hyacinth smells nice
the rose is not the hyacinth
If it is just a word then why do *you* argue?
Different words have different meanings. A marriage is something between a man and a woman. A relationship between a man and a man is different. Different, not the same. Thus it requires a different word.
jab, We already have a default, it is the Constitution and the Laws of the USA and the States... Those are the restrictions. No person is above the law. Not one person. There is no totally unrestricted liberty.
There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. Nor is there a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage. But, there is a statutory right to heterosexual marriage and a legal definition of marriage as the legal union of man and woman as husband and wife. Those are on the books. So the argument of equating marriage and civil union as semantics is bogus.
jab, Gays and others argue for "equal treatment under the law” but that isn’t really what they want. They want a DEPARTURE from the current law to better suit their policy. . That divergence is, in itself, a morally neutral thing as every person, and every group, has certain personal interests that it would like advanced, and which it seeks to advance at the ballot box.
Fundamentally, when one seeks to add something to the law that has never previously existed in the Constitution or in the law the proper course is ONLY through the legislature, or, where available, the people through referenda.
jab,
What is particularly morally disgusting, however, is the use of the courts to force that policy change, under the guise of "equal protection" - declaring that a right that has never existed anywhere in this country is, wonder of wonders, actually present in the Constitution or the law.
Using judicial intervention when it is clear that the vast majority of the public opposes your policy preference is against the very foundational premises of this country, and is tyrannical and dictatorial.
E2,
Finally, something that makes sense... Although I don't entirely agree, your last two posts made sense.
I NEVER said unrestricted liberty... for example, we have the 1st amendment, but that doesn't give you the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowed theater... Our freedoms end when they infringe on another's freedoms or causes harm. My point is that the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict freedom.
If you recall your history, there was a huge debate among the Founding Fathers over the Bill of Rights... one faction did NOT want the Bill of Rights because they thought that the people already had these rights, and they were afraid that including them in the Constitution would make it appear as if the government were giving these rights... as if even had such authority to give rights. The point is the Constitution does NOT give rights, we already have all of them... the Constitution limits what the government can do...
E2...
Elaborating further on the philosophy behind my reasoning...
Te Constitution does NOT give rights... we already have all our rights without the Constitution... to borrow a phrase from conservatives: "Our rights are ordained from God" (and no, not necessarily the Fundamentalist Christian God...) The Constitution places limits on what the government can do to restrict our freedoms... the default should be maximum freedom/liberty... unless such freedom infringes on the rights of others, or causes harm...
We are endowed with rights some of which are constitutional and statutorially expressed. Scalia would definitely disagree with you, as he has said (as close as I can remember), if a right is not expressly in the Constitution, let Congress pass the laws necessary to codify that right. I also concur that amendments to the Constitution should only reflect what behavior of the government cannot do, and not what the citizens cannot.
But that does not mean there cannot be a viable FMA process that ensures rights of everyone, however, that language works itself out. That is a matter for the Congress, the state legislatures and the people as in We, the People and not some small group of judiciary activists. Those are some reasons why I am adamant about the
Mass. Supreme Court and the actions of the City of SF who wish to ramrod minority agendas in without the full legislative process. This nation will be around for a long time, so let’s do it right.
With all the bandying about of the term "judicial activists", I was wondering if the judges in Mass. were being activists, or if they were rightfully interpreting the Massachusetts Constitution. Since the federal constitution says nothing of SSM, it may not be activism on the part of the Mass. judges to say that SSM is incompatible with the Massachusetts constitution. I'm not familiar with the MA constitution, so let me pose a question. Assume that the democratic process had been followed and gay marriages were explicitly allowed in MA via a law passed by its legislature or a clause in its constitution. Would we still be crying judicial activists as the marriages would be required to be recognized in all the other states via Full Faith and Credit?
To be continued...
Continued...
It seems to me that the MA judges have first a responsibility to the federal constitution, then a responsibility to the MA constitution, then finally a responsibility to the MA legislature. So, the question is whether the MA judges were correct in their interpretation of the MA constitution. Does anyone have any links or know the answer to this question?
Tom, you just don't get it. Let me try one last time, although I don't see it helping.
You see homosexuality as a problem that is set to destroy our society. I point out two far larger problems (smoking and obesity) which are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. Homosexuality is nonlethal.
My question to you, and others who are obsessed with homosexuality, is why you're concerned with something affecting 1-2% of the population, when we have a 30% obesity rate and 20% smoking rate? These problems are far worse for our country in every way.
The best that you can do is resort to name-calling and personal attacks. I've asked the question above many times and you refuse to answer it.
Sociological arguments aside, ramrodding SSM through via judicial fiat to satisfy the squeaky wheel is not a precedent this country wants. If the culture is not ready for SSM, shoving it down our throats to satisfy 1-2% of the population can't be seen as anything but self-serving.
Hijacking bits and pieces of marriage, meaning, wanting the benefits of marriage, without fulfilling the definition of marriage (between a man and woman) is the reason why it is seen as an attack. Marriage is what it is, and cannot benefit society the way homosexuals are seeking to have marriage redefined.
Rae: Aren't benefits typically granted because someone fulfills an obligation or duty, not because someone fulfills a definition? Should married couples who fail to fulfill the obligations of marriage still be entitled to the rights and benefits that marriage grants?
I'd argue that obesity is a bigger social problem than homosexuality.
Sure, and murder is a worse problem than theft, so only a hypocrite would worry about murder.
The default should be NO RESTRICTIONS, maximum freedom, UNLESS there are concrete, specific reasons which support the need for restrictions... The burden of proof should be on those who support more restrictions, not the other way around.
For new restrictions, yes. When removing old restrictions, you are going to have to show no damage will be done. That's just common sense.
rubbish theories on "essential function
Nevertheless, they are real concerns, if not yours. Calling them garbage doesn't eliminate them. Lot's of people share these concerns, so your work is cut out for you.
You see homosexuality as a problem that is set to destroy our society.
There you go putting words in my mouth. Guess what? That's offensive and unfair. Guess what? Telling me you know my ilk is offensive. Persistently berating me for things I haven't claimed is offensive and unfair.
Like I said, I don't want to talk to you. You'll have to get someone else to ask me your questions. You are the only person on this site who has achieved that.
Should married couples who fail to fulfill the obligations of marriage still be entitled to the rights and benefits that marriage grants?
That's what I called 'the last lame argument' (although I've heard many more lame ones since) on Daily Pundit on Feb 13th. Follow the link and search for 'last lame'.
Chris: I'd argue that obesity is a bigger social problem than homosexuality.
Me: Sure, and murder is a worse problem than theft, so only a hypocrite would worry about murder.
If that didn't make sense, it's because it should have been ...
Me: Sure, and murder is a worse problem than theft, so only a hypocrite would worry about theft.
Chris,
The MA judges voted 4-3 to declare prohibiting SSM was unconstitutional and demands of the legislature laws to that effect. It based its decision on the MA Equal Rights Amendment of 1978. But, it was never the intent of the 1978 MA legislature that the MA ERA be a rallying call for SSM. Had it been it
would not have passed in 1978. The question is: should SSM be a democratic legislative process or a split decision of a 7 member court ?
Michael Chaney,
How one argues obesity and smoking with SSM laws is beyond me. But, I’ll concede your point. Let’s take most important matters first. First, we cure America of obesity and smoking, then, we pass SSM marriage laws. That seems fair to me.
An amazing quote from C.S.Lewis via
www.andrewsullivan.com:
"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one; the other is the quite different question -- how far Christians, if they are voters or members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.
(cont.)
(cont.)
There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not." - C.S. Lewis, from "Mere Christianity."
We all know what a flaming liberal that C.S. Lewis was... this sounds alot like the idea Rev. Sensing had a couple weeks ago.
E2: Thanks for the MA information. I read through the amendment and the following text jumped out at me:
"Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."
So the question is whether the equal right to marry was being violated on the basis of the participant's gender. Given the debate over what is a marriage - be it a way for two people to obtain specific legal protections, or an institution devoted to producing and raising children - I can understand the justices ruling in either direction.
To be continued.
jab,
I think it will work if we name George Bush, the titular head of the Church of America.
Continued...
I am a bit confused though that they ruled that civil unions (assuming all rights and responsibilities of marriage are the same in civil unions) would be inadequate.
WRT the comment I originally made about obesity, the point was to show that I haven't been convinced that there is a negative social cost to SSM, so it made less sense to me than outlawing obesity (which I think would be absurd).
To be continued.
Continued...
I guess the thing that I find paradoxical in this whole situation is the uproar about same-sex marriages when all of the negative effects that are cited (weakening of marriage, out of wedlock children, etc.) has nothing to do with whether gays can marry, and is more a result of our culture of Las Vegas weddings, quick painless divorces, and so forth. (Not that I necessarily think these should be prohibited by the state.)
To be continued.
Continued.
While I see outrage over gay marriage, I don't see any of the outrage or calls for a constitutional amendment that would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. Where are the calls for laws penalizing parents who have children out of wedlock, laws outlawing easy divorces, and laws that force a couple to go through some process that shows that the two are compatible and would stick together? I apologize if I step on any toes here, but this seems hypocritical to me to be so vocally against gay marriages while being silent on how heterosexuals essentially broke the institution in the first place. SSM may be the straw that breaks the camel's back WRT marriage. However, it is insignificant to the tons of straw that were placed there by heterosexuals in the first place.
(To clarify
The post above does not mean that I think gay marrige would kill marriage as we know it or have any negative social impact. Since the futility of proving the non-existence of something is well known, I have to leave myself open to the possibility of either of the two above.
so it made less sense to me than outlawing obesity (which I think would be absurd).
Obesity is not now outlawed, gay marriage is. You're going opposite directions here. Adding a restriction requires justification. Before you remove one, you want to make sure no harm may be done (maybe it's more than superstition).
You don't want to make decisions about where the car's going with your eyes shut. You might drive off a cliff.
I don't see any of the outrage or calls for a constitutional amendment that would actually strengthen the institution of marriage.
I've repeatedly said marriage should be fixed. I went so far as to say that if it isn't going to be fixed, you might as well let gays get married. I believe that if marriage is not fixed, disaster lies ahead, gay marriage or no.
Since the futility of proving the non-existence of something
I think I could satisfy myself there wasn't an elephant hiding in my living room.
In my opinion, the SSM matter belongs in its entirety in the legislative process.
The MASS case was evenly split 3-3 and the tie breaker was the Chief Justice. The three who opposed Justice Marshall's opinion said the Court did not have the power or the jurisdiction to even hear the case.
Read here:
http://www.massnews.com/
2004_edi...cus_brief.shtml
"Before you remove one, you want to make sure no harm may be done."
By that logic, I should never get up in the morning because I can't be sure that I won't be killed that day. I don't see any detrimental social effects resulting from SSM and frankly, you haven't convinced me that your perceived detrimental effects have any basis in reality. I have no logical choice but to support SSM or civil unions since I see a very real harm being done to the gay community.
Of course, you may think my perceived harm to the gay community is imaginary whereas your percieved harm to society is real. That's fair, but I have no desire to beat a dead horse when both of our perceptions of reality are incompatible with the other. I'm sure you're tired of it also.
Tom, one last question: would you support a defense of marriage law that made it harder to get married, harder to get divorced, and mandated punishment for parents who birth children out of wedlock? If so, how far would you go with it? For example, should parents be thrown in jail for having children out of wedlock? How far would you have the state go in order to protect the institution of marriage?
By that logic, I should never get up in the morning because I can't be sure that I won't be killed that day.
Right, and I guess the same goes for the logic that you should look before you cross the street too.
All you are doing here is dismissing very specific concerns (presumably because you cannot convincingly demonstrate they are unfounded). That may satisfy you and those who have closed their minds, but it sure won't win you any converts.
how far would you go with it?
I would get rid of fault free divorce. That's what started the problems. Brittney would still be married, if her husband didn't want to giver her a divorce. If she breached the contract, she could be sued for breach of contract. She couldn't get drunk, get married, and get divorced without it costing her.
I'm talking about recreating the situation before fault free divorce, or at least using that as a guide. I'm not completely sure how it worked, but divorces were rare, and a child born out of wedlock was a scandal. That's the way it should be.
you may think my perceived harm to the gay community is imaginary
Well what is the harm? That requires marriage to be redefined?
The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies. Meanwhile, Massachusetts lawmakers reconvened Thursday to consider a ban on gay marriage. They gave preliminary approval to a proposal that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.
"In a pair of unanimous orders, the court (California Supremes )granted requests by Attorney General Bill Lockyer and by groups opposing same-same marriage to bypass lower courts and review the issue itself. The court said it would hold a hearing in late May or early June.
"...While the case is pending, the court ordered the city to issue marriage licenses only according to California law - which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman - "without regard to (city officials') personal view of the constitutionality of such provisions.'' " sfgate.com
How one argues obesity and smoking with SSM laws is beyond me.
An analogy. Imagine Christians are firefighters, and are called to a house fire. They pull up in the firetruck, house engulfed in flames, and one of them says "Oh my, the shed's on fire! Forget the house, get a hose around here!"
The point is that there are far larger issues in this country, issues that are literally killing people, than homosexuality.
Tom and his ilk don't understand why we use the concept of "hate" to explain it, but the level of vitriol coming from that side is incredible. As I mentioned before, in the course of two weeks I saw gay marriage compared to practicing medicine without a license and driving at high speed within a city (both actions that physically harm others). I also had an acquaintance attempt to convince me with how smart he was by comparing gays to child molestors. He thought that was a reasonable comparison.
[cont]
[cont]
The fact is that we don't have that level of vitriol when we talk about other sins. People here can't even imagine how we would compare homosexuality to other sins, sins that physically harm people.
The gay marriage debate, as it is, is nothing but screaming junk in two directions. I expect better from people who call themselves Christians.
Michael,
In my humble opinion, these comments are not the "real" debates. Some are serious, some not, some impulsive reactions, some very reasoned ideas.
Its all in the mix here. And some are just bait. As I mentioned elsewhere: some days one gets to be the pigeon and some days the statue. The real debate is what goes on in the legal offices, the courtrooms and the legislatures. Stay cool man.
Michael keeps repeating that homosexual sex is harmless, as if that is all that's needed to make it so. I expect that if the parents of a young person who had died of AIDS through homosexual activity were to tell him that homosexual activity is not harmless, he would repeat that it was harmless and lecture the parents on hatred, and ask them why they couldn't be better Christians like him.
I gave him my best good doggie speech and hope he quits barking.
I share ALL of your views, and cannot quite find the vitriol, hate, obsession and all the other factors
presented not to mention my mis-understanding of smoking and obesity.
Tom, come on. AIDS as an example to show that homosexuality is harmful?
Well, only in reality. But theoretically, ... well, reality is just something to be deconstructed isn't it? The technique is well known. It is routinely used to explain how Western Civilization is evil, the United States is evil, guns are evil, democracy is evil, men are evil, etc., etc., etc. And so statements like mine are theoretically evil as well (its against the law for me to be making them up here in Canada - unless I make them for religious reasons).
Anyway, you would explain to the grieving parents (every single homosexual who dies of AIDS is some non homosexual couple's kid) how the naked emperor's new clothes are so nice, by saying ... ?
And you could also explain to the parents why their intestate kid's property, to the build up of which they slaved for, should pass forever into another family's hands (when the second 'spouse' dies, it sure won't come back to the family with the rightful claim) instead of assisting with the live descendents struggles. That's family interest. Blood. Explain this to the grieving parents.
Having read through all the above, I am reminded of the tiny example of Iceland, where the ring bearer in most weddings is the child of the couple. Their society is not crumbling. Where any couple together more than two years (straight, gay, or any other strange combination) must undergo counsel from the clergy of the state supported church (unless they opt out, 5%) to seperate - doesn't matter whether they are "marrried" or not The clergy is a necessary part of any divorce.
The biggest difference is that anyone who fathers a child has societal responsibilities there, as does the mother.
This is not something new. Dancing was banned for many years because those in power thought it lead to bastards. (Around the turn of the 20th century, most children were born out of wedlock there, horror). Didn't make a difference.
So trying to use some Nordic stastics, without understanding the full story is yet another exercise in futility.
"its against the law for me to be making them up here in Canada - unless I make them for religious reasons"
And that, I suspect, is at least half the problem most churches have with the issue. They see the next step: "hate crime" laws which must, by their nature, result in their being branded as criminals for continuing to proclaim that homosexuality is sinful. No one has or will propose laws making it criminal to preach that divorce is sinful (although even there, if you express that belief by saying that you won't rent a house to divorced or shacked-up couples, you can be prosecuted / bankrupted under "fair housing" laws). Better far to resist EVERYTHING than to take the risk of giving an inch and losing miles.
Personally, I'm not sure why they're surprised; Jesus made it very clear that to be a Christian is to face persecution in this world.
Commenting by HaloScan
