Talk Elections

THIS discussion thread is to debate the issue of gay marriage as a societal issue. There is a separate link on the 2004 Presidential Election section to discuss the "electoral impact" of this issue.

As for myself I'm socially moderate. I support the most stringent punishment for hate crimes or any violence against gays (as I would for hate crimes against ANYBODY), I support efforts to combat discrimination against gays in employment and pretty much anything which INDIVIDUALS are entitled to as American citizens. (including allowing them to do whatever the hell they want in their bedrooms)

I do draw the line at gay marriage. I believe we have the responsibility to maintain some sort of social order and that tampering with the man & woman definition of marriage has serious long-term consequences.

I would undoubtedly vote against it in a referendum and would expect my congressional representatives to do the same. I cant say it would be the sole factor determining my vote but it would be a reasonably or even very important factor. How about the rest??

Well, it doesn't seem your idea about different threads worked, huh? I will make a comment here anyway. I agree with most of your points but I don't think marriage should be the state's business anyway. In Germany you get "married" by a state official making you legally married, and then marry in church (if you want too). The first should be open for everyone, the second is up to the churches and not to the government.

Agreed.

I agree with you Ryan. I am against GAY MARRIAGE, NOT AGAINST GAYS. However if one was to read in the BIBLE, ROMANS, CHAPTER ONE, it tells us what GOD thinks about Homosexuality. I myself struggle...

People used to say the same thing about a mixed-race marriage.  How long ago were blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus, drink from different water fountains or use separate bathrooms?  And now doctors in MI won't have to treat people if they diasgree with their lifestyle/practices?  Where does it stop?  If you're gay?  If you're having an affair?  If you live with your boy/girlfriend?  You have an earring?!  

I'm not equating GLBT issues with race issues, but there are some similarities between the two.  

Just my $.02 worth   :-)

Off topic:  I find it odd that people feel the church has any say so regarding the recognition of particluar marriage.  If God gave men and women the right to marry, then why do they need church approval?

Interacial marriage was only forbidden in the OT - and only forbidden between Jew and Gentile.  Even the OT didn't forbid a white Gentile from marrying a black Gentile.  Now, in the NT, even the wall between Jew and Gentile was been torn down.

But marriage in the bible, OT and NT, has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

So, just because people ignored the bible to forbid interracial marriage, doesn't mean we should again ignore the bible by allowing gay marriage.

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

Swiss government is blaming their problems on Sweden?  ;)
(Below the belt, I know ;))

I think you'll find that births out of wedlock have increased in every country.  Many couples have been using Civil Unions rather than the tradional form of marriage in Sweden, which increases births out of wedlock but does not mean that the babies aren't being taken care of by two loving parents.

You say:
Gay marriage -> erosion of the family -> divorce, etc.

I question whether or not allowing gay marriage somehow affects ME in my home in rural California.  Do I suddenly value marriage less because two guys got married?  Do I suddenly love my wife less?

My personal position is that the government shouldn't be involved in recognizing marriage at all.  Leave that to the church.  Have some sort of union program that any two people can use.  You and your mother  can recieve a union and be recognized as an economic unit and recieve hospital benefits if you want.  Basically what Gustaf said.

What about Athiests/Agnostics, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus, Jews, etc?

Muslims believe homosexuality is wrong, as do Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews.

We are on a strange promontory of history, where we shall be forced to forge a new direction or fall into old habits. It is my suggestion that we do the former.

Fifty years ago, our nation was segregated. A standard of separate but equal was thought to be acceptable. We finally moved away from thinking, after a national crisis of conscience. Today, we must reject this Jim Crow of human sexuality. We must realize once again that separate is inherently unequal, because it reinforces a feeling of group inferiority. We must oppose the Plessy v. Ferguson of our era, civil unions, because they send the same message that we sent to little black children when they had to go to dilapidated schools. And after all we've been through as nation, and how deep our yet unsealed wounds are, I don't see how we could start another war over a cultural issue, this time revolving around a scarlet H. Shades of Hesther Prynne with a female lover.

And some, like Ryan and PBrunsel, have said that same-sex marriage would undermine social order. But whose idea of social order? Is it really up to the government to adjudicate the desirability of such a union? Because I'll tell you, genders don't fall in love, people do. Should we really cudgel our brains over rising rates of divorce and illegitimacy? That might be the currency of thought out in Iowa, but where I come from, we view love as more important than a scrap of paper proclaiming husband and wife, or any other permutation our society might allow, and children are gifts to be wanted, loved, and cherished, regardless of whether their parents are married or not. Are you, the stalwart defender of "the defenseless unborn" going to say that the birth of an illegitimate child is less desirable?

We have history to write. It can remember us as a fair and broad-minded people who valued and treated their neighbors as equals, even if they were different. Or we can be judged harshly just like those who handed down Dred Scott, those who opposed suffrage, those who put Jim Crow in place, and those who confined the Japanese to concentration camps, because we were too myopic to justice to recognize the eminent wisdom of civil rights. I know which side I'm on.

You missed one.  And the other religions tend to ignore the Bible.

This all comes down to the nature or nurture argument.

Is being gay a choice, or something ingrained into some people.

Why would people 'choose' to be gay. Most realise they are gay as teenagers, why would a teenager 'choose' to be an outcast (homosexuality is the leading cause of teenage suicide).

If people are 'born gay' then why should society deny them the right to marry, its like denying people with red hair or the left handed.


This is one of those issues that it is hard to find people against who have a family member or friend who are effected by it. THis is why Cheney is for civil unions and gay rights, and why Nancy Reagan is for stem cell research. Its easy to be against things that happen to 'other people', but when it hits home people understand and learn.

Gay marriage will erode traditional marriage.  We already see this erosion happening in this very thread.  Believe it or not, marriage isn't just about love.  You can be in love and not be married.  For those who are asking, "Will legalizing gay marriage make me love my wife less?", I ask them, "Does thefact that gay marriage is not legal make a gay person less in love with their partner?"  Of course not, because the two are not unbreakably related.

The purpose of marraige therefore is misunderstood by those who argue for gay marriage.  They view the world, as most liberal minded people do, as a search for pleasure and gratification, where the self is the center of all things.  Conservatives tend to view the world differently, and put the self behind tradition, which should be passed from generation to generation as a guarantor of stability.

For liberals, marraige is a convenient thing that they can use to force society to accept lifestyles it would otherwise find unacceptable and to sanction their right to personalized bliss.  Conservatives view marriage as an institution with a societal purpose, in this case the primary purpose is to provide legal structures that are condusive to raising children.

In Scandanavia, we see the result of the liberal view winning out.  The number of out-of wedlock births, single parent families, and broken homes is on the rise.  Denmark legalized gay marriage in 1989, Norway inn 1993, and Sweden in 1994.  The result has been a near total collapse of marriage in Scandinavia.  A majority of children born in Denmark have unmarried parents, including 60% of first-born children.  During the nineties, the decade when gay marriage was accepted in Norway and Sweden, the rates for out of wedlock birth rose from 39% to 50% and 49% to 54% respectively.  This all happened during a decade when American out of wedlock birth rates leveled off.  In fact, Sweden (54%), Norway (49%), and Denmark (46%) represent the second, third, and fourth highest rates of illegitimacy in the industrialized world.  Only Iceland is higher.  For the record, the US has a rate of 32%.  It can be said that in Scandanavia, the definition of what is a family no longer focuses on marraige, but on parenthood.  Usually single parenthood, since without marraige the traditional legal bonds that keep father from walking away from their responsibilities are gone.

In other words, gay marriage has destroyed real marriage in Scandinavia in less than a decade.  If this is what you want for America, by all means, suport gay marriage.

Of course they ignore the Bible, but they do not ignore thier own teachings. I am certainly not saying we should use the Bible as our law, but that it is only right that we take a glance at all of the great religious traditions of the world and go from there. As for athiests, they have no moral compass and therefore we cannot use thier beliefs as guidelines for our society. I am not religious in the least, but it is necessary to uphold major the major traditions of our society, such as heterosexual marriage.

I disagree with the statement that atheists have "no moral compass".  Just because one does not believe in a deity does not mean that they do not have an understanding of right and wrong.  The concept of right and wrong does not stem purely out of religion.

That being said, Buddhism does not believe same-gender sexual acts are inherently sinful.  Now, in my experience, Buddhists are some of the most centered and morally upright people I've ever encountered.

I cannot find any non-religious reason to believe that it is wrong to deny 2 consenting adults the right to be married (even if they are the same gender).

We all, without choice, were born with a sinful nature.  And the bible defines every sin within the realm of that innate sinful nature.  That is why we must be born again, not of flesh, but of the Spirit of God.

So, should I have the right to steal, murder and cheat just because I was born with that desire?  Absolutely NOT.

Therefore, since "this all comes down to the nature or nurture argument," the argument appears to be over!

using your superstition and some book written thousands of years ago as arguments related to modern legislation is completely insane.

Your personal belief system is no more or less valid that wiccans or people who think comets are spaceships.

...but you did prove my point in a way.

If homosexuals are 'born gay' then who the hell are you to tell them how to run their lives.

If someone has no deity then why would they behave in appropriate ways? Out of the goodness of thier heart? That was tried, it was called communism, and it didn't work. Buddhists(both Mahayana and Theravada) believe that oral, anal, and manual sex are very wrong, therefore they believe homosexuality is wrong.

funny how this superstitious book written thousands of years ago has this "born that way" out flanked.

And it is easily provable since anyone who has raised kids knows that children don't have to be taught to lie and covet, rather kids do those things naturally.

Certainly, with ALL your smarts, you should be able to outwit such a silly old book.

---


They can run their lives as they see fit, just don't tell me we have to change the definition of marriage just to placate the shame of their perversion.

I dont need to 'oustmart' a silly book that you consider sacred, it is completely irrelevent when it comes to any modern discussion of law in a country founded on the principal that religion is irrelevent

re: perversion
I dont know where to start with this one, but I really think you need some help, you are truly a hateful person

John Ford,
your post was thoughtful (and provocative, even though it may not have been intended that way).  It was said that allowing intermarriage would destroy (or erode) marriage, beginning more than a hundred years ago.  In fact, a statute was passed in Massachusetts in 1913 forbidding state officials from marrying two people who were not allowed to be married in their home states.  There were debates in Boston and Washington and everyelse, but in time, it wasn't the fiery uplifting speeches from supporters that brought about acceptance (by 80+% of the US public according to Gallup) of white and nonwhite marrying, but rather the mundane.  People just got used to the idea.  If a vietnamese woman and her black husband and their little half-breed children moved in next door, would you freak?  I'm guessing not.  My bet is that it will ultimately be the mundane (rather than fiery speeches and court decisions) that bring about acceptance of gay marriage as well.  Just a thought.

angus,

I am not so sure that my argument was widely used to attack interracial marriage back in the day.  I was under the impression that the main objections to interracial marriage were either that it was unnatural for the two to marry or that it would dilute the purity of the white race.

Well, if it is so silly, how did it have this "born that way" argument nailed thousands of years ago?  And why is this silly book's "born that way" conclusion proved completely accurate by simply observing the behavior of every child?

---

Funny how I have never quite figured out the logic of labeling someone "hateful" simply on account of calling homosexual behavior immoral.  Why am I not labeled hateful for my exact same beliefs concerning fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc, etc?

Who is it that loves, is it the one that is consistent, or is it the one being inconsistent?

1Cor 13:4-8 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

It would seem to me that love is consistent; not inconsistent like your logic.

I truly believe that if Jesus were here today he would weep at your kind of narrowminded hateful thinking

Gay people love eachother and are kind and good people. I know many of them including my family members and its people like you that have lost the ability to learn how to love your fellow man.

...i suggest therapy

I think one of the greatest PR tricks in history has been perpetrated by the gay and lesbian movement.  The word "homophobe" means a fear of homosexuals.  If you are opposed to homosexual relationships, then you are labeled as one who fears it.  Fear implies that you are being irrational about it.  There is no word for simply being against homosexual activity being used in common parlance.

Indeed, the purity of the white race has been diluted.  They were right about that.  But I'll assume we agree that it isn't a sound reason to forbid such marriages.  And yes, I may have read some between the lines of your post.  Actually, I got sidetracked with a point about social acceptance being a more significant factor than presidential elections, speeches, etc.  But back to the point, your argument is unsupported.  True, divorce rates in scandanavia are high, just as they are here, but that has more to do with other aspects of individualism than allowance for homosexual couples to wed.  I think it is primarily due to the decrease in arranged marriage.  For example, in California well over half of all marriages end in divorce (even though this state has specifically passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman!) whereas the divorce rate in India is about 1 in 20 marriages.  So, if you want to turn back that clock, you need to push for family-arranged marriages.  It would probably lower the divorce rate.  But lowering the divorce rate isn't really the goal, is it?  At least I thought the goal was about federalism.  Respecting the constitution.  The constitution gives the commonwealth of massachusetts the right to marry gays just as it gives the state of california the right to define marriage as a one man/one woman thing.  Do you disagree?

CaliforniaDreamer, I don't know whether jesus would weep for you, but my assumption is that the metaphor about hypocrisy and casting stones would certainly be apt in this case.  you'll come across as much less educated than you probably are if you refer to the world's all-time best-selling book as "silly"  Just a thought.  Dry maybe.  Boring definitely.  But not silly.  You don't want to come accross the way some republicans do when they dismiss the NYT as a "liberal rag" do you?  And you certainly don't want to come across like a book-burner opposed to religious freedom, I assume.

How does referring to certain sexual settings as sin equate to making a judgment on whether someone is loving or kind to their partner?  How did you make that jump in logic?

Do you think just because I view fornication as sin I am making a judgment that fornicators are hateful and unkind?

Jesus spoke against sexual immorality and commanded an adulterous woman to stop sinning.  And the account NEVER states that Jesus made a judgment as to whether the woman was loving or not.  He simply instructed her to leave her life of sin.

As far as me needing therapy…where is the error of my logic?

Agreed, such labeling is very inconsistent and hypocritical.  Notice they don't assign phobias when someone speaks out against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, witchcraft, etc, etc.

the book is not silly, I know quite a lot about it having gone to catholic school for 13 years.

What is silly is to use a text based on a faith as an argument for modern legislation. This kind of theocracy is what we shook off centuries ago.


And this issue hits very close to home with me. And it really pisses me off when someone equates being gay with adultary or even murder. I am the uncle to a little girl who is being raised by two women, who are the most loving caring people I know. And to have anyone say that some book written centuries ago legitimizes society denying them their rights is 'silly'. And when someone calls my sister (or my cousin or one of my best friends) 'perverted' I can only think that Jesus would be appalled that they havent learned to love thy neighbors

RE: Fornicators
...hey everyone needs a hobby, I suggest you try it

I'll not touch on homosexuality... California Dreamer seems to be doing a good juob with it :)

Re: Witchcraft...

So you're anti-Wicca, too?

Huh? This is ridiculously funny. First of all, we don't have gay marriage in Sweden - yet. We will probably have it soon since all political parties except for the Christian Democrats are for it, as is 65% of the population, but right now we have civil unions.

Secondly, as to "out-of wedlock births, single parent families, and broken homes", it has nothing to do at all with gay marriage. It's about modern lifestyle - people change partners more often and don't want to tie themselves to somebody for the rest of their lifes.

So then, by your definition, calling someone a pervert shows that you don't love your neighbor, and that Jesus would be appalled by such name-calling?

If you really believe that, then I would STRONGLY suggest you get a refund on your 13 years of Catholic schooling because they failed to point out to you that Jesus called an entire generation "perverse", yet he died for their sins....proving that equating the pointing out of perversion with not loving your neighbors is a product of your imagination.
 

Yeah, and he is advising people to try fornication too.

----


I make it my duty to accept any action as "clean" as long it as it doesn't trangress what is clearly labeled as sin in the NT.  I'm not going to tell you how to dress or what to eat or how long your hair should be because the NT doesn't label such actions as sinful.  But, it does define "sin" and it says that sin is "obvious".

Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature ARE OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Noting that Iceland is the highest, isn't it interesting that four countries with very similar Scandinavian cultures all had this shift, despite whether or not they allow gay marriage (Iceland)?  Perhaps their society as a whole places less emphasis on marriage and more on legal bonds, but that doesn't mean that this is because of allowing gay marriage.

I see you noting that gays started joining in civil unions in this time period.  Also during this time period, out of wedlock births increased somewhat.  I still don't see the link.  

In fact, if these gays were the cause of women getting pregnant outside of marriage, I think the effect wouldn't be so instantaneous.  Your argument is that it de-emphasizes the traditional values, which is more of a gradual occurence over many decades.  Were the out of wedlock births increasing before Sweden legalized it mid-way through the 90's?  Isn't it also interesting to note that before they did even that, that their out of wedlock births were still extremely high?  Wouldn't that require another variable acting on it other than gay marriage?

I thought we left all the people blathering on about 'fornicators' and 'sinners' back in the 19th century.

what is sad is that the 21st Century Republican party still embraces these people and lets them write the party platform.

Hopefully soon the "Swarzenegger Wing" win the fight for the soul of the party, otherwise within 50 years the Republicans are going to go the way of the 'Whigs'

the 'schwarzennegger wing'??  (i.e., the opportunistic, no-talent hacks waiting for a party to join?)  no thanks.  The religious right may be a minor annoyance.  But the Shallow Right is a major one.  Schwarzennegger can ride out on the same opportunistic horse he rode in on.  Well, if he was John Wayne he would, I guess in his case he'll ride out on Arianna Huffington's big polluted head.  Either way, good riddance.

I don't know, I think the erosion of marriage began before same-sex weddings were even an issue -- and a continual erosion of marriage will certainly not be sue to same-sex weddings being an issue.

Everyone would shut up if we just took away all governmental benefits from marriage period, then the gays wouldn't be able to complain, and marriage, a traditon that IS held sacred by the churches (and always will be), would not be seen as something as trivial as receiving social security benefits for whoever is involved.

It's no surprise you find the mere notion of "sin" and “sinners” quaint, outdated and hateful.  But Christ Jesus was so concerned with sin; he died so that we sinners could overcome it.  As it is written: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom 5:8

And far as the homosexuals or anyone else in your family is concerned...You claim that pointing out sin to them would be hateful, but isn’t real love demonstrated by the willingness to confront and help someone overcome their weaknesses?

Noah loved his family enough to build an ark in order to save them.  What are you doing to save yours?  

Teach your children well
Their father's hell did slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by

Don't you ever ask them why
If they told you, you will cry
So just look at them and sigh
And know they love you

  --crosby, stills, nash, young

angus,

I do disagree about federalism, I think national problems require antional solutions, just on principle.  Furthermore, deferring to the states on this particular issue is no solution at all, since the Full Faith and Credit Clause requries California to honor gay marriages conducted in Massachussetts, effectively neutralizing California's own laws.  The Defense Of Marraige Act currently subverts this contitutional clause.  The DOMA, in my view, is unconstitutional, and as soon as it is rightfully struck down (it is only a matter of time before it faces a serious challenge in the courts) the rights of states will be washed away.

We all need to accept that either a Constitutional Amendment be adopted as a national solution, or the national solution will for all intents and purposes be a national legalization of gay marriage, since all states will soon be forced to recognize the marriages performed is Massachussetts.

On the point about arranged marriage, we are always in a struggle to maintain a balance between liberty nd stability.  For conservatives, this is especially difficult, since we value both.  Liberals have an easier time, sicne they tend to value liberty much more.  I think the tradeoff when we as a society abandoned arranged marriage was worth it.  Even without arranged marriage, divorce rates remained low until the last thirty years or so.  The slight loss of stability was worth the massive gain in liberty.  However, the gain to be made by legalizing gay marriage seems very small and will only be experienced at all by a small sector of the population.  The loss, however, will be rather large, as divorce rates rise after having leveled off in the 1990s and children will then be more likely to be raised in single income households.  Its a tradeoff, as with most things, and I don't think it is worth it.

First of all, there is almost no distinction between marriage and civil unions.  You have, in effect, legalized gay marrige by legalizing civil unions, it's the same thing.

In America, we also have a "modern" lifestyle.  The difference is that our illegitimacy rate is 22% lower than yours.  It is simply a denial of reality to say that a fundamental legal change in your definition of what a family is has had no impact on the behavior of Swedish families.

Dude...why are you quoting passages out of some book as if that proves your point.

Harry Potter is a big seller, should I run my life by that?


And I love my family members...that is how I love them. Call me crazy but I think calling them immoral fornicating sinners isnt really 'love', in fact the last time I looked that is called 'hate' and dont try dressing it up any other way.

If you had a son who was gay would you tell him he is an immoral sinner. Its people like you that is the reason gay kids are far more likely than straight kids to attempt suicide...which I imagine you are happy with since they are evil sinners

Nicely put. I think no-fault divorce laws had something to do with the erosion of marriage as well...

Oh yeah.

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

I'm listening John D, but what else have you got for me besides polygamy? And it seems to be that gay marriage supporters would drop the argument if government wasn't involved.

not to picky on what mormons call gentiles, but isn't there a compelling argument in favor of polygamy?  And in any case, this is so far off-topic.  that's the problem.  I think there are those who really argue that a change in definition alters your own marriage, like maybe the way grade-inflation devalues your own degree.  but in the latter case, it's easy to see (employers know BU grads are flaky, they look into it and see that BU grads all get As, etc., etc.) but in the former case it's really a specious argument, at best.  How, beyond the intriguing but irrelevant stats you mention, does it devalue a heteromarriage?  I'm really curious.  I'm about to be married, by the way, to a straight woman, and she's ever so slightly less understanding about this issue than I, but can't really make the case, either, against homomarriage to my satisfaction.  then again, who really cares?  Do you really honestly expect me to believe, if you're really straight, that all this bothers you?

Because that is the way Jesus taught truth; and since I am a disciple of Jesus, I try to imitate his pattern of teaching.

---


Love requires confrontation of wrongs:

1Cor 13:6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

2Cor 7:8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it--I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while-- 9yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.


---


If you had a son addicted to drugs, would you sweep it under the rug by simply "loving" him, or would you demonstrate your love by spurring him to overcome his bad habit?

---



I know...I know...and you also think confronting a drunk of their alcoholism equates to 'hate'...and you also think Jesus was hateful every time he spoke about sin...and you also think Jesus was hateful in dying for our sins.

Why don't you just admit that you hate everything that Jesus stood for, just like those who killed him?

Go argue with these verses; I'm tired or arguing with someone who claims correction is not a part of love:

Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, REBUKE him, and if he repents, forgive him." (spoken by Jesus Christ)

Pro 27:5 Open REBUKE is better than secret LOVE. 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Rev 3:19 Those whom I LOVE I REBUKE and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

It does bother me, because I have become quite convinced by the stats that gay marriage will lead to more out of wedlock births, shich I believe will lead to more child poverty.

(yawn)

I thought there might be a serious discussion going on here.  Guess not.

I am reminded of a qutoe that my Jesuit mentor quoted to me when I realised I was an atheist
"some of the most christian people I have met are not Christians"
- Gahndi

I guess according to you, since I love my sister, I hate Jesus.

how dare you equate my family members with alchoholics, murderers, thieves etc. You are the one who needs a readjustement, in your tolerance for others.

throw all the stuff you want from any book you want, it doesnt change the fact that you think you have some right to tell other people how to live their lives and that the way they love is invalid and that society should shun them....not very christian of you.

No, nothing too serious.  Just the price of sin being death.  Go back to sleep...

Eph 5:14 "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

There could be near total anarchy in the marriage arena.  Anyone could become "married" to almost anyone (or even anything) since the government couldn't tell them, "No stupid, you don't get to marry your cat!"  More common will be incestuous and polyamorous marriages, but interspecies marriage could actually happen.

Courts, when dealing with child custody issues, would still have to discern what constituted an immediate family.  They'd have little to go on, since they don't recognize marriages.  Today, marriage is still the legal core of the family.  If the government was not involved in marriage, it would become very difficult.

Issues would arise involving inheritances and next of kin (if the government doesn't recognize your marriage, your spouse would not have any survivors benefits).  If courts tried to go on church issued marriages for next of kin, the courts would have to pick and choose what "marriages" they recognized.  Someone could legally be married to two people because it is up to the churches who is and is not married, so who is the next of kin?

Secular people may want to get married, but not by any particular church.  Most secular people are married by a justice of the peace or a judge, but the government would not be involved in such things.  "By the power vested in me by the state of (insert state here), I now pronounce you..." wouldn't be true anymore.  There is no such power vested in them.  So secular folk who want to marry would find some friend or something to marry them, and courts deciding custody cases would have difficulty dealing with weddings performed by a guy off the street.

Divorce would become messy.  Churches may grant divorces, but again, what of those who are unaffiliated?  Who is to settle such a dispute?  Today, the government does, but if the state is not involved with marriages, who will settle the dispute?

The government must be involved with marriage.  They must define it, litigate disputes within it, and set the rules for ending it.  Otherwise, we will have a libertarian anarchy.

I thought angus, nation, and I were having a pretty serious discussion about the issues.  I haven't really been following the discussion between Dreamer and jmf, but they seem to be taking it seriously.

well I am done...there is no point in arguing against faith.

I have no issue against faith...I just wish people kept in where it belonged, in their own homes and places of worship.

I see your point, but I like to give the churches more credit than that. Do you actually believe a real church would marry a man and an animal? Good point, but I believe a definition could be made. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, though.
Very good points made there. Alright, I'll re-think my argument, heh.
Good argument. I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

I don't really agree, I think changes in the legal definition of marriage will inevitably change people's behavior within and towards the institution of marriage.

If you are trying to say that I am not acting as a true Christian, then please point out to me where I have deviated from Christ's teaching.

---


No, I never said that.  You said that pointing out one's sin is hate, and I responded by proving that love includes rebuking.  And I proved it from Jesus' own words.  

What exactly do you think of this statement from Jesus:

Luke 17:3 If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

---


Well then, since you sir are so self-righteous as to not dare associate you and your family with sin, I'll equate myself and my own family with every sin listed in the bible.  I don't mind at all if me and my family are labeled sinners, for it is written, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst (1Tim 1:15)."

You call me intolerant because I name sin, but I am not ashamed to have myself and my family labeled as 'sinners' along with all the alcoholics, murderers, and thieves.   Yet you won't even 'dare' to allow you and your family to be numbered with them?!

---


It is perfectly Christian of me to include 'rebuke' as part of the definition of love, in spite of your wayward opinion that I don't have the right to preach the gospel.

I'll write out my whole argument tomorrow cause' right now I'm waay too tired. It is 2 AM here, heh. But be prepared!

This argument just amazes me.  Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong for religious reasons, how can you support imposing those religious beliefs on others?

Wouldn't a change in the legal definition of marriage equate to forcing a religious belief upon society?

Also, we currently don't allow bigamy based on the fact that Christianity teaches against it, paying no attention to the fact that Judaism and Islam accept such behavior.

In fact, we declared our independence from England based on a religious belief that God has given the right to be free.

well, except that two men cannot have children, and neither can two women, so how can such pairings lead to more births at all?  I say again, there's a disconnect between your statistics and your conclusions.  See, Jmfcst (and Brambila, I think) base their argument on Sin.  Fine, I can accept it.  For example, my parents raised me to believe capital punishment was a great crime against humanity.  That is a moralist view and I don't try to defend it rationally, I simply point out that I "feel" it is "wrong."   It would be disingenuous of me to try to pull up cost analyses to support my objections, when my philosophical objection is dearer to me than any statistic.  (This is why I have stopped arguing this point with them.  They're sold on their objections deeply and culturally, and I respect their freedoms to maintain such objections, and if a majority of my countrymen elect legislators who hold such objections, I will accept that.)  But that's a far cry from pathos posing as logos.  I've said before that I accept pathos and ethos as reasonable modes of debate.  Logos is superior, or so we've all been taught, but sometimes you just can't get that, and it's okay.  Your attempt to sell the idea logically isn't working.  If you have deeply held moral or philosophical objections to homosexuality in general, as some posters boldly and honestly admit, then good for you.  As President Bush says about other things and I gratuitously apply here, "We just need to change hearts and minds.  That takes time."

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.


Umm ... no, actually the case against legal bigamy is that it would mean that an individual could the legally deceive their spouse(s) and engage in multiple marriages.


Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

Wakie,
There is none.  This is a rare point of agreement.  Refreshing.  :)

OK, so then, retaining the current definition of marriage doesn't force homosexuals to believe gay marriage is wrong.  Correct?

Just as outlawing murder does NOT force people to believe murder is wrong.  The law against murder couldn't care less about one's personally religious belief concerning murder; the law simply says don't do it.

---



The SCOTUS recognized the Christian origin of laws against bigamy:

"However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation...bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

---



Again, I'll quote the following: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation..." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

---


Why?  The SCOTUS doesn't consider whether a law has its reason based in religion, it just makes sure the law doesn't promote religion.  Your search criteria has nothing to do with judicial review.

It doesn't force them to change their beliefs but it does limit their rights based on the beliefs of others (thereby imposing the religious will of others upon them).


This is a ridiculous comparison.  Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults.  Murder involves 1 person imposing their will on another person.


I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

I find it interesting though that you cite a ruling authored by a man appointed to the SCOTUS in 1863.


And I'll agree that religious practice is subject to the rule of law.  However, laws should be made if they make sense, not just because some gray hairs don't like the idea of homosexuality.  This is why I ask for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.


My argument is that the law is idiotic.  Imagine Utah passing a law which stated that non-Mormon couples cannot be married there.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet... :)

well he went from sweden to switzerland in one sentance.......

I don't remember ever hearing of the right to marry the same sex.  Nor did the framers of the constitution ever hear of that right.

Again, the laws reflect the beliefs of the people, regardless of the origin of the beliefs.  The only thing that matters is if the law is in agreement with the constitution.

---



Wasn't comparing gays with murder.  I was simply showing how laws aren't intended to impose beliefs, rather they're simply intended to restrict certain actions.

---


1) No one would argue at the time that statement was made that American wasn't a "Christian country".
2) Also, is he not citing the wisdom of Christian countries?

---


Well, I found it difficult finding a more recent case concerning bigamy.  But here is a reference to bigamy in Lawrence v. Texas:

"But society always . . . makes these moral judgments.  Why is this different from bigamy?" (Scalia)

FYI, I agreed with the Lawrence ruling striking down government interference in the bedroom (or at least I agree we should amend the constitution to protect the privacy of the bedroom), but I agree with Scalia's point that many laws have origins in moral judgments.

---


The determination of whether a law makes sense if left to the people (either by elected representation or jury nullification), not to the courts.

---


Granted such a law would be idiotic, but it is NOT the place of the court to determine the sanity of the will of the people.

Also, impressive. And the divorce rate going up...I had no idea, I wonder why this national crisis of ours isn't being discussed in Sweden at all. :)

It's nice, btw, to see one of Ryan's old threads getting digged up like this.

jmfcst, what I'm looking for is a rationale for the law.  Something which goes beyond just "God says don't do that".  I would just like someone who is opposed to gay marriage explain to me why they are opposed to it.  And to do it WITHOUT invoking religion.  Every other law can be explained without invoking religion.  Why is this one different?

Now, back to our show ...


The framers also did not hear of semi-automatic weapons.  But interestingly enough many people feel the right to possess them is protected by the Constitution.


And I would argue that it is not.  It is denying the religious freedoms of certain individuals.


1) Yes, but the composition of this nation has drastically changed.
2) He is citing the wisdom of civilized countries.  Keep in mind that great wisdom has come from non-Christian nations too.  I don't think he is saying all law comes from Christianity.  In fact, if I remember correctly, the first civilization with a code of laws were the Sumerians who were polytheistic pagans.

You did legalize Civil Unions, which is the same thing.  lidaker tried to point this same thing out to me earlier, playing semantics, but the fact remains that you guys have damaged your society by changing age old institutions.  Divorce rates are up, so are out of wedlock birhts, and so are the rates of children in single parent families.

I didn't say that gays would produce children out of wedlock.  I also didn't say that there would be more births in general.  I said that legalizing gay marriage changes the legal definition of marriage and by extension will change the way people behave towards the institution and within the institution.

This includes one change in particular- redefining the family in such a way that breaks the link between both marriage and monogamy, and the link between marriage and child rearing.  It is precisely because gays by definition cannot have children that legalizing gay marriage will have this effect.  In fact, this effect has already happenned in Scandanavia.

Once marriage is no longer intertwined with child rearing, marriage will not seem to be an important prerequisite for women who want to have children.  How you could have interpreted my comments to mean that I thought the effect of gay marriage would be a direct one is bewildering, and makes me almost think you didn't read my post very carefully.

I'm not exactly sure which "pathos" you think I have.  It certainly isn't a religious one, since I am not at all religious.  It certainly isn't a blanket redneck homophobia.  Precisely what "pathos" do I have, angus?

John D, I don't think people will actually make this logical connection in their head that since now gays can marry, then they can start having children all the time outside of marriage, since it'll be the norm.

People are already doing that, and have been doing it. Why would legalizing gay marriage (or at least civil unions) make this any worse?

Either surrogate parents will become an institution within marriage, or marriage and child rearing will no longer be connected.  Either way, there is a problem.  I have already explained the problem with the latter.  The problem with the former is that it undermines monogamy as a critical aspect of marriage.  An occaisonal couple who needs a sperm donor does not do this since sperm donors are not an inherent institutional part of traditional marriage, but it would be exactly that in the case of gay marriage.  Here is an actual example from Canada.

A lesbian couple in Ontario asked a friend to be the biological father of their child.  Now, the two women and the sperm donor are petitioning the court to allow the three of them to be recognized as parents.  The judge has even sided with the plaintiffs, though his decision is pending.  He said, "I can't imagine a stronger case for seeking the order you are seeking."  A three-parent family would be the end of marriage, as it has been known by the modern world.  It directly relates to the earlier point regarding polygamy.  If anyone wants to know how the libertarian argument for gay marriage will lead from gay marriage to polygamous or incestuous marriage, here are the mechanics of how it would work.  This is no distant possibility; it is very real and very immediate.

There are other way that monogamy is threatened by gay marriage.

Monogamy is important because the notion of monogamy forms a bond between people in a family.  It builds stability and discipline in children to see that their parents behave in a way that is becoming of adults who must carry great responsibility.  Will gay marriages be as monogamous as traditional marriage?  The answer is no.  This is not a mere stereotype; it is supported by statistical evidence.  In 1998, sociologist Gretchen Steirs, an open lesbian and self-described "queer theorist" did a study called "From This Day Forward" on monogamy in gay versus straight relationships.  Her results are startling.  She focused on men and women who had been "united" in a commitment ceremony.  Nearly 20% of these men said the person they were "united" to was not their only partner at that time.  Only 10% of gay men in the survey said that monogamy was an important aspect of commitment.  This, the vanguard of committed relationships in the gay community does not ease fears that gay unions would undermine monogamy.

Another study from Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, two University of Vermont Psychologists surveyed all 2,300 couples that entered civil unions in Vermont during the first 13 months that the law was in effect (June 1, 2000-June 30, 2001).  Only 50% of gay men in civil unions said that monogamy was an important part of marriage.  Only 34% of gay men outside a civil union said the same.  Compare that with married heterosexual men in the survey, 79% of whom said that monogamy is an important part of marriage.  It is not myth or stereotype that monogamy is less important to gay men than heterosexual men.  This does not mean that gays are bad people, but it does mean that a group of people who do not value monogamy would weaken the link between monogamy and marriage that helps sustain marriage as an institution.

Proponents of gay marriage point out that these numbers are unfair.  The people surveyed are not married, they are just in civil unions, which is different.  On the surface, this point seems reasonable, but that notion is quickly dispelled on further analysis.  The majority of those in civil unions in Vermont are not Vermonters, as the survey points out.  This means that most of the couples surveyed traveled hundreds, maybe thousands of miles to engage in civil unions even when federal law (The Defense of Marriage Act) prohibits their home state from honoring their union.  In other words, these are among the most dedicated, committed gay couples in America, and they still put a significantly lower value on monogamy.

At some point, the proponents of gay marriage will have to acknowledge that gay relationships aren't the same as heterosexual relationships.  This doesn't make then inferior or immoral, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept homosexuals who are friends or family members.  What it does mean is that including them as equal partners in the isntitution of marriage is bad social policy.

why is it all these Republicans want to stop marraige because of theoritical effects on society.

Social engineering doesnt sound like somethign the party of 'personal freedom' should be getting involved in.


It certainly is more palatable than the 'its a sin' argument, but is just as fearfull and hatefull.


why do you people care so much what other people are doing in the privacy of their homes. How can the party of personal freedom and responsibility want to control laws and extend the 'nanny state' in order to engineer monogomy.

Well, gee, I didn't know there was still a debate raging on the destruction to society caused by sexual immorality.  If you want a purely provable scientific argument, then:

Sexually immoral people (as defined by the bible as those having sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman) are less healthy than those abiding by the rules of the bible; for it is an undisputable scientific fact that the sexually immoral have:
1) increased death rates caused by STD's.
2) increased infertility rates caused by STD's.
3) Lower self-esteem.
4) Higher rates of suicide.
5) Higher poverty rates.
6) Higher drop-out rates.

I am shocked that there is still even a debate regarding the provable health benefits of living by the word of God.

---


Because I care about the lives of people, I believe there is intrinsic worth in individuals; therefore, I rebuke, correct, and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction.

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  Monogamous homosexual couples though actually tend to outperform monogamous heterosexual couples in these areas.  Nonetheless, a big part of marriage (whether it is heterosexual or homosexual) is monogamy.  Marriage promotes and encourages it.  There is something about the title ... the ceremony ... which reinforces to people that this is the person they will be with the rest of their life.  That, AND it adds a cost to cheating.

Realizing this, one would think you would be in favor of homosexual marriage.  People will be gay or straight regardless of legislation.  All we're talking about here is whether they can engage in an activity which will encourage them to be monogamous.

No, homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, regardless of how promiscuous.  Also, have you ever heard of a virgin gay wedding?

Yes, I have Jmfcst. It was a white wedding, but judging by the physical appearance of the bride, I cannot be shocked about their virginity.

Ouch.... :)

You know I never bother to ask the couple at a wedding about their sexual history.  And that includes both hetero and homo sexual couples.

Well, you know what they say is the source of virgin wool...ugly sheep.

I started thinking about those Freshman English (composition and rhetoric) voices after CarlHayden posted something about it.  I forget where or when he did, but it was along the lines of saying someone's argument was "pathetic" as in the original meaning.  I realized most of my arguments are pathetic, in that they come from my heart, my gut.  They're passionate.  I was on the debate club (apparently called "forensics team" in Maryland) in high school and did very well with pathos, and have the medals and trophies to prove it, thankyouverymuch.  So don't take it as an insult when someone says you're using pathos, rather than logos, to make a point.  Sometimes an emotional appeal is just what's needed.  For example, if Al Gore had a pulse, he just may have won last time.  Bush knows about pathos and peppers his speech with words like "love" and "heart" very often.  When I read your posts about this issue, it comes accross to me as full of emotional appeal.  I like it.  Really.  I just don't agree with it.  

And I don't think I called you a homophobe.  I agree with jmfcst's point that we bandy about such hateful words far too often.  This isn't coming from political correctness by the way, just plain old-fashioned cultural sensitivity.  There is a difference.  My point was primarily that you haven't provided sufficient evidence that allowing homosexual marriage will erode heterosexual ones, bring about unwanted pregnancies, or increase the divorce rate.  Yes, it's true that we'd redefine something.  I'm not one of these folks who'll try to blow smoke up your ass by saying otherwise.  But anything that follows is just your speculation, and the Scandanavian statistics you cited bear no relevance to your speculation because, as has been pointed out, they're not even doing gay marriage.  Our divorce rates will be high as long as we allow people the freedom to marry whomever they want.  You want me to guarantee that I'll stay married forever?  Then force me to marry a white, middle-class, second-generation american with similar sociopolitical and economic philosophy and similar upbringing.  Short of that, you'll have to deal with the downside, as well as the upside, of freedom.  But at least apply those freedoms evenly to all, not just to straight people.

I didn't say you called me a homophobe, I specifically said the opposite.  You neither called me a homophobe nor a religious zealot, the two most common slanders against opponents of gay marriage.

Since you aren't implying either of those things, what exactly IS the deep seeded mental pathology that compels me to discard reason and rational thought in favor of an emotion-based position?

Wanna get me to play amateur pop psychologist?!  OOHH, you know I love to do that.  Well, you're very concerned about how our society is running itself into a free-for-all.  Imagine what the world would be like if every single human was a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College.  Ouch!  Too difficult, right?  Painful, right?  Yeah, baby, I feel the same way.  18-year-old kids have no idea how to "create" majors and such fluffy free-flowing touchy-feely approaches to indoctrination are breeding grounds for intellectual laziness.  You and I probably agree here.  But alas, that has nothing to do with gay marriage.  I think, and I could be way off base, that you see this as an extension of that same idea.  That it's all about what the definition of what "is" is.  I really don't.  I see the gay marriage dispute much like the interracial marriage dispute of the early 20th Century.  These people can't help being gay (although any listenener of NPR this fine morning would have heard otherwise, that the production of prostaglandins, which is inhibited by aspirin, for example, may have something to do with it, but that's a little beyond the scope of my current harangue) and therefore should be treated like any demographic:  Equally.  Can you marry any bimbo you want?  (provided she's not your sister, that is)  Well, I can too.  But then, the presupposition is that we want to marry chicks.  But what if we were into men.  Nice big strong hairy hard-pectoral barge-toting, bail-lifting fire-fighting macho men!  Well, what the .  Let 'em.  And it is here where we disagree.  I wasn't kidding about getting married in ten days.  And I wasn't kidding about wanting serious evidence that my heteromarriage will be somehow undermined by poofsters being legally wed.  You know, if we change our minds and want to split, we'll have to spend oodles of money and time and stress getting legally divorce.  Why shouldn't the butt-pirates and rug-munchers of the world be saddled with the same responsibilities (and rights!) as we have?

Oh, and I had about a half-bottle of Merlot with my lunch, so watch out  ;)

I still cant reconcile the Republican need to social engineer marraige

but totally against the social engineering of affirmative action and other democratic programs.

and totally against any restrictions on the ownership and use of guns

If you believe the people should be free to make their own choices and do what they please...they why step in here and legislate morality. And why limit it to one group? What is it about gay people that is such a clear and present danger? why do you hate them so much?

yeah, but democrats and republicans out here don't really have the hard in-your-face disagreements that they have back east.  You and I have a great deal more issue-agreemnet, for example than Nym90 and 8Iron.  It's been repeatedly pointed out how shallow we are.  If it hadn't been for that asshole Lincoln and the goddamned unionist republicans, we'd probably be forming our own little republic by now.  Wanna try it?  C'mon, let's really test Bush's resolve.  Whaddya ya say, hoss?

I googled it, but I can't find any stats on the number of hetero-marriage that had virgin weddings.  But I have heard the percentage is around 40%.

"The people" have made a choice, and that choice is to define marriage in agreement with what Christianity teaches to be the definition of marriage.

Here they have.  (except Mayor Newsom)  I'm not sure whether the Texas legislature has though.  The problem in Massachusetts (if it's even a problem) is that "the people" chose not to deal with it, so a court dealt with it for them.  You have to wonder whether Alexander Hamilton wasn't right.  Given the choice, the people don't always make the right ones, but then that's how majority rule works.  If we're going to run the republic in a democratic fashion, we have to accept the consequences.  Will you?

and the 'people' are against the silly ammendment.

And the long term trend in all polls is towards acceptance. I would bet any amount of money that within 10 years CA will reverse the vote it made years ago....and as Californica goes, so goes the rest of the country...eventually


...and if the rest of the country doesnt wise up...then we will form our own Republic...who needs ya

I agree that in the long term it will hurt the GOP if the party bosses want to pick up this cause.  But short term, opebo may just be right about the benefit of hammering these wedge issues into the ground.  Still, it seems so Nixonian.

That's because most people don't want to bother with wading through the gutter.

---


Agreed, but that is not news.  The bible has already painted a picture of the end-times as being filled with homosexuality.

Angus--

Good point about sharper disagreements in the East. I completely agree, the parties here in Michigan are probably more divided than in California. Though there are a lot of moderates in both parties still too, neither NineIron or myself are necessarily representative of our parties in Michigan.

Overall, in the Midwest, both parties are probably more socially conservative but more economically liberal than their California counterparts. Of the four basic regions of the country (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) the Northeast is the most liberal, the South the most conservative, the Midwest the most populist, and the West the most libertarian, I'd say.

yeah, I was intrigued by a post made by the member formerly known as realpolitik.  Something like (and you know I never get direct quotes right), but something like, "There isn't a north/south difference between the political cultures in the US anymore.  The difference is East/West.  You'll see in a few years that difference will become more pronounced."  Of course, he didn't expound on it, and I didn't ask, at the time, but I remember thinking that same thing without prior consultation.  When the GOP gets its act together and becomes more of the pre-Nixon GOP, and when the dems get their act together and becomes the leftist organization that it was pre-Clinton, you'll see a Blue western half and Red eastern half of the country map, with the swing states in the middle, and won and lost on real economic issues (rather than the trivial wedge issues we bicker about now.)

The point on popular opinion is still invalid. The whole point of laws is to protect the minority from majority opression, once again something that Republicans of all people should be understanding of.

On Sweden, I once again thank those who point out our national crisis. I was not at all aware of the sharp increase in divorces since we legalized civil unions, what was it (Lidaker?) a year ago or so? I do know that the yuong generation is the most religious and valueing of morals in decades, but I guess that doesn't fit your prejudice. But I have felt a little less moral since we allowed gays to engage in civil unions, I guess it works like a plague or something... :P

Over half of first born children in Sweden are born out of wedlock.  Sweden has a problem.

You pointed out that this problem exists throughout Scandinavia, including countries that haven't legalized gay marriage.

The leading variable in that wedlock statistic is that plenty of loving couples in Sweden have decided to merely get a civil union and not be officially married by the church.

NO, only in three countries that recognize either gay marriage or civil unions (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) have had rapidly rising illegitimacy rates.  Finland has no such problem.

I was referring to Iceland.   Anyway, I'm too lazy, but I'm interested in the numbers in Canada and Belgium since it was legalized in both of those.

And it seems like those rates were rapidly rising even before gay marriage was legalized.  I simply see "X happened, Y happened" rather than "X caused Y" here.  I could argue that more seagulls flew over Stockholm in the 90s than any other year, and that out of birth wedlocks also increased but that doesn't prove that one caused the other.

I have a problem with those that use the bible argument.

By the way before you start accusing me of being an atheist or anti-Christian I'm not in fact I am a Christian.

Anyway the problem I have with the argument is those that say the bible says its wrong so it must be wrong, I don't agree with that argument.  We are in different times.  Parts of the bible call for slaves to obey their masters, wives to submit to their husbands, for the husband to be in charge of the relationship and not a 50/50 partnership.

So those that say gay marriage is wrong because the bible says being gay is wrong, well do you think slavery is right?  Or the man controlling everything instead of having an equal partnership is right??

72% of Swedish children aged 1-17 live with both their biological parents. I don't know how this relate to other countries though. Children born out of wedlock in the sense that they have never lived with both their parents has risen like this:

1966-1975: 2.1%

1976-1985: 3.1%

1999:          4.8%

I will look for more stats later...the point remains that the notion that there has been a sharp increase in recent years due to the legalization of civil unions is utterly ridiculous.

The rate of first born children being born out of wedlock is up 5% since civil unions were legalized.  You can judge for yourself whether that is a sharp increase or a minor one.  What isn't subjective is whether the rate of illegitimacy is higher or not.  It is higher, check with Eurostat, they have a website and they are a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

?

I think comparing the data for Belgium and Canada would  be far more informative.  Too lazy to do it though.

Ok, then tell us from what acts Jesus was commanding people to repent?

---


Are we or are we not still under the New Covenant?  And if we are, how did you conclude that rules of the New Covenant changed and who do you think changed them?

---


The NT did NOT state that slavery was right.  In fact, an entire book of the NT is set aside on the subject with Paul instructing a slave owner (Philemon) "to do what you ought to do" and give the slave (Onesimus) his freedom.

---


I see you have a problem accepting the fact that God created Eve to be a help-mate for Adam.   And I guess you have a problem with the bible comparing the authority between Christ and the Church to the authority between a husband and a wife...or maybe  you think the rules have changed and the Church now is in a 50-50 relationship with Christ so that the Church no longer has to obey Christ.

You need to read the verses in the bible that include the word "covenant".  I trust you will find that whenever God makes a covenant, he does NOT change the rules of the covenant.

---


Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus himself quote scripture to prove right from wrong?  Do you have a problem with Christ quoting scripture?  Aren't you, a Christian, supposed to be imitating Christ?

Did it express exactly that slavery was right??  Well no, but telling slaves to obey their masters???

It said that wives should SUBMIT to their husbands.  Basically that husbands should own their wife.  Now we have come past that haven't we??  Or do you honestly think you should own your wife?? and that she should have to submit to you??  How backwards is that???

Slaves obeying their masters is NOT condoning slavery.  It simply means that if you yourself are a slave, then pour yourself into your work, knowing that it is Christ whom you serve.  It also says that "if you can gain your freedom, do so." (1Cor 7:21)

--



Submitting doesn't mean being owned, it simply means obeying.  I obey a lot of things (city law, county law, state law, federal law, my boss), but that doesn't mean that I am owned by these things.  For no one owns me except Christ.

---

Also, you failed to respond to my question:  Are we still under the authority of the New Covenant?  If so, then how did you conclude that the laws of the covenant have been changed?


You also failed to respond to this question:


Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus himself quote scripture to prove right from wrong?  Do you have a problem with Christ quoting scripture?  Aren't you, a Christian, supposed to be imitating Christ?

The problem is when people use the bible as a way to hate or deny people rights.  For wives submitting to your husbands, that basically means owning, obeying that what a husband says goes.  That line of thinking is so backward.  My point is this the general theme of the bible is good, but to believe things as so black & white word for word is wrong because when you look at various passages of the bible some of them make absoltley no sense in today's world and go against what we stand for as a country such as equal rights

So, then, you believe the Apostle Paul was being hateful and denying women rights when he instructed women to follow the Garden of Eden pattern by submitting to their husbands?

And you also believe the same of the Apostle Peter?

I don't know if I would say hateful.  What I am saying is times have changed.  While the general message of the bible as a whole is a good message not everything that is in the bible is relevant 2,000 years later because times have changed.  The way the world worked back then is different than the way the world works now.  Just because it was ok for men to control their wives back then, doesn't make it ok for men to control their wives now, and the same thing is true in certain other issues today.  Overall concept, good, but that does not mean that everything in the bible is correct 2000 years later

1st) Human nature has NOT changed since the garden, that is why God's word is revelant to this day.

2nd) It was not society that placed man as the head of the woman, rather it was God himself:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

3rd)  Since it was God himself who put a wife in submission to her husband, who is telling you that God changed his rules?

the bible in part is the writer's interpretation of God's word, not exactly God words himseelf.  to believe a man should control is wife is just plain SAD.  What do you think the wives job is.  To cook, clean & be in the kitchen barefoot & Pregnant???  If it was up to you would you ban women from the workplace??  Ban women from voting???

That's not what Jesus and the Apostles believed:

Jesus himself said "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)...which means it can not fail - it is flawless.

Paul said "All Scripture is God­breathed" (2Tim 3:16)...meaning that all scripture is inspired by God and is the written word of God.

---


No, what is sad is that you have allowed yourself to give way to your fear (2Pet 3:6).

---


The bible gives the picture of a "wife of noble character" in Proverbs 31:10-31 and her virtues include:

1) gains the confidence of her husband
2) brings her husband good and not harm
3) is eager to work
4) wakes before dawn and works til after dark
5) Cares for the needs of her family
6) has her own entrepreneurial business
7) she makes sure her business is profitable
8...cares for the poor
9) clothes herself with strength and dignity
10) speaks words of wisdom
11) fears the Lord

---


No, I wouldn't ban these things.  Nor do these rights have anything to do with God commanding a wife to submit to her husband.

I wrote this thinking you were a women.  Then I read your profile- your a 'male'!  So here is some advice:

1) Get control of your imagination by studying the word of God.  Then you won't be tossed to and fro by fine sounding arguments.

2) God has given you, as a man, certain responsiblilities.  Therefore, obey God and be the type of man he is asking you to be.  Stop listening to world, it wants to change you into something you're not.

You would actually believe EUrostat? Their executive director got arrested last year for corruption...their reports use themselves as sources, which is ridiculous. And they have a tendency to only publuish their material in French...I wouldn't trust them to do anything whatsoever right.

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:
 
      .
 
"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)
 
     
Legal Marriage
Civil Unions
No Legal Recognition  
  % % %  
   ALL -- 28 - 29 - 40  
   Republicans -- 13 - 33 - 53  
   Democrats -- 32 - 28 - 36  
   Independents -- 37 - 27 - 33  
   18-29 years -- 43 - 32 - 25  
   30-44 -- 29 - 25 - 44  
   45-64 -- 26 - 29 - 41  
   65 & older -- 12 - 32 - 51  
   Northeast -- 35 - 31 - 33  
   Midwest -- 26 - 23 - 47  
   South -- 23 - 26 - 48  
   West -- 31 -  36 - 28

Hooray for civil unions!

I've managed to steer clear of this threadline for weeks. Merely posting on it makes me feel, 'dirty'.

But I will say this much: the social right LOST this battle! It doesn't matter what anyone's objections to gay marriage may be, because the Media and a claque of leftist judges in Mass have already made our decision for us.

The social right lost this issue by allowing this debate to proceed to the judiciary, the one branch of government under leftist lock-and-key control.

If the American people, through their state legislatures, could vote, about 60% would rightly vote against any state recognition of gay 'marriage.' The issue would wither on the vine.

I repeat myself: the social right avoided state legislatures and headed directly for the court system. They brought their misfortune on themselves, and the rest of the US, besides.

Yeah, allowing courts to uphold people's rights is really liberal. Man, if we could just allow some majority oppression...why allow property rights and free speech for instance?

But were it for Civil Unions, about 60% of the country would be in support.

Better something than nothing.

In order that you may know what marriage is, and what it isn't, I quote a paragraph from a CHILDREN's encyclopedia on the subject:

"In one form or another marriage has existed as long as civilization itself. Marriage is a universal institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. This union is regulated by society, and society's laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes about the rights and responsibilities of man and woman"


You can't define marriage any simpler than that. And, nowhere in that definition will you find "homosexal". Marriage isn't about homosexuals--it doesn't discriminate against them, it doesn't exclude them, it's not defined by them. Marriage isn't about homosexuals, period!

It doesn't actually say that men and women are joined with each other... :D

But it's a moot point. Words are defined by men, since we make them up. We can change those definitions over time. I have an encyclopedia at home from the 1940s that says negroes have the intelligence of 15-year olds. What does that prove?

"..men and women are joined..."

Adding "to each other" to that phrase could imply men among men and women among women, which has never been recognized in any society throughout time.

I attach particular meaning to words, even if I misspell them occasionally. One's words bear witness to one's soul. And I would never let my words betray me and my soul condemned to dust by implying that relationships among members of the same sex could ever pretend to be marriage.

And comparing modern marriage to 1940s era eugencs is race baiting of the worst sort (and I live in Louisiana, 1/3 black). You're above that.

Well, I am a godless European so I'm not above anything (perhaps a Greek maybe). Homosexuality was tolerated, even viewed as refined in Greece (probably explains their rottenness?) in the Classic era. Have you seen Troy? Ever wondered why Achilles gets so upset when Patroklos dies? Yep, that's why...

My point remains. WE define words. Once upon a time Earth was defined as something flat. Now it isn't. Once upon a time whites were defined as better than blacks. And so on.

Ancient greek aristocracy  regarded homosexuality the same way upper-class Victorian gentlemen did. Get it out of your system as a young kid, then settle down with some bosomy woman named "George" and rear proper children by her. Of course, those upper-class men who remained homosexual past youth were immediately marked for social destruction ('toff', 'fairycake', 'bugger', 'old sod' etc.)

The ancient Greek population, much like the rest of 19th century English society, never conceived of such a thing as a homosexual. Read John Derbyshire, National Review, for a good idea.

And, still no: words have definite meanings, even if they do mutate over time (Ex: network once actually meant the interstices among the interconnections of a net)

Robert Walpole did fairly well despite being a homosexual. And Achilles was viewed as a grown man, I believe.

Words are defined by us. Who decides what words mean? We do. Therefore, if over time we decided to use them in another way, we can. There is nothing odd about that. Definitions of intelligence have changed, for instance. There was a time when behaviour that we now tolerate was viewed as madness. Etc.

I have some advice for you as well

STOP THE HATE.  If you trully believed in god's Word you would not discriminate against others.

2  Welcome to 2004, this is not 0004

Two questions:

1) Since you consider my stand against homosexual behavior as 'hateful', do you also consider 'hateful' my stand against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, and murder?

2) SInce God was the one that set up the command for a wife to submit to her husband, what was the year between 0004 and 2004 in which God changed the very system that he defined?

I love it when people bring up Greece on this issue because it makes my point fairly well.  In ancient Greece, even if a man was gay, he still married a woman and fathered her children.  Marriage was even then about child raising.  Despite being gay, the man would be with a woman in marriage.

For the record:

A gay person doesn't have the right to marry another man, but neither does a straight person.  The only difference is that the gay person wants that right and a straight person doesn't.  There is no disparity; a gay man can still, as in ancient Greece, marry a woman and sire children.

On a similar note:
After the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, former slave owners lost their rights to own slaves.  However, at the same time abolitionists too lost THEIR slave owning rights.  The only difference was that the slave owners wanted that right and the abolitionists did not.

For starters comparing gay marriage to slavery is insane

Secondly yes a gay person can marry a straight person, but thats bot what its avout.  You and I are able to marry the person we love, a gay person wants that same right to marry the person that they love.

But that leads to an interesting question: In ancient Greece, women had no choice of whom they wanted to marry. Daddy could, and usually did, marry his daughter to the town's gay guy if Daddy wanted to gain entrance to the gay guy's (rich) family.

Nowadays, parents don't lease their children for advantageous business relationships anymore. Women are free to marry any guy they wish, within limits. So, what woman would consider marrying a used homosexual?

I would say that it isn't discrimination based upon sexual orientation for the very reason you stated, Rightwingnut. But it is indeed gender discrimination, because the license is denied because of the gender of one of the couple. Therefore, the line of cases starting at Reed v. Reed, applied to marriage in Orr v. Orr and Frontiero v. Richardson, and recently extended to sexual orientation in Lawrence v. Texas make the current marriage laws Constitutionally illegitimate.

I know a lot of girls who would like to marry the gay guys I know.

Marriage's goal is to create a family. If your intention is not creating a family, what's the point of marriage? I don't think gays should marry, and I'm starting to lean toward disallowing people of the opposite sex with no intention to have children (either by adoption or natural) shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage is not just sexual love of eachother, it has to do with loving eachother so much that they want together to have children, who they will love as well. I mean, if they arn't intending on having children, what's the point of marriage? Civil Unions are perfectly fine too.

But I think that heterosexual marriages- even in cases where they have no intention of having children- should be allowed because there's always the possibility of one of them to get pregnant.

Marriage has nothing to do with love.  It is about creating a stable environment for raising a child.  Every messed-up person I know was the product of an unstable developmental environment.

Huh?

Marriage is about stability, not love.

Brambila-

So you'd ban marriages for people who can't have children? Those who are disabled, or too old to have children? If a woman is close to menopause, does she have to provide proof that she still has her period?

Actually, at one time, the mentally retarded, disabled, etc. were banned from marrying.

My father is a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the middle of the chest down, and he got married after becoming one. Why shouldn't my father have been allowed to marry my stepmother?

Because they could not have possibly created any children in need of raising.  I'm not saying that they can't be together, just that they shouldn't be married.

Well, it still helps create a more stable home, regardless of whether or not they have any biological children between them. I'm definitely glad they are married.

What about people who can't have kids of their own but choose to adopt? Should they be allowed to marry?

If a couple will be raising a child, the couple should marry.

Where are you getting this definition from?  Certainly that definition doesn't come from popular opinion.  Are you saying that God meant for marriage to be about stability and not love?

That was the working definition until around 45 years ago.  Funnily enough, the moral decline in this country coincides with the transition of popular opinion regarding marriage as a union of love rather than one of a stable child-raising environment.

That's nonsensical...discrimination is still discrimination. We can always remove all choices but one, that's discriminating against those who want other choices. PLain and simple. Saying that everyone has the same right to vote for the communist party does, for instance, NOT constitute a democratic system.

You haven't written a syllable about my contradiction, Rightwingnut. If you wait much longer, I will take it as a sign that you have conceded the legal framework of your opinion.

No one is arguing that stability is not part of marriage, rather I am contending with you over your separation of “love” from “stability.”  And your statement that 45 years ago people viewed love and marriage as separate instruments is blatantly wrong, if not perverse.

Also, I don’t know what your definition of “morality” is, but it is a historical fact that the Christian scriptures have always presented “stability” as being part of the definition of “love”:

“4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.”(1Cor 13:4-8)

What better picture of stability is there than that?
 

For those who are not able to have children, I think the should be married, becuase there's always a possibility they could concieve- most cases of infertility are not definite. Further, they could always adopt a child.

If somebody who is quadroplegic gets married, he must open up the possibility of having children by adoption at least. Otherwise, I see no reason why they would want to marry. Civil Unions are just as good. I mean, if you're not going to have sex/have children... what's the point?

It isn't your, or anyone else's decision. Who are we to question responsible individuals for their personal choices?

Becuase that's what marriage is for. Marriage is agreeing to love eachother so much that you will unite with that person and have children. But if you have no intention of having children, there really is not point in getting married except having the name, "marriage".

I strongly disagree, for there are reasons to get married other than simply having children:

1Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

*gulp*

I agree with Brambila... in fact I think he's saying exactly what I think on the issue.

Though I would never support any legal restrictions to marriage for this reason, I do think there should be a social standard that marriage is for raising children - whether biological or adopted.  There should be a legal civil union for any couple, regardless of sexual orientation, who want to shack up with benefits... and a societal marriage for couples who are shaping the next generation.

jcmfst, the bible's saying for the sake of avoiding fornication- meaning, premarital sexual itnercourse- to get married. "Fornication" in the bible and greek means illegal sex.

OK, but what's your point, the definition of fornication is not being debated?  Isn't Paul saying one of the reasons to get married is to avoid sinning?

Sure, but the point of fornication is to have children. Remember the story of Onan? Further, if we read the early church fathers like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, they clearly condemn unnatural birth control, and even natural birth control is condemned if not nessecary. The point of sex is to have children, if it's used otherwise it makes the couple into sex toys instead of playing a part in God's miracle of creating life.

Well, this opens up a whole can of worms:

1)Onan was explicitly commanded to be the kinsmen redeemer, but he refused by spilling his seed upon the ground, so God killed him.  Therefore, his punishment had to do with disobeying a direct command, but birth control was simply the method by which he chose to disobey.  If Onan would have disobeyed by other means, like refusing to marry his dead brother’s wife, God would have still killed him for disobeying, but that wouldn’t make the general idea of choosing not to marry a sin.  The lesson is about obedience, not the means by which he chose to disobeyl.

2)The bible says, “Every fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”.  Therefore, if you’re going to ignore that advice by trying to create doctrine from these one-off examples, without any other scriptures to back it up, are you going to say all men should marry prostitutes based on the one example of God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute?

3)No where in the bible does it even come close to stating “the point of sex is to have children”  Children, of course, are one result of sex, but having children is NOT the end-all-be-all of sex.  In fact, sex between a man and a woman is presented by the Apostle Paul as a picture of the intimacy between Christ and believers:  “and we are his body.  ’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. (Eph 5:30-32)”

4)If children are the only point of sex, then there must be numerous guidelines governing what can and cannot be done in bed between a husband and a wife (guidelines which some churches try to impose).  But scripture places absolutely ZERO limits to what can take place in the marriage bed.

5)If children are the only point of sex, then martial sex between those unable to conceive becomes “dirty”.  Yet scripture, though it mentions many examples of barren women, NEVER places any restriction on them having sex with their husbands.  Also, barren women would be forbidden to marry, yet scripture gives no such restriction.

6)If children are the only point of sex, then sex would be forbidden once a spouse is incapable of reproducing due to old age.  But such a stoppage of having sex is totally unscriptural, for  Proverbs 5:19 states, “may her breasts satisfy you ALWAYS, may you ever be captivated by her love”.  Obviously, “always” doesn’t end at menopause.

7)  One of my favorite passages of the bible is when King David was near death.  The way his subjects knew he was about to die is when they placed the most beautiful virgin in all of Israel in bed with him naked.  And when David “got no heat from her”, they knew for sure that he was a gonner and started making plans for a new king!  LOL!  Just goes to show you that scripture acknowledges the desire to have sex up to the time of death.

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit. :)

Which passage is that? I'll have to check it out.

I'll take your side in this debate, too Jmfc. I must take full advantage of my few opportunities to do so. ;) Sex is about a lot more than just children.

I really wonder where the idea that it's only about having kids even came from, since it isn't rooted in the Bible or anywhere else that I can see, and really makes no logical sense either.

Personally, I definitely see marriage as being about a lot more than having kids. It's about making a lifelong committment to be with only one person, forever. The ultimate committment that you can make. Why should that be reserved only for those who want to have children? It should be possible for all couples who love each other enough to be willing to make that commitment to one another to be able to do so, and it's in the best interests of society to give benefits to those who are married, as it is desireable to encourage people to make lifelong monogamous commitments to one another and to avoid promiscuity.

My father and stepmother love each other dearly and are 100% committed to each other for life. The fact that the marriage can never be consummated detracts from it not at all, in my opinion. If anything, it strengthens the bond. I'd take great offense to anyone saying that their marriage deserves some kind of lower status due simply to my father's paralysis, which is entirely beyond his control.

I'm just glad you read such a long post.  The passage is 1Kings 1:1-5...

1   Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2   Wherefore his servants said unto him, "Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat."
3   So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4   And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
5   Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, "I will be king!"

Coming from the Old Testament, that crudeness is expected. Christians are supposed to be better than that :-)

I firmly believe God has a healthy sense of humor...just look at some of the posters on this forum!  ;)

Ouch, that's a zinger :D

Jcmfst, I think you misunderstood me. Sex is also for pleasure- otherwise God woudln't have made it enjoyable. But sex is also clearly for children as well- if you use contraception, you're denying to give life. You're disobeying God, which is why he punished Onan. Yes, Onan's punishment was for disobedience, but you're disobeying God as well by not being open to having children. I don't know of any passages in the bible that explicitly talk about sex, but that's irrelivent. The truth is clear.

Once again, if you make sex purely for enjoyment, then you're making your bodies sex objects instead of really being united, which is what marriage is for. Why did God make sex? Just for enjoyment? Or for occasional enjoyment and once in a while offer sacrifices to God by getting pregnant? Do you think that Adam and Eve used contraceptives? Of course not. God gave us sperm/eggs and nerves/protein. If he only wanted sex for pleasure, he would only give us nerves/protein. If he only gave us sex for reproduction, he would only give us sperm/eggs. But God gave us both, so clearly he wants sex to be for both enjoyment and reproduction, not just one.

"And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

1st)  I never said sex was only for pleasure.

…and your logic is riddled with contradictions:

2nd)  The command given to Adam and Eve to multiply is NOT still in place, otherwise no reproductively viable person would have the right to renounce marriage in favor of chastity.  We have freedoms, like the freedom to eat meat, which Adam and Eve never enjoyed.  Likewise, Adam and Eve didn’t have a choice of whom they were going to marry since they were the only two people on earth, but “there is more than one fish in the sea” for Christians, provided he/she marries a believer.

3rd)  Christians are nonetheless commanded to “bear fruit” and multiply seed (parable of the sower) just as Adam and Eve were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”.  But the fruit and seed Christians are commanded to multiply is a SPIRITUAL seed, not a physical one.  It is beyond argument that this is the NT fulfillment of the command to “be fruitful and multiply”, for there is no NT command for Christians to have children, hence the right to disavow sex and marriage entirely.

4th)  Even if we were to bind the physical command to multiply on Christians, the command to multiple can’t be interpreted to exclude contraception since it is possible to be BOTH a “multiplier” and a user of contraception.  For example, my wife and I will be having our fourth child around Thanksgiving, at which time she will have her tubes tied.  No one can question that we haven’t “multiplied” by a factor of two, yet we have been users of contraception off and on throughout our ten years of marriage.

5th)  Onan was commanded to be a kinsman redeemer. The kinsman redeemer role is NOT a command of the NT because it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ who is our “redeemer” redeeming his kinsmen, even us.  

6th)  Onan used contraception as the means to avoid fulfilling his role as kinsman redeemer.  But you can’t point to the means as the sin since I can point to dozens upon dozens of methods used throughout the bible to disobey God (e.g.: allowing enemies to live, fleeing on a boat, striking a rock with a rod, etc), yet you would never point to those methods as sinful within themselves once removed from the context of the command given to the individual in question.

The first Christians disagree:

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" -Clement of Alexandria

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" -ibid.

"Moreover, [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [oral sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’"-Letter of Barnabas

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" -Jerome (Who translated the bible into Greek and Latin)

Clearly, Christianit and Judaism (see Deut 23:1) throughout their history have never supported contraception. Any Christian philosopher during the apostle's time would condemn the contracpetion that was so common in the Roman Empire. Contraception is insulting to God. You're telling God you're not open to him. You're doing something completely unnatural for the sake of pleasure. You mentioned Adam and Eve, but those laws STILL apply, as do all of God's commands. Reason being, God blessed Adam and Eve, and blessings don't wear off.

1st)  If God’s blessings can’t be removed, then neither can his curses; but we know that not to be the case, for it is written: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13)

But not only can God remove a curse, he can also remove a blessing and replace it with a curse, contrary to your claim that “blessings don't wear off”:

”If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.” (Malachi 2:2)

The truth is that God presents us with a choice of blessing or curse, just as Adam and Eve’s choice of eating from the forbidden tree brought a curse.  In fact, God explicitly told Israel he was setting both blessing and curses in front of them:

“This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

---


2nd)  All of God’s past commands are NOT still applicable.  Otherwise Christians wouldn’t be allowed to eat shrimp or pork and would still be bound by the Law of Moses which forbid the eating of unclean meat.  And it is also clear that Adam and Eve were vegetarians – they did NOT have the liberty to eat meat whatsoever, yet we do.

---

3rd)  As far as the other writings you mentioned….you’re obviously not going to convince me by quoting extra-biblical sources.  Especially by quoting early Christians advocating restrictions on the activities of the marriage bed; for the bible places no restrictions whatsoever on sexual kinkiness between a husband and a wife.

What’s more, those quotes you offered would also forbid a husband from having sex with his pregnant wife since his seed would be wasted.  Yet not even the Law of Moses, which forbid sex during a woman’s period, restricted sex during pregnancy.  

Even during a woman’s period, the logic of the Law of Moses focused on the woman’s issue of blood, NOT on the husband’s seed being wasted: “'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people” (Lev 20:18)

The sexual restrictions of the Law of Moses were many!  But none of them, not a single one, focused on whether or not the man’s seed was wasted.  

Nor did any of the laws restrict kinkiness between a husband and a wife.  The scripture is totally silent in this area, therefore: “Where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:15)

---


Since you never responded to this verse, I’ll give you another crack at it:

Proverbs 5:19 “may her breasts satisfy you always”

Is the word “always” not inclusive of the post-menopausal stage of life?  Is sex unnatural for post-menopausal or barren women?  And is there any scripture that forbids sexual activity for the sake of pleasure?

---

Also, you never answered my question of how my wife and I are going against God’s command to “multiply” by having her tubes tied after already having four children?

---

Your example of Onan “pulling-out” is no more a moral reflection on contraception than beating a rock with a stick is condemnable simply because Moses smote the rock with his staff instead of bringing forth water from the rock by simply speaking to it as God commanded.

What's more, not only does your argument ignore the context of Onan's sin, but you no longer have even the luxury to argue the context since his command to be the kinsman redeemer has been fulfilled in Christ and is not a requirement on the NT church.

What's that supposed to mean? :)

Let me guess...the fact that I can't figure it out for myself shows that I've answered my own question? ;)

I simply meant Im glad someone other than the person I'm directly addressing is reading my posts, even when the post is long.  I actually dread discussions such as this thread.

Ah, ok. Well don't worry, I read most of your posts, even if they are long, and even if I don't contribute to the thread. You aren't wasting your time typing them out.

aren't the 10 commandments part of the law of moses which is supposedly not binding anymore?

relatedly:

This thought popped into my head as I was ordering lunch today.  I was wondering why the Christian Fundamentalist Faction is so intent on keeping other people out of hell.  Isn't it everyone's own responsibility to keep themselves out of hell?  Where do you get off pushing a growth in government with the intent of doing for others what they should be doing for themselves?

In context:

If you make the choice to be gay, you should suffer the consequences.  It is not my responsibility to keep f****ts out of hell when they make active choices to go there.

Well, since we all have sinned, how are we any better?  And how can the lost be saved unless someone presents Christ to them?

As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" (Isaiah 52:7; Rom 10:15)

What I'm saying is: isn't it each person's job to not sin/atone for past sins, not someone else's?

Your quotes arn't supporting contraception, they're encouraging sex- and God bless it! Sex is very good! I'm not at all condemning it. But this has absolutely no link with contraception. You're trying to change a belief that has been planted in Christianity since the beginning-  the early Christians beleived it was wrong, the Catholic philosophers found it wrong, even Calvin and Luther thought it wrong. You have failed to answer my quotes from the early fathers. Contraception is NOT biblical, and has been condemned outside of the bible (besides Onan, which Luther used to condemn contraception).

I have fully answered them - their arguments are not based on scriptural restrictions.

Side Note:  Any novice student of the bible can run circles around the Letter of Barnabas.

---


Well, drinking tea is "NOT biblical", and has been condemned by some Christians.  But since there is no biblical restriction against drinking tea, I don't entertain "moral" objections to it.

---


And I couldn’t quote the bible to support playing football, but since there is no scripture against playing football, I’m free to play the game.  

As it is written:  “Where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15)

Your argument is basically this:


That's why we see how the early fathers taught. Everything the four gospels say in the bible are not the ONLY things Christ said and did- even John says that in the last passage in his book. Does that mean we can jump in and say "Oh! This must be OK!". Well, if that's the case, Abortion isn't condemned either. God says that the fetus is a human being, but doesn't say if Abortion is wrong. In fact, the Jews allowed it to an extent. We understand that abortion is wrong from the early fathers. There are many things that we consider sins, but are not mentioned in the bible.

I can end this argument easily enough:

First we are told that the Law of Moses was complete in instruction:

Exo 24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said

In fact, it was so complete God instructed them not to add commands to it:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Conclusion:  Since kinkiness between a husband and a wife is not forbidden within the Law of Moses, it was therefore never forbidden by God during old testament times.  

Anyone claiming otherwise is simply wrong.

---


Regardless of the opinion of the early fathers, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read the bible and understand that God views the fetus as a baby who is capable of responding to God (see examples of Jacob and John the Baptist).  Therefore, the argument justifying abortion due to the belief that the unborn are not living is simply false.

Granted I may be in agreement with the "early fathers" on this subject, but I reached that conclusion on my own, for it is written:

John 13:16 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
 
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Heb 5:14 Solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

---


So, you’re admitting that you place the teachings of the early fathers in higher esteem, as if their views were determinate of truth?  Then why did Paul advise sticking with scripture to avoid the very thing you’re doing?:

1Cor 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

---


I find it quite sad you simply refuse to read the very passage your quoting, for it states that John wrote down enough for readers to have life in Jesus:

John 20:30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Therefore, John viewed his letter, which you claim is lacking teaching, as enough to bring eternal life to those believing what he wrote.

Let me give you quotes by famous protestants:

As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument. - C.S. Lewis Abolition of Man.

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. - Martin Luther Lectures on Genesis

Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves. (ibid.)

The rest of the populace is more wicked than even the heathen themselves. For most married people do not desire offspring. Indeed, they turn away from it and consider it better to live without children, because they are poor and do not have the means with which to support a household. . . . But the purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. . . . Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men and women; for they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage. (ibid.)

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. (ibid.)

You will find many to whom a large number of children is unwelcome, as though marriage had been instituted only for bestial pleasures and not also for the very valuable work by which we serve God and men when we train and educate the children whom God has given us. They do not appreciate the most pleasant feature of marriage. For what exceeds the love of children? (Ibid.)


I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor. John Calvin Commentary on Genesis

Even these protestants- strong supporters of sola scriptura think that practicing sexuality outside of marraige for reproduction is wrong!


That's the Mosaic laws, NOT the new testament, and not the other books of the OT.


One could argue that it doesn't take a rocket science to see that contraception is a sin, but of course that would be a logical fallacy, as you've commited already.

Following your quotes by John, you do not need to listen to the bible, because the bible is teaching you. Of course, this is logically flawed. Of course you need people to teach you! Paul taught people; Peter taught people; Christ taught people. Further, saying that you can discover good and evil yourself is why we have original sin.


I'm not saying that the early fathers are of higher esteem, but they should be regarded equally. The bible is the word of God, yes, but we must know what the apostles taught. Remember, Christ said "Hold fast the traditions of mankind". These people were Christians before the bible was compiled, like the apostles. Clearly, if you told them to only follow what was written- how would they do it, since they didn't have the bible?


No, John said that he wrote enough so that you may know Christ is the son of God. That's it. You need to know Christ is the son of God, yes, but you need to keep his commandments, as well. If you say you follow Christ, and then rape, murder, and molest children, do you think he'll allow you to go to heaven? Clearly not.

An interesting account of an eerily reminiscent situation in France:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/weekinreview/13cald.html

Why can’t you understand that I care ZERO about non-scriptural arguments, regardless of the source (protestant or catholic)?  You might as well quote from the back of a Cracker-Jack box - if the box is making a scriptural argument, then I will consider it; if the box is not making a scriptural argument, then I’m going to ignore it.
---


So, what’s your point?  The fact remains that Moses wrote down all the requirements of God and avoiding contraception was NOT one of them, nor was there a requirement to avoid kinkiness.

---


Then let me frame it differently:
1) Scripture says that God lovingly forms the fetus within the mother.
2) Scripture says that the unborn can respond to outside influences, even the word of God.
3) The bible says that the unborn are innocent.

Therefore, abortion is the destruction of a totally innocent human life that God is lovingly knitting together and interacting with… None of which can be said of contraception.

Non-scriptural argument:  Even aside from these scriptures, the fact that the fetus is a precious human life is evident to EVERY expecting mother, regardless of religious background.  The fact that Abortion is wrong is evident without scripture, just as creation itself testifies about God...again, this can not be said of contraception.

---


Being led by the Spirit into knowledge doesn’t mean that the Spirit will not lead you to study scripture.  Also, the Spirit will indeed lead an “infant in Christ” to find a human teacher.  BUT…the scripture makes it clear the Christians are expected to mature and grow to the point of being able to teach themselves doctrine:

Heb 5:11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

---


Believe it or not, I ALSO regard them equally, for just as Paul wasn’t afraid to oppose Peter, James, and John…I also am not afraid to oppose anyone who may be teaching things contrary to scripture.

But, also understand that the instruction to "Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another" is NOT simply about choosing sides between the Apostles and the early fathers, rather it is about choosing sides between ANY two parties, period....basically, if you stick to what is written, there is no need to compare one group to another since your comparitive standard should always be scripture.

Also, Paul says that he has applied this standard (not going beyond what is written) to himself so that no one esteems him more than any other man.

---


Isn’t the NT the teaching of the Apostles?  And weren’t those letters written explicitly for instruction?

---


I believe the context was an admonishment NOT to follow the teachings of men.

---



1) They had the writings of the Apostles, just as we do.  They also had the personal teaching of the Apostles – which obviously must agree with the their writings included in the NT.
2) They had the OT, which the Apostles used to back up their oral and written teachings.

---


You’re misquoting scripture,,.that is NOT the complete passage:

John 24:31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

---


1) The Gospel of John includes instructions concerning sin
2) There are no “new” NT sins; all the sins listed in the NT can be found in the OT.
3) A believer in Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit, and those following the Holy Spirit are capable, WITHOUT scripture, to avoid sin:

Jer 31:33 I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

Gal 5:16 Live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Rom 2:13-15 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

You seem to be disagreeing with the writer of Hebrews: “But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”

The original sin was about gaining knowledge of good and evil, it was NOT about being able to distinguish between good and evil.  There is a HUGE difference.

For example:  I know nothing about satanic chants, but I could gain knowledge about them by practicing the chants. And I also could gain knowledge of murder by practicing it.  But, without practicing those sins, I could learn to distinguish those acts as sins by studying the bible.

1Cor 14:20 In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

If we are to be "open to God" by obeying the command to "multiply", doesn't Natural Family Planning attempt to duck this commandment by regulating sex to avoid the time of ovulation?

Sweden doesn't have gay marriage...and you really can't prove that gay marriage was the root of those problems.

It's ridiculous that people oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, your religion should not play a role in any government policy.

The 14th Amendment says all Americans are entitled to equal protection of the law.  Unless there are no marriage laws or gays aren't citizens, then they're completely and full entitled to marriage.

Sweden has civil partnership I think.

you're right, but that's what a majority of industrialized countries have  (NZ, Brazil, Australia, Japan, the UK, France, Denmark, Finland, etc).  So that can't be the cause of it..

I don't know why some are using biblical references to oppose gay marriage. They are forgetting that much of the country could care less what the bible says about the issue.

The divorce rate is already through the roof here in the U.S., heterosexuals have made a marriage a complete disgrace -- yet you have a group of people ready to respect and restore dignity to the institution and they are being denied that right.

We're actually debating about contraception, not gay marriage. gay marriage is wrong for a whole lot of other reasons.

haha, no...it isn't.  But ok, I'll let you think that.

I just jumped to the last page. So you think contraception is bad too? I suppose you are also against masturbation.

Ok, Howard Dean.

Yes, I do... but I'm not about ready to make anyone else stop masturbating, or using contraceptives. However, since homosexuality is a disorder (it was only removed from the APA's list because homosexuals threatened them, and then literally took over the organization), I believe that the government should not condone homosexual marriage. Further, I only believe that people who have intentions of having children (either through adoption, or if they are infirtle can still because there's still a chance they can concieve) should be allowed marriage. People who do not open up the possibility of having children should not be allowed to married, but allowed to be civilly united. If they change their minds, they can get married.

Homosexuality is most-definitely not a disorder.  It's a very natural orientation.  The APA wasn't threatened by anyone.  

So you think that gay couples who want to adopt should be able to get married?  Nice.

Gay couples cannot adopt, as studies have proven that children need both a mom and dad in their lives. Two daddies don't make a mom- not even a feminine dad.

And yes, homosexuality is a disorder. Every single homosexual I've spoken to (which is quite a few) has had a bad relationship with men --either peers or fathers-- and tried to make up for this masculinity by having sexual desires for men. Statistically speaking, 46% of homosexual men have been abused as children, homosexuals account for a third of all pedastric cases, even though they make up less than 6% of the population. They are clearly disordered. It's also completely against evolution

Finally, yes the APA was threatened in the 1970 (71?) San Francisco APA convention. Within six months after the convention, the APA went from a very conservative organization that defined homosexuality as seriously disordered, or a very liberal organization that encouraged homosexuality as a way of birth control.

That's bull.  Studies have shown the only bad thing that comes along with gay parenting is the stigma attached to homosexuality that will often get directed at their children.  Most gays have a lot of friends of the opposite sex, they do have appropriate gender roles in their lives.

This is also bs.  I'm gay.  I'm not going to deny that.  I have never, once, been abused, or been on bad terms with my father.  Am I the exception?  No, I know plenty of other gay people like that as well.

You can't do statistics on a community where it's completely impossible to detect the size of - most gays aren't going to feel comfortable telling someone that has no business in knowing those kinds of things that, don't site statistics that can't be proven.  And as for pediatric cases, that's also fallible, since we're talking about children, who don't understand sexuality at all.

Plus, homosexuality cannot be "cured," (so how is it a disorder?  what bad comes from it?) basically all psychiatrists don't recommend the so-called "cures" because it often leads to suicide, and really has no success rate.

Their position was changed on a vote, that hardly could be from any threat, especially since gays couldn't have done anything to them, so where was the real threat?

Okay :-)

I have one thing to say: Separation of church and state! You hedronormative republicans have to understand that who everyone marries is none of the government's buisness. People should be able to marry who they want. As for bisexualism being a disorder- wow. It's a way of life that just so happens to be no better or worse than being straight. Mass. had the right idea and this idea needs to be expanded to the rest of the country.

TomatoSoup, this has nothing to do with church and state. This has to do with what the definition of marriage is and why it doesn't apply to gays, and how homosexuals adopting children is a threat to the nation.

I was talking to Jcmfst about CHristian Ethics on contraception, NOT homosexuality. I personally think that homosexual sex and contraception is a sin, but I'm not going to stop anyone from doing that in the bedroom.

I doubt TomatoSoup is twelve, what with his aim account and e-mail. If he is then his parents need a good slapping.

I think I am going to stop debating this thread because once we get into The Bible, the debate becomes fruitless. By the way, I'm being raised athiest, so all this is meaningless to me. If we could stick to politics, that'd be great.

soup welcome to the real world where people believe in God..

TomatoSoup, how many times am I going to have to sat that I am not arguing biblically at all. I was arguing biblically about contraception to a CHRISTIAN, but that didn't have to do with the debate. I think homosexuality is a disorder becuase of psychological research, not the bible.

No offense meant, but when it comes to religion people are reaaly stubborn. Let's just debate the politics. I'm going to try to get my friend (goes by akno21 in the forums) in here. He's better at this than I am.

Did you seriously just say that?  I thought over 10% of Americans belonged to secular religions/belief systems.

What america are you in more like 75% believe in God..

I thought it was about 80% various Christian denominations, 10% atheist/agnostic, 10% other religions.

I think closer to 90% believe in God.

What percent of America is athiest isn't important. What is is that the US should make it legal. If christians think it's against their religion, they don't have to do it, but for that 10% of athiests, shouldn't they have the option?

If a gay marriage opponent can successfully answer this question, I may just stop bothering them with it.
If your neighbor is gay and is married to another gay person, how does that harm you?

What about sects that favor human sacrifice?  Slavery?  Polygamy?

Also, athiests are les than 10%, agnostics are in there as well.

If human sacrafice is part of your religion, you shouldn't be able to do it because it violates other's rights. Gay marriage doesn't violate anyone's rights. To compare the two, even put them in the same league is bogus and insulting. You also haven't answered akno's question.

Well if you say gay people can get married, then who are we to say a father can't married his son. Or that 5 people can't get married? We need to draw a line.. and gay marriage is where the line get drawn

The line is drawn where there is no consent. Two consenting gay adults should be allowed to get married.

What is wrong with some of you people..you are attempting to engage in intellectual debate with a 12 year old kid who has pictures of the President of the United States next to monkeys in all of his posts...LOL

A father and son can both be adults. Can they get married to each other? A Mother and Daughter? Mother and son? Grandfather and grandson?

Why should intellectual prowess be determined by age?

The only reason you're saying that is because he agrees with you. The kid needs better supervision by his parents. He has an e-mail, an aim account, and lurks around internet message boards.

If you honestly think that it is radical or a bad mark on parents for a kid to have an email account and and AIM account, you really need to to get with the times.  

Maybe it was the monkeys that were a dead giveaway, but the maturity level for THIS particular 12-year old is very much in question.

He is twelve years old!!! Maybe when he's 14, but twelve?! I sure hope you don't have kids. You can get porn through AIM and talk to strangers. You get who knows what through email spam and he could be talking with some 50 year old pervert. And he shouldn't be allowed on message boards. Who knows what kind of people he could be meeting. Especially if he is on liberal boards. There he could find all sorts of sickos

I talked to him on aim, he is a good guy, just don't agree with me..

Exactly, he is talkin to Josh! Now do you realize how easy it would be for him to find some sick wierdo and meet up for a "play date"?

I happen to know the guy as well, we live near each other. From what I can tell, he doesn't talk to people not on his buddy list, ruling out the possiblity of meeting a stranger from Texas, and then meeting him somewhere and being abducted.

OK. Could we could stop talking about my life and start talking about gay marriage? Anyway, I don't see any activists out there wanting human sacrafice for their religion. I don't see the activists for incest, or daughters marrying mothers. But what I do see is gay rights activists.

Are you guys in the same class or something? relatives? Or are you just some 26 year old who hangs out with little boys?

Yes, but there ARE activists for incest, and if you make the Equal Protection case for Gays, then you have to apply it to all parties.

Haven't you heard of NAMBLA? I hear a lot of support for Kerry comes from that group.

What does that mean? He IMed me I did not IM him..

I didn't mean it like that. I meant that he could just meet anbody on a message board and start chatting away. And he IMed you, which makes my point

Ok, I don't want to look like a child raper or something like that..

Kodratos,

LOL...you know, I'd like to see a poll taken of NAMBLA voters, I bet Kerry would get about 95%...LOL

He has a few older brothers that I know.

You people can't focus. Anyway, I would like to post a call for help here! There are at least five republicans for every smart person in here. Help! I need some liberals to get involved in this thread!

If they have resorted to attacking you for having an AIM account, I think we can handle them

Handle us? His argument is that gay marriage should be legal because there are gay rights activists!

And yours is that since human sacrafice is illegal, so should be gay marriage! And you seem to be very good at avoiding our questions. By making fun of me, a 12 yr old w/ an AIM account. ok.

Actually Tomato I made a point about Incest that you conveniently ignored in favor of the AIM argument.

What hurts YOU about a father and son getting married? Really, what I guess I'm trying to say is that since you don't have to do it, then why argue against it. It's very optional. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. That's like saying that since cigarettes are legal, you should protest them. YOU don't have to smoke. ANSWER AKNO'S QuESTION!

I shall post it again:
If your neighbor is gay and marries another gay man, how does that harm you?

I'm sorry. I know this is totally irrelevant from the topic, but do you guys know how funny it is to activate 38 yr olds' testerone? lol

You have a point. But back on topic.

What the hell are you talking about?

I think he's trying to say something along the lines of "It's fun making people 3x older than me really mad and knowing they can't harm me!" Way off topic, if you ask me.

And I was somehow wrong to question his maturity? I think your statement makes my point for me. The larger point may be that I'm not following my own advice and I'm arguing with children...

Why don't you both shut up about all topics not related to Gay Marriage and have a civilized debate?

I think Gay Marriage is wrong. If it was right for two men to get marriage then they would be able to make a kid together... well they can't only a Woman and a man can make a kid together..

So you are saying it is unnatural? It isn't "right" to deny two loving people the option of marriage. And I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question.

What was your question, I love my dog, can i marry it?

Yes, it is unnatural, just as it is unnatural for men to love little boys, and just to prevent them from marrying or what not.

YOU don't love little boys. (Especially not me). YOU don't have to marry your son. YOU don't have marry gay. This is all about obligation. Since no one is making you do it, then why are you complaining? Did I mention that you STILL haven't answered akno's question?

My question:

IF YOUR NEIGHBOR IS GAY, AND HE MARRIES ANOTHER GAY PERSON, HOW DOES THAT HARM YOU?

It really irks me when people compare gay marriage to marrying children.  There's a big difference - one is between two consenting adults and the other is between at least one party that is not yet competent enough to give consent for such a decision.

And no, you can't marry your dog in a legal sense(though I'm sure you could get some wierdo church to do it) because your dog is not a citizen or a person - it is an animal. It does not pay taxes, and it is considered property. You can not marry property. A dog also has no way to really give consent, because it doesn't even understand the abstract concept of marriage.

If you would like to argue against gay marriage, keep it to gay marriage. When other types come up, argue against those differently, because they are different. There are different arguments against polygamy you could use if that came up, because polygamy is not the same as a two person marriage of any form.

Homosexuality and pedophilia have a lot in common, and as far as rights go they are identicle. Thirty years ago, homosexuals were calling for the same rights pedophiles wanted. Sodomy, like sex with minors, was outlawed, and were both condemned greatly. Nonetheless, homosexuals inched their way to legalize sodomy, and now begin to have marriage. It took them a while to take over the ACLU, the APA, and other organizations but they did it. Currently, NAMBLA is at the same stage that LAMBDA was in 1971- begging for rights. Saying that the government is restricting them from loving somebody.

Also in the same way, pedophilia and homosexuality have a similar disorder. Generally speaking in psychology, if you were abused as a child, your risks of becoming a homosexual or pedophile greaten. Pedophilia and homosexuality, in other words, stem from the same problem- abuse; neglect; parental imbalance. A child that grows up in a two-parent household and gets a good balance from both parents is likely to be successful. On the contrary, a child with only one parent, two parents/guardians of the same sex, or a child who has parental imbalance has a higher risk of having psychological problems when he grows up, most commonly homosexuality and voilence, and ocassionally pedophilia.

So to answer your question, Akno, at the same time as responding to John Dibble, how does gay marriage effect me? It doesn't. But neither does rape effect me; neither does 40-year-old men sleeping with 6-year-old children effect me; neither does murder effect me. That argument is logically flawed.

Well for one, I don't want my kids to see two guys kissing out on the front lawn. Also, If they was living in NC they would have rocks thrown that there house and I dont want someone coming by and shooting at them and miss and hit me or any my kids.....

Brambila -

Two things -

1. You completely ignored one of my points - CONSENT. Adults can give consent, children can not. Adults have the mental faculties to understand the seriousness of marriage and sex(though, sometimes even adults ignore these) and children do not. A child can not operate a vehicle, an adult can, why? Because an adult is developed, a child is not. NAMBLA will never get their way for this very reason - they can beg all they want but it won't happen.

2. Back up your statements with the research and studies you attained your information from. Link me to the studies that you have stated, so I can review them and, if necessary and possible, disprove or discredit them. For instance, you say homosexuality stems from "abuse, neglect, and parental imbalance". My uncle is gay, and yet his parents were normal, loving, and balanced, and both my aunt and my father are straight. If homosexuality, and even pedophilia, stem from such things, why then do some people with completely normal parents end up like that? Can you even prove that the majority of homosexuals were abused, neglected, and had imbalance parents? EDIT - Also, I do realize pedophilia is indeed a disorder, but my point is that if you claim its cause is linked to the cause of homosexuality then you need to prove it.

Dibble, you might as well give it up.  I have had all these arguments with Brambila already, I have explained that I was not abused or neglected as a child in any way but I still turned out gay, but nothing anyone says can get him to see that he is wrong about this.  As for his facts and figures, I think he makes them up.

What makes me think you would take or have taken, (I don't know if you have them) your kids to see Passion of the Christ, a movie with much more horrifing scenes then two men kissing. Teach your kids to accept people who are different, not shut them down. Now that is a real logical argument, your second one. I guess you couldn't live in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, you would probably have a black neighor and rocks were thrown at their houses plenty of times.

I will teach my kids(when I have them) the same way as my mom. Gay people are wrong for beging gay. The Bilbe preaches that it is wrong...Also what does the Passion have to do with anything?

My point with Passion is, two men kissing would be rated PG (possibly PG-13, depending on who is actually doing the ratings, although Holloywood is liberal, and more accepting of gays) while seeing Jesus get burned and all that stuff was rated R and is a bit more disturbing.

"Gay people are wrong for being gay" That is about the craziest thing I have ever heard. A) How is a person "wrong" B) What would you do if a gay man saved your child from drowning in a pool or burning in a fire?

I judge things by my own common sense, not the bible's opinion's.

What a liberal... thing someone can't be wrong.... Gau people are wrong because the Bible says so, and trust me God wrote the bible thorough men.. and God has awhole lot more common sense then you.

Yea I can tell J

I addressed consent, John. Sex with minors is illegal, correct, but so was sodomy. Hence, you're simply begging the question by continuing this. Further, children are often more mentally stable than their parents.One of my friends basically had to raise his three siblings because his parents were alcoholics. At a young age (fifth grade), he was already providing for the family. He had a real sense of responsibility. This is a mere example of hundreds of cases where children are more mentally stable than parents. Similarly, the argument for homosexuals is that because they are suffering from a mental disorder, they cannot truly make the decision to have sexual intercourse or marry based on true love or anything for that matter. They are not mentally stable.

Firstly, I'd like two remind you that my best friend is has same-sex attractions (I don't like the words "gay" and "homosexual" too much), two of my good friends have the same disorder, my uncle is a homosexual (I can define him as such because he practices it), my aunts best friend is a homosexual, and I can list of several names of my peers who are homosexual (I live in San Francisco). Every single one of them has had some sort of parental imbalance, has been abused, neglected, or sexually molested. None of them had normal childhoods. I once went to an Alcoholics meeting (not AA), and surprisingly of the homosexuals there who were speaking, most of them had sexual molestation or parental imbalance as children. Courage, a Catholic group seeking to help people with same-sex attractions find these cases all the time.

The study took place in 2001, by Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is a prestigious orgnization and APA-approved. The study, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons", took a sample of 942 adults who were not clinically treated. They were both homosexual and heterosexual. Of this study, 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual owmen said that they were molested by homosexuals. In the same study, only 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women were molested by homosexuals. Interestingly, when asked who was molested, twice as many homosexuals said that they were molested than heterosexuals.

Here's a link to the study (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000862524).

Besides the fact that you don't know how much your grandparents gave attention to your uncle, this doesn't happen to everyone. Sometimes, people get same-sex attractions for other reasons. My point is that most homosexuals have had these problems as children. It does not only spark homosexual attraction- it sparks homosexual addiction. Very few homosexuals have had partners for over five years, even married ones. In the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women , the authors reported that 43% of homosxual men had at least 500 partners, and 28% of these had over a thousand. I can't find this study online, but I'm sure you can find the book in the library. It's by AP Weinburg I believe.

"Gays are wrong because the bible says so" Think for yourself!

The best quote ever about this subject on this forum. I still crack up about it!


Some of you will remember.

States, that is a classic.

Hmm ok i will go by the bible and you won't... then we will see who goes to heaven and who goes to hell....

Thank you for linking the study. Now, on to the debate:

1. First off, you connect mental stability with mental competence. While most mentally unstable people are mentally incompetent, mental stability doesn't mean mental cometence(I can be completely normal, but that doesn't necessarily mean I make good decisions, I could have bad judgement). Yes, there are cases where children rise above adversity, but I have to disagree, most children(especially younger children) are less mentally competent than their parents - if they were then they wouldn't need parents, now would they? They'd have the competence to raise themselves. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But your personal experience is not necessarily a reflection of the whole.

2. Once again, your friends and relatives, your personal experiences. Doesn't reflect the whole. When I used my uncle as an example, it was to provide an exception. And yes, I do have a good idea of how good my grandparents are. They produced three wonderful people. Also, I'd like to point out that my uncle is quite a successful individual(runs his own business, has lots of friends, ect.), he is a light alcoholic and sometimes makes bad personal decisions, but this is more from the fact that he is bi-polar(and now that he's on meds for that, he's much more stable).

3. The study looks sound, and I'll believe you that the APA approves of them. However, this shows correlation, not causation. Homosexual children may be more likely to put themselves in situations where they may be molested(an adult of the same sex may show excessive affection, so the child would more likely hang around than be wierded out, and the adult ends up being a pedophile and molesting them). Or, it could be something in the genetics of the parents, makes them more abusive or neglectful, and some of the bad genes get passed to the child, and since the parent is that way they abuse and neglect the child. I may be wrong on these, but as I said, correlation does not equal causation.

4. On the last study you mentioned, the one with the extremly high, ludicrous stats. Probably the result of bad study methods. I'd like to reference one Paul Cameron. The stats you referenced were likely based on his studies. The probelm with Mr. Cameron is is that he has no credibility - he's been kicked out of the APA, Nebraska Psychological Association, and American Sociological Association. He was kicked out not because of his views on homosexuality(very, VERY negative), but because his methods for compiling statistics were poor and he intentionally misrepresented the studies of others within those organizations. For instance, he used obituaries in gay community newspapers to determine the average lifespan of homosexuals, which didn't account for gays still in the closet, those who did not involve themselves in gay communities, those who's families didn't think to send obituaries to gay community newspapers or just didn't write an obituary, ect., in other words just a poor sampling. Just remember - not all studies are scientifically valid, so before you accept one as truth find out what research methods were used, was the sampling both random and consisting of a broad population(for instance, if you wanted to do a study on a certain race, it wouldn't be valid to only include subjects who live in the ghetto, or only subjects who live outside of it, you have to have a range of both that are representative of the actual ratio), and do other valid studies back it up.

On another note, I will admit that most scientifically valid studies do show that homosexuals are a bit more promiscuous than heterosexuals(particularly during their teen years), but this could be due to them feeling outcast and using sex as a form of acceptance to feel loved. I'm no expert, so I can't be sure - just remember the all important thing about studies - correlation does not equal causation.

One more thing - just for those who'd like to see it, this is the APA's official stance on sexual orientation: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

The APA is a wackyo liberal group ;D

Yeah, whatever wackyo is ;D

jk, I posted the link because they were mentioned, no other reason really

Its ok

A) The question we have to ask about mental competence and stability is which one is defined in the consent laws? Clearly it's not mental stability, since there are mentally handicapped people who have just as much rights as another person but are still not mentally stable. For instance, my father is bipolar. Without medication, he can be very much mentally unstable. That of course does not mean the government can take away his rights as a legal adult. My point wasn't to make that all children are mentally competent, my point was that there are children who are mentally competent and stable, and of these children, should they be allowed to have sexual involvement with 40-year-old men?

B) First of all, I would like to make clear that these are my personal experiences, correct. But in this case, I have a huge amount of people to report (I probably know at least 15 men and women with same-sex attraction well, and dozens of others as aquaintances). With this large pool of surveyors, and the diversity of these people, I can tell you that yes this is a good example of how the majority of homosexuals have had problems as children. Every single story I have heard from these people has to do with parental imbalance, abuse, or sexual molestation. Now, what is the reason for this? I will explain later.

C) Firstly, there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, which is your implication. The evidence given even by the homosexual-run APA suggests that homosexual attractions come from behavior in the childhood. It is NOT genetic, as no sexuality is genetic. Sexuality doesnt' appear until the third adolescence. Young children may have crushes, or find some people attractive, but they do not think about having sex, and if they do they are seriously disordered. In addition, children who have same-sex attraction are children who are showing signs of a perhaps future homosexuality, but it does not mean they are homosexual. After saying this, I would further say that it is unnatural for children to want to be placed in positions of sexual molestation. If they do, they must have a mental disorder or chemical imbalance, as it is not natural for humans in our youth to be sexually active. Since the study showed that homosexuals are TWICE more likely to have been molested as children (40-50% for both lesbians and homosexuals compared to around 20%), this is proof that they were disordered for having such implications to be in a position of sexual molestation. Interestingly enough, what you are implying is what sparked the APA to form a study saying that children like to be sexually molested. Fortunately, they took that statement back and apologized.

D) No, this study wasn't done by Paul Cameron (whoever he was), it was done by two APA psychologists, AP Bell and Weinberg, I believe was their name. It was done in 1978. I find it interesting that the APA kicked out Paul Cameron for not surveying correctly, since the APA is the master of that. Many of their studies are done here in the castro district of San Francisco, or in the bay area (hence, the 10% gay fallacy). The APA is the one who approved the study that showed 10% of Americans were gay, but the flaw is that there is basically no evidence for this. In addition, San Francisco is 10%-15% homosexual, and our population is the largest of homosexuals by national standards. Clearly, it is a flawed study. Actual studies show the number of homosexuals at around 3%-7%. Finally, most of the studies I used are what homosexuals themselves use.

E) Your last note is very interesting, and I am glad you brought it up. You are correct that homosexuals do not feel loved and so have sex to replace it, and you are correct that they are outcasts, but this is not because of society and them being homosexual, this is because of their search for masculinity. If you have ever noticed that most homosexuals are feminine, the reason is because they gain more feminine traits. Very early on in the childhood, they seek for masculinity with friends, but are unable to make friends because of their femininity. Instead, they becoem loners, or make friends with women. During their adolescence, they still seek this natural masculinity, and the only way to gain it they believe is by sexual pleasure.

From the very site, evidence that homosexuality is not genetic:

Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience.

No contradiction.  Homosexuality has a significant genetic component.  Also, the way the brain develops early on is to a large extent a random process, so environmental factors are actually very insignificant.  However, homosexuality, like sexuality in general, only becomes apparent to a person in adolescence.

That's very silly, becuase psychological development is from our experience in the world, while neruological development is from our brain growth. Psychology isn't genetic. Neurology is.

Well, at least I know I'll find Albert Einstein and Mohandus Ghandi waiting for me in hell.

With Ghandi there at least you'll have Slurpees..... lol

Come again! <Apu from the Simpsons>

LOL. Hey, I'll have Homer and Bart too.

A. No, even if a child is mentally competent and stable, he/she is still a child. They do not yet have the life experience or maturity to make such a decision. Even if a child is capable of supporting a family with an alcoholic at the head, that's more for survival than anything else. I still maintain that a child at any age before 16 at the very least(which is the legal age to get married where I live, but need parental consent before 18). A child can also not enter into a contract under the law, which marriage, under the law, is.

B. I'd be interested in hearing where exactly you meet most of these people. That could have something to do with it. For instance, if you met most of them in therapy sessions of some sort then you would definitely run into more problem cases.

C. I didn't imply it was genetic, or if I did, it was not my intent. I agree with the APA that homosexuality results as a complex interaction between biological and environmental factors, and the balance between the two varies from person to person. Biological factors can include more than DNA, for instance a mother who drinks while pregnant is affecting the unborn child biologically, or even being exposed to hazardous chemicals after being born while still developing. Environmental factors include parents, family, friends, and other social factors. Also, I was definitely not implying children like to be molested, no such thing at all. What I was trying to say was that some might be predisposed to put themselves in positions that would end up in molestation, like some people are predisposed to take more risks than others. For instance, I might cut through an alley to save time getting where I want to go, but unintentionally put myself at risk for getting mugged, same deal with the kids - they want the added affection the person is giving them, but the affection turns into molestation. I don't imply that they want or like it, just there are unintended consequences for their predisposed wants. I could be wrong, I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be.

D. While I agree that the APA was wrong about the 10% statistic, I said Mr. Cameron was also kicked out for intentionally misrepresenting other studies by fellow APA members. I don't claim the APA is perfect. Also, 1978, an old study, but that doesn't make it invalid(I can't find the research methods atm, but the numbers seem ridiculously high to me). All organizations need to use proper study methods, which are emphasized much more today than they were back then(I'm in a psychology class right now, and proper research methods was the first topic right after the introduction).

E. Interesting theory. Is there proof to back this, or is just a theory? Seems to me there's lots of people who outcast homosexuals merely for being homosexuals, though I can see that among children there would be other reasons.

One other thing - the brain.  Neurolgy is how the brain works, Psychology, among other things, involves how the brain interacts with the mind(that is, our conciousness), my psychology book has about 3 chapters on nerves and the brain. Also, psychology does involve genetics - there's a nature vs. nurture debate among psycholgists, but most agree it is an interaction between the two that determines how a person ends up(for instance, you can be genetically predisposed to be a risk taker, and in that case it is majority biological).

A. John, your argument just goes on in circles. To play by this logic, I can state I still hold that two homosexuals are suffering from the disorder and therefore are not mentally stable to make the decision of having sexual intercourse, and it could prove fatal (AIDS, Hepititus, other STDs). The point I am trying to make is that in the late 60s and early 70s homosexuals were arguing for the same rights as pedophiles are now, and further, they are suffering from the same disorder in separate forms.

B. My best friend is from school. Two of them are from Boy Scouts (seeking masculinity). Two of them are from Church. Two of them are best friends with my aunt. One of them is my uncle. Two of them are from alcoholism meetings (non-AA). The rest are from school or just around. None of them are from therapy meetings, except for those two form the Alcoholics meetings.

C. First of all, please acknowledge that the APA has been run by homosexuals since the early 1970s, so any information you give me is not very crediable, since they hold such a pro-homosexual stance. Actually, within six months the APA changed from an organization openly treating homosexuals and putting them on the list of disorders, and all the board members believed this. But the president resigned, and the organization completely changed its' platform on homosexuality, and now on its way pedophilia.

The problem with the biological theory is that first of all there's almost no support, and the support they get are from studies of twins. Unfortunately, these studies are voulentary and mostly taken in homosexual regions, and so the results are not very accurate. Further, drinking beer isn't going to effect your psychology, but your neurology and there is a difference. Psychology is your conscious, the way the human mind works. Neurology is the physical aspect of the brain, and how the brain works. Hence, when you drink beer during a pregnancy, that effects the neurological aspect, not psychological. So from this act children come out having forms of retardation or dyslexia, which are neurological conditions effecting psychological patterns, not psychological patterns. While it seems to be possible that homosexuals can get this from a neurological disorder, there is no evidence of this, but very much evidence that this stems directly from the childhood enviroment. As I have shown 46% of homosexual men were molested as children. This is a prime example of how homosexuality is disordered.

Whatever the reason for this disorder, your theory does not prove that homosexuality is normal. This only adds to my point. Though I staunchly disagree, let us assume you are correct and homosexuality is indeed biological. If this is the case, then we still can assume that homosexuality is a disorder and can be treated by use of chemical balancers. As I said in my previous post, homosexuality is either a mental disorder or chemical imbalance, the latter having to do more with neurology rather than psychology. Hence, homosexuality must still be treated, like any other chemical imbalance in the brain.

D. You are absolutely correct in your speaking of proper research methods. It is essential to have such methods done to present accurate representations in surveys, studies, and other researches. But I assure you that the study I have shown is accurate, as it was done by two APA approved psychologists, and the APA (a homosexual organization!) approved it. In addition to that survey, Journal of Sex Research surveyed 2,583 older homosexuals and found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [was] 101-500." 10-15% had between 500- a thousand partners, and an additional 10-15% have over a thousand. In a study of Dutch homosexuals published by AIDS, the average homosexual has eight sex partners a year.

E. The theory is the pre-1971 APA theory, and the theory that NARTH keeps.

For your last statement, I know that most psychologists think that genetics can influence the way a person thinks psychologically. However, this theory is based solely on surveys, and not on actual physical evidence. In addition to believing homosexuality is genetic, they also believe that addiction, pedophilia, and several other disorders are genetic. As much as I disagree with this, it still does not disprove my point that homosexuality is not a disorder, but only shows that it is in a different way.

I actually got into a short debate with a psychologist who was stating that alcoholism was genetic. I completely disgree.

Brambila,

I don't think we're getting anywhere, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the issue. I don't think the APA is 'run by homosexuals' as you put it, nor do I think homosexuality is a disorder(if it was, I'd consider it a minor one, it doesn't really impede on a person's ability to function too terribly much, like narcissitic personality disorder can do), and it's not the same as pedophilia(so even if they use the same arguments, they need to be treated as seperate cases). As for the NARTH theory, well, it could be right, could be wrong, but until it's proven one way or the other it's just a theory - it would most likely be a combination of that and multiple other social factors, not merely a search for masculinity.

I do think you are a bit more scientific about homosexuality than many of the opponents of gay marriage, who just simply say "being homosexual is a choice", since you view it as disorder(disorders not really being a choice, something influences you to have one). That has made this little debate interesting because you actually use some reasoning outside of the normal conservative box(there's a liberal box too ;)). Thanks for that. I'm always up for a good debate.

I also agree that alcoholism isn't genetic, per se. As I said, many things are a combination. One person may be predisposed more than another, but the other may have been abused or something and is an alcoholic for that reason. People develop disorders such as alcoholism for various reasons, attributing it to a single cause is foolish, few things happen in life for one reason.

Brambila, I'm sorry I don't have a sufficient attention span when it comes to these kinds of arguments to read your whole post, but homosexuality stems not from a chemical imbalance, as you suggest, but from the neurological development, the wiring, if you will, of the brain in the womb and early in childhood.  To some extent, of course, this is affected by experiences, but mostly it is a genetically guided, but relatively random process.

platypeanArchcow,

I'm gonna tell you what I told Brambila - back it up. Please link us to something backing this statement up so we may judge it accordingly. I try not to accept anything(even if it does agree with my way of thinking) unless I have some valid proof of it's truth(in this way, I'm a common sense, classical liberal, as opposed to the kind that just calls itself liberal but isn't open minded nor tolerant[not racially, but in tolerating those who think differently]).

I believe I read it either in Matt Ridley's Genome or Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.  I may try to find the page and quote it later if you want.

Would be nice, but don't go to too much trouble.

Since no one else will answer, I will.

Let us say that I have a wife and two children.  Let us say that one day, a perfectly normal, quite nice gay couple moves in next door.  They do not molest children or have orgy parties late at night.  They are for all intents and purposes just like a normal couple, only gay.  Where is the harm?

Well, here it is.  Because my chidren will observe this gay couple, they will presume that the behavior of this couple is normal.  Perhaps, they will think it is so normal that they will try this behavior out.  All of a sudden, I don't get grand kids.

This is not the worst thing that could happen though.  Worse would be that my children would see this gay couple and decide that the old definition of marriage that me and my wife live by is outdated, and the new gay married couple is the way to go in the future.  This is a problem, because there is really not much of a reason for the gay couple to get married except to legitimize their relationship in the eyes of society.  They can be in love without getting married.  In other words, marriage doesn't seem relevant to my kids.  So, my kids don't actually get married, they have live in girlfriends or boyfriends.  My daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock, and her baby's daddy does not stick around to raise Jr. since their is no legal contract that binds him to stay.  My son never feels a social pressure to enter a commited relationship, so he bounces from one night stand to one night stand, terribly unfulfilled in his meaningless bachelor's life.

Will I be hurt?  Maybe not directly, but my kids will.  And at that point in my life, that will be more important anyway.

Wouldn't your kids be taking their initiative from YOUR marriage, hypothetically, not your neighbours? I have neighbours who are divorced, yet my own mum and dad are happilly married, does that mean my brothers and sister are going to get divorced, because of our neighbours? I thought it was a very lacklustre argument you made, that didn't seem to be going anywhere and get flat towards the end. So what if you don't get grandkids? Aren't you happy your children (whether real or hypothetical) are healthy and happy? Or will you forever be unhappy because they didn't give you grandkids! Selfish if you ask me.  

Afleitch, though I disagree with Ford and believe that if parents raised their children well, they would know that the gay couple next door are suffering from serious disorders, children ARE influenced by homosexuals. This IS teaching children that the behavior is normal, when it is seriously disordered.

I gave me spew last night about the APA to HTMLDON. Your teenage son will discover this sexuality, and will be afraid. The first instict he's going to think is a natural one- that this sexuality is unnatural. So he goes to his schools' psychologist. Instead of helping the young man, this psychologist encourages him, telling him the behavior is normal, when the teenager knows that it isn't. The teenager starts experiementing with this sexuality as is reccomended by the psychologist, but it doesn't help the teenager. He continues to feel scared, abnormal. THe psychologist tells him that he is gay for the rest of his life, and that is simply who he is, and the teenager can't believe it. The teenager then goes through the same symptoms of a teenager who was sexually molested- dirty, afriad, et cetera. The teenager becomes suicidal.

This is the threat of the homosexual movement.

Well done Brambilla, you obviously remembered our earlier spats. Much of what I said back then applies now. I also remember you went all quiet when I stumpted you :) Perhaps you want me to retaliate. I'm afraid I have better things to do. I'm just glad my parents are quite happy with me and my 'choice' and that they didn't seem to think I needed therapy. Set foot in Britain Brambilla and say what you said just now and you will be eaten alive. One would think that gay people run around looking for converts like some shady little fundamentalist church. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't work like that. Consider this confrontation over, before it has even begun.

If I died trying to save the lives of homosexuals, then let it be.

afleitch,

All people learn from all that is around them.  It is not reasonable to expect me to seal my children off from any and all things that I do not want them to learn from.

Well you see theres your problem. You cant shield them. They could be taught at school by a lesbian, could have their arm put in a cast by a gay doctor, or they could drive the ambulance that takes them to hospital. You wouldn't know. The vast majority of gay men and women simply knuckle down and get on with their lives and interact with everyone elses. In the UK a gay man is the junior Minister for Education, and Tony Blair think's he's doing a damn fine job. A lesbian actress voiced a fish in Finding Nemo for heavens sake! And me? I want to teach History, a subject I love to children and teenagers, and yes I'm gay. Shelter your children if you wish, but if they rebel or become 'immoral' in your view, you will have nothing to blame but your own parenting.

Of course you can't shelter your children. BUT you have to teach them right from wrong in regards to homosexuality.

They can't be sheltered rom knowing homosexuals, but we can teach them what kind of behavior is expected from them regarding marriage.  Legalizing gay marriage undermines our ability to do that.  If they are taught at school by a lesbian, they don't necessarily have their idea of marriage redefined as legalizing gay marriage would do.  If the have a gy doctor, they don't necessarily have their idea of marriage redefined as legalizing gay marriage would do.  If prominent government officials are gay, they don't necessarily have their idea of marriage redefined as legalizing gay marriage would do.

One of my favorite US congressmen, Jim Kolbe, is gay.  One of my favorite radio hosts, Al Rantel, is gay.  I would not consider these people to be subversive because they don't try and redefine social institutions to suit their personal lifestyle.  As long as we don't blur the distinctions between groups.  I am what I am, they are what they are, and we don't pretend to be the same.  This makes normal interaction different from radical social revolution.

Even if your kids see homosexuals kissing or whatever, most would probably find it out of the ordinary, and they'd probably ask you about it(if you are a good parent, your kids trust information you give them more than anyone else). I'll grant you it's not a comfortable subject to explain to your kids, but there's lots of uncomfortable subjects they can ask about(like "where do babies come from?", or a question I asked my godfather when I was a kid "why do women bleed sometimes?"), but there are actually easy ways to answer them, usually dumbing them down a bit if the child is especially young. If you found homosexuality to be immoral a good explanation would probably be "What those people are doing is unnatural/immoral(whatever you'd prefer, give some basic reasons if you feel it necessary), and while I think they should stop it is not our business to make them, and it would be best that you do not follow their example." I would explain differently myself, since I don't think homosexuality is immoral and I don't think they have a choice in the matter or that homosexuality is destructive. Your kids will adopt a view on homosexuality one way or another - why not tell them yours before they get another(which could even be an extreme opposite or an extreme extension of yours)?

OK. First of all, there have been linguistic test by an unbiased source on the bible and it was written by five different people. Second, how does God have any common sense? Why doesn't he come down here and tell us if gay marriage is wrong?

Dibble,

You missed the point entirely.  The point is not that I don't want my kids to know about homosexuality, its that they need to understand that it isn't the same as a normal relationship.  Redefining marriage in legal terms will make that a pretty tough sell.

You call yourself independent?

Independent does not necessarily mean centrist.

If you can aswer this question, I'll be impressed. How is it harmful if gay marriage is an potion, not an obligation. If you don't want to , don't. Who cares if those stupid gays go to hell, anyway?

I have a question for you. Why do liberals such as yourself need to lower your arguments to personal insults as a starting point? Could it be you are defending the wrong position?

No, I didn't miss the point. I said you should explain your view so your kids know it the way you see it. Since you are the biggest influence in their lives they will likely end up having a view somewhat similar to yours. You should also explain that just because something is legal or illegal does not necessarily mean that it is right to do it or not do it, that we live in a society where not everyone agrees on everything and that sometimes laws get enacted that you do not necessarily agree with. There's quite a few laws I think are wrong, and I follow them, but perhaps for different reasons than they being law(for instance, alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, I don't abuse alcohol and I don't use marijuana because doing either is simply a bad idea, but I don't believe we should force people to not do marijuana, rather let them make their own good or bad choices).

Stop talking and answer the question. There were 75 posts between when akno first asked his question to when  some poor excuse for an answer was posted.

Good point. My bad.

Though I view homosexual marriage as disturbing and homosexual acts as disgusting, I must say that the states should be left up to the legalization of gay marriage. If a particular state wants it legalized it should be put on the ballot and let the people decide. Much like abortion. That is my answer to the question. I do no believe my moral beliefs (in this situation) should interfere with legal processes.

Then teach your children that the law as it stands is wrong, John Ford. But don't use your tired and paternalistic ideas about what is right and wrong to hinder my right to decide whom I should marry. I wouldn't have the hubris to make that choice for you.

Do any foreign countries have pro-gay marriage laws?

If you want to talk about hubris, lets talk about the hubris of people who want to change fundamental social institutions to suit their own personal life choices, and have no regard for the wishes of their fellow citizens.

The Netherlands I believe.

Sweden, Norway, and Denamrk all have Civil Unions.  And what do you know, in all instances, immediately after they changed the law, out-of-wedlock births shot up.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's correct, John. I'm sure many people resisted switching over to the flush toilet. I also cannot see your point about popular sovereignty. I will never believe that a majority of a state's voters should replace the rightful wisdom of judges in the interpretation of equal protection, even if extending basic civil rights to victims of discrimination is controversial. I cannot believe that citizens should replace the legally educated in deciding the structure of laws.

if you look at the Netherlands standar of living (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html) and compare it to the US's standard of living (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html), the netherlands is superior in the majority of significant categories. And this is from a US biased site, too!

Less land and fewer people.

I don't see a significant advantage for the Netherlands in standard of living.  We have a higher per capita GDP by a margin of $10,000 or so.

If I remeber correctly, under the HDI measurement, the Netherlands IS higher than the US, but this was true before gay marriage was legalized there, so I'm not sure what your point is.

OK. Blame it on population and land area. Earlier, a big argument was that gay marriage was a disorder, hence bringing down your SoL. Incorrect.

Migrendel, you can't rely everything on judges- they can be, and have been corrupt. Furthermore, I'm not about ready to have the government allow marriages to people who really are not mentally stable in their definition of love- no more than pedophiles and children are. Do they actually know what love is? If we look at statistics, Migrendel, homosexuals define love based on sexual acts. If you have ever come to San Francisco or any gay-populated region, everything is sexually oriented. In the gay theatres, they have gay porn movies. In the shops, they sell gay sex toys. In the bars, they pass out condoms. It's entirely sex-oriented, which in addition to statistics is displayed by the massive population of homosexuals who have AIDS and other STDs.

Although I find it extremely disturbing that the APA is responsible for this, that they are causing the deaths of millions of homosexuals because of AIDS, violence, and suicide, I have for the most part been tolerant. But when you start having the state recognize this supposed "marriage" (when its in contradiction with the definition), the state is officially sponsering this disorder, and that is extremely detrimental to society, not only morally, but the physically and mentally in regards to health.

That is not exclusive to homosexuals. You can find condoms in vending machines in bars regardless of the sexual orientation of the patrons. You can see shop windows bedizened with the apparati of gratification, including ones used by heterosexuals. And there is no need for any reminder about the multi-billion dollar predominantly heterosexual pornography industry.

I also think you are very misinformed when you think we cannot love. I have know lust, the same as anyone, but I have been lucky to know love too. That love was built on concern and respect, not sex. Sex is a transient thrill, but love sustains us. And if any of you are fortunate enough to have loved, regardless of who it is, be grateful for it every day.

Even if homosexuality was a disorder, it would take time for the economic impact to be fully felt.

Even so, the Netherlands has a lower per capita GDP than we do, so how have you proven anything anyway?

Here is a little something from Mitt Romney on why lawyers andjudges should not be in charge of defining marriage.

"(Lawyers) viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights."

But, he went on, marriage is not solely for adults.

"Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother."

First of all, homosexuals can't reproduce. Second of all, the American Academy of Pediatrics says the adopted children of homosexuals show no real variances from other children. But I'm sure an exhaustively conducted study by a mainstream medical organization doesn't count because it's, according to several staunch conservatives, liberal.

Actually, the out-of-wedlock births in those areas were increasing before gay marriage was instituted. I've said it befoe and I'll say it again - correlation does not equal causation. The more probable reason for the increase is due to two things:

1. Increased liberalism in those countries. You'll find the more conservative areas there have a more normal rate of in-wedlock births than the more liberal areas. Since conservatives also tend to place more emphasis on religion, that also factors into it. The increase liberalism also resulted in the allowing of gay marriage, so there was a correlation in the increase of out of wedlock births and the legalization of gay marriage, but the causation may have been more liberalism. That being said, I think it's good that the U.S. has a good balance of liberals and conservatives - too much of either can be dangerous, balance in all things and whatnot.

2. There are alternative forms of legal relationships that substitute for marriage, such as cohabitation and civil unions(in this case, it is for both heterosexuals and homosexuals), so when  out of wedlock statistics are counted they generally do not count children born in these legal relationships as born in wedlock. I'll also note that these types of relationships have a higher breakup rate than marriage in those countries do(perhaps because the terms 'cohabitation' and 'civil union' don't seem to carry as much weight as 'marriage' does, so people are more willing to get into them before they are really ready for a lifelong relationship), but the majority of people in these relationships who have a second child do tend to get married. These alternative relationships appeal to young liberals, since they seem less serious but still hold some weight, just not as much as marriage.

If you allow homosexuals marriage rights, they can adopt, no?  This is basically the same as if they could produce children on their own.

I have no opinion on the American Association of Pediatrics, since I don't know much about them.  That said, I am suspicious that they found NO difference in these children.  If I was raised Catholic, I'd come out different than if raised Jewish.  Not necessarily worse or better, but different for sure.  The idea that an even more drastic difference in a person's environment had ZERO impact seems a bit fishy, almost as if the study was commissioned soley for the purpose of reaching a preordained conclusion.

I think when they say they find no difference, it basically means they are well balanced, healthy individuals(no psychological problems, productive members of society, ect.), not that they might not have any cultural or ideological differences.

I'm sure homosexuals can love, Migrendel. But their love is not mature enough, because they have the disorder defining it. In the same way, pedophiles love. They certainly have the ability to love, but the love is disordered, sexual, and immature; just like a child's, and just like a homosexual's.

Secondly, although you can find condoms and the such in secular bars, but the point is that these things are exclusively in homosexual areas, and are the biggest industries in homosexual areas. It's a fact that a large number of homosexuals have over a thousand partners in a lifetime (Weinburg, 1978).

Brambila, I am sick to death of you comparing homosexuality to pedophilia.  The two have nothing in common.  Homosexuals love each other in the same way heterosexuals love each other.  Pedophiliacs cannot love in this manner, because the recipient of the love (the child) does not share the feelings.

Brambila,

I know I said the debate was over, but I guess not - I call into question the validity of the Weinberg 1978 study.

1. The study is from 1978 - during the 1960's and 1970's, people were less aware of AIDS and other STDS, awareness today have likely driven both heterosexual and homosexual number of partners down. The numbers may not reflect today.

2. I have been looking for research methods on this study, and have found a few snipits(though not enough to raise a complete critique of the study). Both the homosexual sample and the control heterosexual sample were not truly random, and all were performed in in San Francisco alone(would not be representative of the true national homosexual population, as I believe you yourself said in referring to population percentage). The homosexual group was composed of volunteers collected by paid recruiters, and the heterosexual control group of 284 was collected by going door to door(hardly random, since it only represents whatever areas they went door to door).

3. I have seen the study referred to next to a population percentage saying that homosexuals were 10 to 20 percent of the population - which we both know is a big fallacy.

4. The study is in direct contridiction with the previous study you linked(the one concerning percentage molested or abused), though in this case I think the Weinberg study is definitely more accurate, so this one is calling into question the validity of the other study you linked, now that I've taken another look at it to compare the two studies. The Weignberg study says that 4.9% of the homosexuals reported "prepubertal sexual experience with a male adult involving physical contact" compared to 2.5% heterosexual males. The other study you linked reports 49.2 percent of homosexual men were molested, but it also reports 24.4 percent of heterosexual men were molested - a ludicrous percentage. The difference in both is about a 2 to 1 ratio, but obviously at least one study does not reflect the true population. Also the populations in this study were 124 homosexual men, 205 heterosexual men - for a study to be accurate the control and experimental groups should be of the same size.

So, if you continue to insist on using the Weinberg study to support your arguments, please prove it is a valid study.

I shall simply disregard that statement about the maturity of love, Brambila. For you to say that reveals more about your lack of knowledge about this topic than anything else.

Firstly, I never said that homosexuals can't love. That's silly. Of course they can. However, their love is immature, or to change the wording, their love is distracted by their immense urge for sexuality. Now let us address pedophiles- yes, they can love too. Sure, the child does not love back, but they can love. Correct? But what is this love? Is it mature love? Is it healthy love? These items must be taken into consideration, because if this love is distracted, we certainly wouldn't want that to happen.

1. Yes, the study was done in 1978. But that doesn't mean now that we know more about AIDS homosexuals are going to have sex less often. That just means they might use condoms. Contraceptives in 1978 were not common. Today, they're everywhere. 80% of Americans use them.

2. I'd like you to show me this information you've gotten. Just in case you didn't know, MS Weinburg has written several books on homosexuality (supporting it), and is a member of the pro-homosexual Kinsey Institute, who sponsored the study. I looked for a website with the words "Weinburg" and "San Francisco", and the only thing I found was a website that showed Weinburg's source for a different study, which was done with 500 white homosexuals (interesting study!). However, the Weinburg study was done with 1400 people, including about 635 homosexuals, and was nation-wide I believe. I could see the confusion though, since most of the studies in the book were done in the bay area. Where are you getting this information?

However, for the sake of the debate, I can show you a different study. Journal of Sex Research reported in their study "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000586453) (done with 2,500 older homosexual men) that 10%-15% of homosexual men had between 500-1000 partners, and an additional 10-15% had more than a thousand in their life. This is an enormous number, and not that much different from AP Bell and MS Weinburg's study.


3. Good. I'm glad.

4. Actually, the study does not say that these men were molested, it said that these men were abused- this could be physical, mental, or sexual. I believe that 25% of men were abused. Further, I believe that 50% of homosexuals were abused. I told you from the beginning that homosexuals were twice more likely to be abused than heterosexuals, and this is sound. Again, I'll show a separate study for the sake of the argument. In a study of almost 300 homosexual and bisexual men with AIDS, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that half of all the AIDS cases had comitted sexual acts with men by the age of sixteen, and 20% by the age of ten. A 1992 study by Child Abuse & Neglect found that 42% of 1001 homosexual men had met the critria for being sexually abused as children. These are enormous numbers, and undoubtedly prove without warrent that homosexuality is caused from problems in the childhood. Also, no they don't have to be exactly the same numbers, as long as they are around the same range and above a certain amount. Believe me, these people know what they are doing. The ones doing the studies were pro-homosexual.

For your last statement, I find it ironic that you first say that the Weinburg study is invalid because it took place in San Francisco (which isn't true for the study I pointed out), but then you say that the Weinburg study IS valid when it agrees with you.


Migrendel, do you honestly know that? Do you really think that is true? How are you supposed to make such a statement. You don't know who I am.

I don't see a problem with homosexual marriage. If you are religious then think of it this way. Everyone has thier judgement day. If somebody wants to live a sinful life, then that is thier problem, not yours. Many conservatives seem to think that homosexual marriage is going to turn more people into homosexuals. That is obviously a completely ludicrous assumption. It isn't society's job to teach your child morals, it's yours!

The only problem I have is that I do not think that homosexual couples should have the right to adopt. By placing a child in a homosexual couple's care, the government is sending a bad message to that child. It is simply unnatural for two men or women to have children. That is an inarguable point. It also isn't healthy for a child to have to deal with the issues that come about when placed in the care of a homosexual couple.

Sexual fixation? Now, I enjoy sex just as much as the next person, but I have loved for reasons other than sex. I don't see how you can call it immature and categorically dismiss it, because it is a love you have never experienced. Science is an excellent tool, but when you attempt to place such a judgment upon the most personal feelings, you enter a place where it cannot quantify the most elusive and quicksilver thing of all, human love.

1. Ok, thanks for the correction, my data was probably off due to the 'Weinberg' mistake. I'll look up 'Weinburg' later if I have time. I'm still bothered by one thing - how exactly do these people keep count of how many partners they have? Seriously - 500 to 1000 - wouldn't they stop counting at some point? Would it not be possible, even probable, that they overestimated the number of partners they had. It also seems unlikely, considering they likely do not move around the country much, that there are that many partners available to the average homosexual. This may mean that they have had the same partner many times, but these people being extra permiscuous, they likely do not remember their partners after one-night stands, so they have the same partner multiple times[I might be convinced to count each of these encounters as 'extra partners' for each one, but not completely because these repeat encounters would only occur with the really promiscuous ones, outing the more average homosexual male]. Just some food for thought about why those numbers may be higher than they actually are(200 partners, for instance, would be less questionable, and within the realm of possibility). Just some food for thought about why the nubmers might be so high. Also, most of the homosexuals I know aren't really permiscuous, how about the ones you know?(I know this isn't scientific, just comparing personal experiences)

2. Since it wasn't the Weinburg study, the info wasn't relevant, so the Weinberg study is likely innacurate, but I have yet to confirm the Weinburg study either way.

3. nothing to be said

4. Actually, yes the study was only about molestation - not once in the study you linked was the word 'abuse' used. The title is "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons", if you meant to link a different study then link it. I refuse to believe that 25% of all heterosexual men were molested or even just abused - our society would be much less stable if that was so.

5. Just a comment on a general problem with ALL studies on homosexuals(even the more valid ones). Studies like these have the fundamental problem that they do not include in the closet homosexuals or homosexuals that are admitted, just that they don't advertise it much. It is much harder to find a wide range of participants, so the likeliness of getting more extreme cases is higher. Keep that in mind whenever reading a study(even if it is favorable to your view).

Once again, not only are you using an emotional argument, but you're making a logical flaw. You assume at a personal level that I am straight. Now I’m not saying I am homosexual, but you shouldn't assume that I have not experienced same-sex attraction. When I speak to homosexual teens struggling with their sexuality, they most of the time change the definition of love between same-sex attraction and natural attraction. They call same-sex attraction predominantly or purely sexual. However, when it comes to natural attraction, they make it more as if though they want to give something to them, like they want to make that person happy. Now, I understand that homosexuals (and I'm sure you do this) have attraction in the same way as natural attraction, but I was using teenagers as my sample because their sexuality is unstable. As they get older, their sexuality develops into something more characteristic and seemingly exclusive to the individual. Nonetheless, statistics show that this love is truly promiscuous and not stable. The sexual revolution has sanctioned them in having arbitrary sexual encounters, regardless of the physical and psychological risks involved. Certainly, human love is difficult to define, but if we’re basing human love predominantly on sexual experience, then we’re not having true love.

Although it is an important factor in love, sexual experience is not love, and neither does it define love. But when we go to homosexual regions, the entire premise uplifts the ultimate goal of sexual pleasure. I can show you mere pictures of the Castro district in San Francisco, and you’ll see everything is about sex. Sex shops; porn movie theatres; gay bars; condoms are sold everywhere; pornography is showed everywhere; all the advertisements contain some sort of sexual message, be it a phone sex line or phone numbers to help teenagers legally and financially to get a sex change. The bounds are endless. Do you see homosexuals who are not feminine? Not often. Do you see homosexuals who intend on staying virgins? Not often. It’s further often that you see homosexuals who molest children or have sexual attraction towards very young teenagers.

During the Catholic Church’s scandal last year, the largest amounts of sexual abuse cases were homosexual ones. Many homosexual Catholics did not want to sin, and so joined the priesthood in an attempt to stay away from sin. However, this ended up causing more problems, and mounting child molestation cases.

I do not blame homosexuals, however, for this problem. It is not their fault at all. The problem is that the sexual revolution has mugged homosexuals of their freedom, and has trapped them in sexual obsession. The APA is now one of the leading authors of sexual problems in America, and in the same way that the homosexuals took over the APA in 1971, I believe that pedophiles will also begin fighting for rights. The APA has already released statements saying that children like to be sexually molested, and that it has no psychological risks. Though the APA recalled that statement, their intent still remains. The signs of such a change are on its way- the same symptoms that the APA got in the late 60s, which lead to the takeover of the organization by homosexuals. This neo-APA is fully responsible for the problems we see with homosexuals today-- their reduced lifespan, domestic violence, promiscuity, health problems, child molestation, and suicidal urges.

John Dibble:

1. (1/2/3)- I’m sure homosexuals have lost count, but they didn’t ask homosexuals “how many partners did you have, exactly?” they asked them something to the extent of
“of the following ranges, which come closest to your amount of unique sexual encounters? 0-100, 101-500, 501-1000, over 1000?” I’m sure they are able to count. And if they can’t, that is evidence enough that they are clearly promiscuous. But let me tell you once more, AP BELL and MS WEINBURG are pro-homosexual. Their book was for the positive study of homosexuality, approved by the APA.

2. Dibble, the point I’m trying to prove is how our society is unstable! The statistic is accurate. If you don’t wish to believe it, don’t.

4. Of course. However, I don’t believe that these “closet homosexuals” are actually homosexual. You are only homosexual if you have homosexual sex. Otherwise, you have same-sex attraction. However, the homosexual movement is trying to get these closet homosexuals, who have not had sexual encounters with the same sex, to begin doing so. Hence, it’s all promiscuity in the end.

I agree with everything you say Troy except for "Everyone has thier judgement day. If somebody wants to live a sinful life, then that is thier problem, not yours." As Christians we must strive to set people right when they commit sins instead of letting them suffer on judgement day.

Brambila:

I'm now convinced you are a complete moron. If the molestation study was accurate, I could pull a random 4 guys off the street and chances are one of them was molested. Think about it, 1 in 4, ONE IN FOUR, our society would be much worse than it is now if that was the case. That is complete and utter bull and you know it. I don't think you know a damn thing about science or society, or even people in general. I don't think debating with you will profit anyone, so I'm ignoring you in this thread from now on. Good day to you, and I hope you get over your ignorance.

Brambila:

I apologize for my rudeness in the last post. Today has not been one of my better days. But I seriously think your views are skewed beyond normality.

John Dibble, I provided you additional statistics. If you don't believe it, okay.

The thing about statistics is they are often abused or wrong. You have to be careful about what statistics you accept(like that 10% population one).

On another note, I'd like to point out to you that they homosexual culture in San Fransisco is not reflective of the homosexual culture in other areas. Midtown Atlanta has a heavy homosexual population, but it is not as you describe San Fransisco to be. It may be the case that many of the more flagrant(I suppose you could say stereotypical) homosexuals move to San Francisco and the more conservative ones stay in other areas.

I've been to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Guerneville, Seattle, and Vancouver. I've seen pictures of Denver, NEw York, and Boston. It's all the same. I don't know about Atlanta specifically, but the majority are like that.

I'm sure that there are places like you described, Brambila. But I can tell you, in any city, there are districts where pornography is sold and screened, where sex toys are offered to the consumer, where prostitution is practiced, and contraception is vended. But it is done by heterosexuals. The fact is, there is a segment of the population regardless of sexual orientation that patronizes such establishments. In addition, you bring up the argument that there are homosexuals that molest teenagers of the same gender. There are heterosexuals who molest teenagers of a different gender. The things that you seem to be upset about are less homosexual things, and could be better described as behaviors practiced by certain segments of the population cutting across the line of orientation.

What's wrong with having quite a few sexual partners? No one has brought that up. It seems to be a sacred cow, something that cannot be questioned, but if you are careful not to spread disease, what arguments can be made against it other than that you might think it's immoral? I'm sure many people would prefer erotic variation to fidelity.

Migrendel, it's undoubtable that there are heterosexual sex shops, porn theatres, et cetera. However, these homosexual items are exclusively found in homosexual areas and are the most vital part of a homosexual region. And concerning your argument about teenage molestation, most molestation is homosexual molestation. Further, homosexuals account for 1/3 of all child molestation acts, even though they make up only 3-6% of the population!

Finally, concerning having a few sexual partners, this proves the promiscuity of homosexuals, and thus disorder of them. They are sexual addicts.

Brambila - of course homosexual sex shops are in homosexual areas, they prefer to be close to their clientel. A shop like that would make little money out where there were no customers. The only reason you more likely see heterosexual shops spread out is because heterosexuals are everywhere. You would more likely see a store selling asian goods in chinatown than you would in an area populated by, oh, say hispanics(where you'd be more likely to see goods pertaining to whatever hispanic community it is, such as Mexicans or Cubans, and they'd probably have their sex shops too).

Also, you may not notice sex shops for other cultures, because they might be more discreetly marked, because most of their clients(often straight whites) do not wish to bring notice to themselves by going there. Different cultures approach sexuality differently. Mainstream American culture tends to be keep sex behind closed doors(comparatively to the rest of the world, European cultures have much more liberal attitudes than we do). The Japanese, now there's some sexually open people - as I understand it it is perfectly acceptable there to read porn on a subway train. Perhaps you see these shops because the homosexual culture in general is not ashamed of sex as you are.

That's irrelevent. For a small homosexual population, they've got an awfully huge amount of sex shops! It is not only exclusive to homosexual areas, but exclusive to their sex culture. It's clearly disordered.

No, that's not irrelavent. If their population is mainly clustered in urban areas(particular areas of cities) then their sex shops will be clustered. And, as I said, could just be a cultural thing - the Atlanta homosexual areas do not have such shops. Cultures in different cities and regions are inherently different. In the south there is a more socially conservative atmosphere, in California there is a more liberal one. You mention seeing pictures of New York - I've been there, the only sex shops, strip joints, ect. that I saw were heterosexual ones and they were quite common. So, is New York disordered because they have an abundance of sex shops?

There's a reason why all those sex shops are in one area. It has to do with zoning. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Young v. American Mini Theatres that cities have a right to regulate the spacing of places that sell pornography and sexually related merchandise. San Francisco might have designated a few small areas, and the ones with predominantly homosexual patronage might be located in that particular area, because of the concentration of people of that affiliation in that area.

As for them being sexual addicts, I guess that's something that they can come together with Newt Gingrich on in a bipartisan coalition.

I don't know about Atlanta (http://www.outinatlanta.com/) (that site seems pretty sex-oriented); it may be an exception, but the point is that homosexual regions are predominantly like this. This, however, is a small dab in the big painting. Homosexuals as I've shown have enourmous amounts of promiscuity. Homosexuality is not normal.


One aspect of homosexuality is the fact that they cannot control their sexuality. Again, AP Bell and MS Weinburg reported that 25% of homosexual white men had sex with children sixteen or under. One study stated "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men; in contrast, around 25 to 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."  (Archives of Sexual Behavior, "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles"). Another study done by Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy showed that homosexual men are three times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. A gay magazine, The Gay Report, found that 73% of homosexuals had at sometime had sex with children sixteen to nineteen or younger.

I suppose I could keep throwing statistics, but it's not going to change anyone's minds.

Well, Brambila, I'm sure you're aware that I support lowering the age of consent to 13 or 14, because I believe mature minors are entitled to sexual liberty and privacy (q.v. Carey v. Population Services International, and the age of maturity in common law as practiced, 14). This has been pulled of in several European countries with nary a hitch.

Brambila,

1. Homosexuality and paedophilia are NOT, I repeat, NOT the same. I've read a good study on this(can't find it now, but I'll see if I can find it later for you), and the findings were thus - About half of all child molestations are done by paedophiles, and the other half was not done by what would be classified as truly paedophile. The true paedophile half was attracted to children of both sexes(yes, possibly preferring one or the other, but they could have been caught in an instance with either sex regardless of preference) and had little or no attraction to adults. The other half was actually more attracted to adults than children, and usually resulted to child molestation out of sexual molestation(not an excuse by any means, but think of it like this: Prison inmates may engage in same-sex rape of other inmates, but they actually prefer women in most cases and some[particularly convicted rapists] are sent back to prison for raping another woman), and in these cases usually the opposite sex was preferred. The difference should be clear - Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex(often those of their own age group, which is what I've seen most often) and paedophiles are attracted to children. Stop linking the two, regardless of what paedophiles prefer.

2. The one from The Gay Report about 73% of homosexual men having had sex with with boys 16-19 years old(19 by the way is not a child, you are recognized as a full grown adult by law, about the only thing you can't legally do at 18 is drink). Does this statistic include or disinclude the time periods when these men were that age? If they had sexual relations with boys of their own age, should that really be included? If indeed these encounters were included, then the statistic is making a false implication. For instance, if a man had sex with a female partner, both age 16, provided a truthful answer he would say he had had sex with a 16 year old no matter what age he was asked at.

What a sad day. One day I won't have to come on here and defend my right to live a decent life. The UK isn't perfect, but it doing the right thing. We even had a well known and well loved, openly gay childrens TV presenter. I'll never understand why Americans get so worked up about all this. And you wonder why Europeans are growing tired of you. The vast majority of homophobes, from my own experience, are that way to detract attention from their own failings. The people who talk about gays violating the 'sanctity of marriage' are the same people who have probably been divorced more times than Henry VIII.

Well that is why we are americans and you are not

There is a relatively simple explanation to this. A lot of these gays were closeted as children/teens and so were sexually unable to .......experience everything.......normally....... at that age. They are still in a way living their childhood.

That doesn't make it right, or mean that it's not a problem.

Gay marriage reminds me of opebo.

Ok, I have to know how anything having to do with monogamy could remind you of opebo.

That's not the part that reminds me opebo. Not that gay marriage is necessarily monogamous.

Well, marriage itself isn't necessarily monogamous, but typically it is. Still, I'm wondering how exactly the two are related.

That seems a bit speculative.

It seems more likely to me that pedophilia towards little boys is a different instinct than homosexual attraction to grown men, though both technically involve sex with other males so it is easy to lump them together to make a point like Brambila did.

From what I've read, that is the case.

From my research and reading, I would say the most sensible way to classify sexual tendencies would be as follows: Pedophilia is something totally different than homosexuality, ephebophilia involves a homosexual tendency with a pathological aspect, and sexual attraction towards adults could be described as a mature and developed homosexual tendency.

Whatever happened to that hate-monger Brambilla?