Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[California Dreamer]

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

[KEmperor]

I dont need to 'oustmart' a silly book

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?

---

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

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?

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.

[angus]

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.

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?

[angus]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

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.

[California Dreamer]

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

[ilikeverin]

Notice they don't assign phobias when someone speaks out against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, witchcraft, etc, etc.

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?

[lidaker]

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.

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I know quite a lot about [the bible] having gone to a catholic school for 13 years...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

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.
 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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

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

----

Re: Witchcraft...

So you're anti-Wicca, 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.

[Lunar]

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.

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?

[California Dreamer]

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'

[angus]

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.

[Nation]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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'

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?  

[angus]

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

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.

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.

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.

[California Dreamer]

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

[WMS]

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.

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

[Nation]

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.

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

Oh yeah.

[The Duke]

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.

[Nation]

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.

[angus]

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?