Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge in California.
And the judge happened to be homosexual.
Big shock, right?
Oh, and the governor of the state of California—Arnold Schwarzenegger—and its attorney general—Jerry Brown—who are tasked with upholding the law of the state of California and who were the original defendants in the case . . . failed to failed to defend the measure in court.
You could knock me over with a feather.
As it’s been said, “The fix was in.”
The outrageous thing here—or one of them—is that biology itself tells you that there is a fundamental difference between the union of a man and a woman and same-sex unions. It’s blindingly obvious. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The thing is, the voters of California weren’t among the blind. After the California Supreme Court tried to shove homosexual marriage on the populace of the state, the only resource was to pass a constitutional amendment, which the voters did by passing Prop 8.
And they didn’t just do it in any ol’ year. They did it in 2008, which was not only a presidential election (bringing out more voters, making it harder to pass controversial amendments) but also the year in which Californians voted to elect Barack Obama (meaning the liberal end of the political spectrum was dominant at the polls) . . . and the voters still passed Prop 8.
Of course, there is no right for homosexuals to marry each other, either in the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. This is simply a case of pro-homosexual elites reading their own values into the law and then forcing them on the people. (Not that the people are in such great shape on this subject, but it remains the truth that the courts are being used because homosexual activists cannot—and have not—gotten what they want through the ballot box.)
So now the case is going to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and which is notoriously liberal.
Then it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, no matter who wins.
Depending on how activist the Court is feeling when it hears the case, Americans may wake up one day in the next year or two and find that homosexual marriage has been imposed on the entire country, because the swing vote—Anthony Kennedy—ain’t very reliable on this subject, and recent precedents aren’t very positive.
Oh, and all those folks who voted for Barack Obama? If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, they will likely have themselves to thank for this, because Obama will have appointed two justices to the Court by the time it hears the case—justices who will almost certainly be “yes” votes for homosexual marriage. If Obama had not been elected, the chance of an additional one or two “no"s on the court would have been quite real, making the swinging Kennedy vote irrelevant.
See what happens set aside moral issues aren’t at the forefront of what people are voting on?
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
Couldn’t we hate the sinner, just this once, Jimmy?
Wow and here I thought Jesus said to “LOVE your neighbor as yourself.”
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Billy, who are you kidding? That line is and always has been a load of junk. You folks have ALWAYS hated the sinner.
In a culture that has turned romance into a commodity to be purchased at outlets like eHarmony and permits “no fault” divorce, marriage becomes an institution ordered only to the subjective tastes of those who enter into it. Since this the underlying assumption of most everyone who walked into that courtroom, also the assumption the law upholds and the assumption that social conservatives have utterly failed to address, is such a ruling really a surprise? There simply exists no rational basis to deny same-sex marriage when the only thing that marriage is assumed to be is a temporary outlet meant to suit the ephemeral desires of the individual.
Also, I think Jimmy’s implication that the judge’s being a homosexual constituted the only reason the judge ruled the way he did is, at least on its surface, bigoted in the extreme. It might help if, based on the testimony and evidence actually admitted to the trial, if Jimmy could point out where, specifically, in the judge’s opinion, the judge went wrong. In the absence of that, he leaves open the possibility that those who experience same-sex attraction are ontologically incapable of recognizing and/or acting upon truth or are psychologically compelled to the sins that will damn them, against which no Sacrament, no evangelization and no messiah can yet be demonstrated to be salvific.
Odd how biology doesn’t prevent divorce, which is what half of heterosexual legal unions end in. Why not just leave people alone ... what does it have to with your life if it’s not about you? And actually, in countries where gay marriage has already been legalized, there’s been an increase in straight marriage. Maybe it reminds people of what the word ‘sanctity’ actually means.
@Mike Kays,
“Odd how biology doesn’t prevent divorce, which is what half of heterosexual legal unions end in. Why not just leave people alone”
Funny how when two people get divorced they beg the state, outsiders to interfere. Who keeps the house, the car? They demand outsiders to divide their children like so much property, to spend 24 to 48 hours two days a week with father. They cry out for the bank to garnish the wages of the spouse. They demand the police, strangers with guns, leap into action at every time a spouse draws near.
Why not just leave people alone?
If you wish to get the public out of marriage I certainly would not hold up divorce as “leaving people alone.”
Modern states record marriage, they don’t make marriages.
The state doesn’t make marriage any more than they make two birds nest together. They recognize a natural biological union rooted in procreation. This union of two people existed long before the 1776 union of states.
I’m no philosopher who can survey the deep moral truths, but your very example citing divorce and then demanding the public from staying out of it is very contradictory.
Sorry, but most of the comments thus far miss the point. This is less about homosexual marriage and more about activist judges abrogating the will of the people. If Americans, in a democratic Republic, believe that gay marriage is right and proper then they’d vote that way. Instead despite time after time, state after state, voting down gay marriage the liberal activist judges impose law upon us without our consent. I thought our vote was “the will of the people”? Not anymore. Now the liberal establishment is oligarch. That’s called a breach of our freedom and a betrayal of our liberty. Pull you liberal heads out of <ahem>...
TomH: It is unconstitutional for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
CA should invoke the 10th Amendment, like they are doing with (rightly or wrongly) medical marijuana. Much like what Wisconsin did with the Fugitive Slave laws. Much like what some states did with mandatory conscription during the War of 1812. Much like the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions denouncing the Alien and Sedition Acts.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
@IA
My comment about leaving people along was in regards to gay marriage, not heterosexual divorce.
As to your comment, “They recognize a natural biological union rooted in procreation”, a few things need to be clarified. “Natural” is relative, as sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is just as natural as two persons of opposite gender. Say what you will, but various body parts can go together nicely. Those are biological facts. Further, marriage is not definitively a “natural biological union”, it is for all intents and purposes a legal one. Nature might dictate a completely different set of rules related to human unions, if the legal implications were to be absent (see the rest of the Animal Kingdom, which by the way, sees more than it’s fair share of homosexual activity and even unions). As well, your assertion that a union need be dependent on procreation is instantly faulty, as there are many couples of opposite gender who either choose to abstain from procreation or who are infertile. You can use the word “rooted”, even though it refers to a legitimate aspect of human unions, but that doesn’t create an absolute. Anyhow, I would say that marriage should be ‘rooted’ in love and attraction, first and foremost.
Finally, it obviously needs to be stated (ad nauseum, it would seem based on what I constantly read and hear). No one wants to take marriage away from heterosexuals, or change their rights. To suggest otherwise would be the height of idiocy. Rather, this is a matter pertaining specifically to homosexual couples, who are in love and spending their lives together. Just because people are different than you doesn’t invalidate their existence, nor does it allow others the right to dictate their lives or validate their relationships.
Again, in countries where gay marriage was already legalized, there has been an increase in heterosexual marriage. To ignore this and sandblast ahead with rhetoric is nothing but willful ignorance and a blatant inability to accept fact in an attempt to validate misconception and bias.
Sorry, I meant to say ‘alone’, not “along”, in the first sentence of the first paragraph of my prior post.
@Mike Kays - I think you’ll enjoy http://frjohnriccardo.libsyn.com/homosexuality_why_not_dr_janet_smith - Well, I don’t really think you’ll enjoy it. I think *it* will challenge your assumptions.
Here’s a direct link to the URL I posted above.
D,
How are people with same-sex attraction being tyrannized?
Mike Kays,
Leave people alone? Fine. Men and women with same-sex attractions should leave me alone, and stop asking me (by way of society, by way of government force) to validate their relationships. If they really are committed to each other, state recognition via a marriage license would be unimportant. My marriage license was only important in that it was required in order to get married in the Church.
I would be interested in seeing the statistics on marriage in the countries you describe, and how it was determined that there could be some causality between legalization of same sex unions and an uptick in marriages.
Eric,
Jimmy’s implication is not that the judge ruled only because he himself is homosexual, but that the judge had a very possibility of having a vested interest in this ruling, and perhaps he should have recused himself. Imagine this in a slightly different vein…pretend the decision was to uphold Prop. 8, made by a devout Catholic (not a la Pelosi) who attends Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
It is against the constitution to deny equal rights to all. By being denied equal rights, the minority is indeed being tyrannized.
I am a devout Catholic who fails to understand why people do not follow what Jesus said was the greatest Commandment “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and with all your mind and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Hatred, ridicule, and prejudice do not equal love. The New Testament provides a definition of love in 1 Corinthians: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
I do not see discrimination, ridicule, hatred, etc., in that definition of love, nor do I see it in Jesus’s teachings. As Christians, we are called to follow in Christ’s footsteps. I fail to see where embracing bigotry is following in His footsteps.
@Mike Kays
This battle is over the legal definition of marriage. I’m sure that people from from all the civilizations and tribes throughout history have had a word meaning “the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation”. The word that means this in the english language happens to be “Marriage”. Homosexuals are nothing new, but their desire to be included in the word “Marriage” is. This DOES take something away from heterosexuals. Namley, the popular definition of the word marriage as being unique to the union between a man and a woman. There could be any number of new words coined to mean “homosexual union” and whatever word they came up with could be garneshed with all the legal benefits that the word Marriage is (not that i’m for that BTW). However instead of following that logical course of action the lobbyists and liberals are going after OUR word. Also, as far as the natural side of things goes, God only recognizes one Sacramental union between people and its between a man and a woman. The secular powers of the world can’t change that, it’s beyond their jurisdiction.
To Mike Kays:
Marriage is about love but a special type since I love my dog, I love my sister, I love my best friend and I love my mom does not imply that a union between any of them is a ‘marriage’. It goes along with a unique bodily union that has the potential for procreation (not any body part of mine in any body cavity of yours or vice versa). All unions do not biologically complete each other. The “two shall become one” only works with a male and a female. What the lower species may or may not do is not a green light for the higher order. We are rational human beings and understand the nature of the gender.
@ D
Its also loving to let someone know they’re doing it wrong. And to be perfectly honest I’m not really sure how much of the Corithians love can be conveyed textually over the internet. To really love people the way Paul talks about it, I think they need some skin on them. The best way to love someone through a comment box, methinks, is to refrain from pointless name calling and combat logical errors in the manner best suited to back and forth corresponance. The internet is more Thomist than Franciscan when you think about it. Please St. Thomas, pray for us that our eyes may behold the truth, Amen.
@ Carson Weber: I’ll try and get to that when I have some more time.
@ Stephen Siekerski:
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884
As for your assertion that you are somehow being harassed, here’s a tip. Leave other people alone. You can think anything you want, you can feel anything you want, you can write anything you want. You can choose to not read articles, view television programming, you even have the right to turn away from people on the street or outside on their lawns. What you CAN’T do is interfere in other peoples lives. Waah. Poor you. Poor trodden-on you. And as to your statement that you only needed a marriage license to get married in a Church ... rather convenient to keep it around afterward, wouldn’t you say? Further, how do you know gay couples don’t want to get married in a church? Many do, some even do it. It might not be YOUR church, but I’ll tell ya buddy, the atoms are moving very, very fast, everywhere, regardless of whether you’re standing in a ‘church’ or not. That’s the True Church that we ALL wake up in.
You might also like to know of my friends Charles and Richard, who were married almost as long as my father and mother. Nope, they never had a ‘marriage license’ or even a ‘wedding’ ... they were before all of that was even heard of. But they loved each other more than anything else in the world, and they lived together, in the same house, sharing the same bedroom, minding their own business, happy and in love, for 43 years. You, nor anyone else, has any say in that. As much as you’d probably like to, you can’t govern love.
I do not understand why people compare love between adults to love of animals.
I also do not understand the insistence that it is only marriage if it has the potential for procreation. That excludes all the elderly people who marry, as well as those who are infertile. That is extremely sad.
@ ad nauseum: oh really? If you’re speaking of the god of the bible, seems ‘he’ sanctioned all SORTS of things through the years, including polygamy and the slaughter of innocent infants. I’d rethink governing yourself by too much of that ‘jurisdiction’, if I were you.
@Woody: It’s my opinion that you are unable to look beyond anything but yourself. In other words, since it’s not YOU, then why should anyone ELSE be different? You aren’t able to see past your own person, your own life, and your own ego. If two people of same gender and homosexual orientation (see, that’s sort of the clincher there)fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together, why shouldn’t they be able to do so in marriage? Or at least they should have the right to try and do so, before they join the ranks of heterosexual marriages which end in divorce. Or, isn’t that natural? I keep waiting for divorce to be outlawed, since marriage between a man and a woman is so much more sacred. Or, wouldn’t god approve?
@Mike Kays
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp
To address your polygamy concerns, the second question seems to be pretty close to what I’ve heard elsewhere.
As for the slaughter of innocent infants. I have no idea what your talking about. I have heard of abortion though and I’m sure you know how we feel about that.
Secession now!
@ ad nauseum:
Hosea 9:11-16
“The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived.”
Ezekiel 9:5-7
“Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”
Exodus 12:29-30
“And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon.”
Leviticus 26:21-22
“I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens.”
This one is especially lovely ...
Isaiah 13:15-18
“Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.”
Anyhow, back on topic ...
It appears the anti-Catholic bigots are trying to hijack these comment boxes.
Now, as to the (im)morality of gay “marriage,” Catholic Answers has a very good essay on the subject:
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
Thankfully, it doesn’t really mater what Catholic Answers has to say on the matter of gay marriage. That was the point of today’s ruling.
If you can’t handle hearing about ‘body parts and homosexual acts’, then I’d say you have some growing up to do. Humans aren’t Weebles, they’re people, with body parts. Sex is a natural part of human expression, and is particularly wonderful between two adults who are in love with one another. It’s not ‘dirty’, nor is it something to be hidden or ignored. It’s called human sexuality, you should check with your local school and see if they offer a course.
Anyhow, there’s nothing really more for me to say, or that I need to say. Charles and Richard, 43 years.
Good luck and peace, all of you. And I do mean all.
@D: “It is against the constitution to deny equal rights to all. By being denied equal rights, the minority is indeed being tyrannized.”
Hello. Those ‘rights’ are given by “Nature and Nature’s God.”
Those rights are dependant upon what we are by NATURE. We are either MALE or FEMALE. There is nothing else. What you are thumping for is an ARBITRARY, MAN-MADE right. That is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution!
As such, we are ALL being tyrannized. The government has absolutely NO authority to repudiate what “Nature and Nature’s God” has given us. Such is TYRANNY.
May God help us.
Ok, fine. The next time that idiots across this land vote in another loony-liberal president I’m going to sue to toss their votes out because they are pushing their will and their beliefs on me. If the Prop 8 votes hold no sway then why in the world should the votes of all those who voted for Obama (or those who will vote for his ilk in the future) do so?
How ridiculous. By that way of thinking, don’t take your blood pressure medicine.
This is not ABOUT you.
How come when I don’t ask to receive follow-up comments, I still get them in my inbox?
@D:“I also do not understand the insistence that it is only marriage if it has the potential for procreation. That excludes all the elderly people who marry, as well as those who are infertile. That is extremely sad.”
Do we say that the nature of the EYE is for seeing? Even if some people are born NATURALLY blind? Or, if someone develops macular degeneration when they get on in years???
So, tell me…why is this thing called ‘marriage’ recognized in the first place?
@ Mike Kays: “How come when I don’t ask to receive follow-up comments, I still get them in my inbox?”
Because ALL responses have equal protection under the law, even if you don’t want to see them :-)
@choirloftmember
I would agree with you, that is the point of most species on our planet. Which is, to further the genetic code. Bacteria, even.
You say that the eye is still for seeing, even when blindness takes its sight away. You say that degeneration of the eye presents no rebuttal to its original presence. However, what of the human heart, that which is not only in our bodies, but in our very souls? Is it not there to bring us closer to the glory of our creator, in our partner whom we cherish above all others?
What of the nature of love?
Why is this a surprise?
We wonder why a government seems to ignore natural law in order to maintain plurality by appeasing the minority. That has been the modus operandi from day one. If the government sees that same-sex marriage will serve it’s self interest, it will override the will of the people to do so. My only hope is that the 1st Amendment will be upheld when churches choose to practice their religion freely by maintaining their belief in marriage as between a man and a woman. I’m aware of the possible social implications that have been presented concerning the inclusion of same-sex marriage. (Freud will have to come back from the dead to devise a new way to categorize his psychosexual development stages to take into account two daddies or mommies…interesting) Same sex couples can get marriage licenses from the state for all I care. I’m just concerned that what the government has declared as law will be imposed on my freedom of religion within the confines of my Church. Of course that wouldn’t be seen as a breach of the separation of church and state.
I fail to see how equal rights are being withheld for anyone if Prop 8 is upheld. I (a man) am equally prohibited from so-called “marriage” to another man. The question isn’t about equality, but about the nature of marriage. If three people love eachother and wish to enter into a marriage of ‘3’, why should the state limit marriage to 2 human persons? Would it be discriminatory against those 3 to prohibit that threesome union from being recognized a “marriage”? Definitely! But, it’s a form of just discrimination, just as it’s a form of just discrimination to prohibit a father from marrying his daughter.
“see the rest of the Animal Kingdom, which by the way, sees more than it’s fair share of homosexual activity and even unions).”
1)Animals who engage in “homosexual” play do not actually have sex - they are dominance games - my two male cats do it all the time - they take turns dominating each other so using this as a justification for same sex marriage is truely lame….
2)my lifetime gay friends don’t call me a bigot simply because I have different views on marriage…go figure…but my mom did tell me that people who call you names are usually telling you exactly what they are themselves.
@ Mike Kays
-Oh look, someone who likes to quote the Bible at random to make a case and likes to be ignorant of the contexts too!
Concerning Hosea 9:11-16
- A natural punishment on Israel for the bad things they did that they brought onto themselves.
Concerning Ezekiel 9:5-7
- Here we have a vision, you know what that is? An in somehting symbolic? Again, referring to something Jerusalem brought upon itself for its stupidity.
Concerning Exodus
- God punished the Egyptians, you know? Those same people who killed every Hebrew newborn child to keep their population down? Also it was a demonstration
against the Pharoah, who was considered a god and protector of the first born sons. By this action, and all the previous plagues and events, God demonstrated
the worthlessness of the Egyptian gods. Divine justice if I ever saw it. And besides I’m sure you’re one of those ignorant sorts who think that this is somehow some kind of argument to show that God doesn’t follow his own laws… So to educate you, the laws God places on us are to govern us. God, being the supreme divine being who created the universe is good and has power over our souls in life and in death. He alone has every right to choose the hour of death for everyone, even little children. And the reason that children and we die and suffer goes all the way back to man’s rebellion in Eden. So all these problems are our fault and God works with us within this death filled world for our salvation.
Concerning Leviticus 26-21-22
- A punishment for disobedience, and it should be recalled that much of these events are natural circumstances that God allows to happen. And here God is generally speaking about all manner of sin and situations surrounding them. If you have trouble understanding that, here’s an example: Say you are a dishonest ruler or person of rank in government. You behave like an idiot and do dishonest things, you may upset a neighbouring country, they may declare war on you, and as a result children, women, men etc, die. This you can also take as God’s judgment upon you for your behavior as being the sovereign Lord of the Universe who can control every atomic particle according to His will. He also has the power to prevent thigns from happening, providing you repent and ask him to, or that you follow his laws and don’t act like a jackass.
Concerning Isaiad 13:15-18
- A prophecy, and again God prophecizing the natural calamaties of men warring against each other. God can stop this, providing all men turn back to Him and obey Him. But men do not. So… mankind left to itself will bring this calamity on itself… and some people, like you, will continue to think God is responsible, so the problems remain.
So Mike Kays, I’m sure you can go back to whatever resource you’re using and find many mre colourful out of context Biblical quotes, and I know a couple myself! But if you have the time to go searching for them, how about trying to visit an Apologetics site, like Catholic Answers, or even the many Protestant Apologetics sites will do when it comes to the Bible and learn some history and stop moronically applying your 21st Century thinking to an ancient setting whose history, circumstances, cultures and problems you haven’t the slightest idea about, and also some simple Theology 101 about the nature of God, sin and the death and the morality of children etc. would also do you good.
And for the rest of the claptrap here defending Gay Marriage:
-Regarding Animals
You can’t use the animal kingdom as an example. Animals also eat their runts for nutrition and do many other horrible things. They’re not examples to follow. Finally if you knew anything abotu Christianity, you’d know that the world and Nature is fallen and diminishing, thus nature is corrupted and nothing like the paradise it once was, so what you observe in nature and in humanity, is not a good argument to use in a Christian worldview. Nature is corrupted and cursed because of sin, therefore using animals and anture to judge right and wrong is faulty reasoning. The only natural laws we can rely on are those from God who created the world perfectly and created mankind and things like gender and sexuality with a purpose and He is to be obeyed. Finally there is no such thing as a homosexual animal. What can be observed as ‘homosexual acts’ in animals are usually acts of dominance or in other cases ways communicate the need to stop aggression, or in other cases, because they are trying to identify if the other mate is of the opposite gender. Animals are limited in their means to communicate and thus use other natural motions to communicate a variety of things. To read ‘homosexuality’ into their actions is like seeing a male lifeguard giving CPR and mouth to mouth resusitation to another male swimmer and presuming that because their mouths are touching and it looks like a kiss, that they are homosexual… And with all due respect to homosexuals, they are people too and their homosexual emotions are far too complicated to reduce to the notion of what animals do, so you do them a dis-service and ought to be more considerate, and if you are a moral person to help them to lead full fledged lives through proper sexual identity and complimentary partnerships and the fruits of procreation and the experiences of someone of another gender to support them through life that are only found and fulfilled in monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Awesome Brad Paisley song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNU3k_poj_Q
I know I’m late to the party, but I’ll just throw this out there for people who can’t understand love.
D, you said:
“”“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and with all your mind and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Hatred, ridicule, and prejudice do not equal love. “”“
You are right in this statement and wrong in your conclusions. If I hate you, I am not loving. If I ridicule you, I am not loving. If I lie and tell you that your sin is good, I am not loving. If I lie and say that you are married to someone you are not married to, I am not loving.
If there is a cancer eating away at your body and I love you, I MUST hate that cancer.
If there is a cancer eating away at your soul and I love you, I MUST hate that cancer.
So many people think that being non-confrontational is the same as love. It’s time to think a little harder on the topic.
Concerning rights and love
- Homosexuals have ALL the same rights afforded to them as Heterosexuals. They lack NOTHING! Homosexual people can’t marry someone of the same gender, and guess what?! Neither can Heterosexuals! (You know, in case anyone wanted to take advantage of immigration benefits through marriage etc. any excuse will do these days) What homosexuals want are the creation of new rights that never existed. So you can’t marry someone you might have feelings of ‘love’ for? Boo hoo, so can’t a lot of people. For example a heterosexual man has not right to marry a woman who is already married to someone else, despite how much he may be in love with her. SOme people would rather marry and have sex with their dog because its the only companion who they felt had any ‘love’ for them… Some today are arguing for the right to have sex with underaged children!!! SOme argue for the right to have incestuous relationships!! Tough luck! Oh, but you think such comparisons are unfair due to the nature of it all. Well, so is life, can’t have everything you want and feelings of ‘love’ in no way justify everything. People seem to think that ‘love’ is some sort of justification for any and everything. Well people have killed and started wars simply for the sake of amorous love. THeir feelings don’t justify their crimes. Some men love too many women simultaneously, ddoesn’t make their actions justified! Some may even have feelings they interpret as love and sexual longing for underaged children or relatives! Who are you to criticize and understand how they feel? Feelings are worthless in an argument about what is right, lawful and moral. They become emotional arguments that carry no weight and can be illogical. The sovereign God of the universe who made us and understands us better than we do ourselves has given us commandments that will help us be more fulfilled human beings, not only for ourselves but for the sakes of all. Ignore them at your own peril. Love can be abused and become a corrupted feeling just like any other emotion. Take anger for example. People seem to think anger is bad. But it’s actually a useful emotion that provides a service. WIthout anger, we would never be moved if we saw an injustice being done. If we are not moved by anger, then we would not take steps to correct a situation. God who is all good also gets angry, thus anger can be justified. But men can abuse anger by taking it too far than is necessary and become consumed by it using it in ways that are immoral and wrong. So too, emotions of love can overide a person and lead them to committ and do very foolish and immoral things. Such people need to be stopped and helped so that they can correctly control themselves and set themselves back on the path of perfection using God as their model and obeying his instructions in what constitutes perfect Love. We can also go into the issues that homosexuality has contributed to in society and the ramphant immorality and pervisity that runs through the homosexual communities that even their champions are reluctant to admit to. But it is also true that this widespread immorality has long run ramphant in the heterosexual community. Thus heterosexuals need to be disciplined first and foremost as they have provided the excuses for homosexual to justify themselves. Get heterosexuals to behave correctly and respect marriage, and homosexuals will inevitably have to fall in line. Any heterosexual who masturbates, divorces, has anal sex, uses contraception, indulges in pornography, polgamy, orgies, etc. etc. will find themselves in the same furnace in hell alongside ardent homosexuals who too celebrated such excesses of ‘love’. So heterosexuals whould first stop acting like hypocrites. It’s always beena slippery slope folks. the homosexual rights movement is the inevitable circumstance of heterosexual’s immorality. They’re following your example! And now heterosexuals support homosexuals in attempts to further convince themselves that there’s nothing wrong in their own immoral actions. Nice groupthink there, as if that has any beaaring on your judgment when you stand before God on the day you die. But rather than be all hell and brimstone, the sad fact that many miss is that a proper heterosexual and monogamous relationship between two people who follow God’s commandments in all matters can enjoy so much happiness with the benefits and amazing lives that can only occur in a family setting. Giving birth to your own children, having sexual and intimate conformity with your mate and keeping the aspect of procreation in mind, never taking your mate for granted as something that is just there to relieve your sexual tension are things so many people miss out on. The greatest tragedy in all this is not being consigned to hell for your sins, but realizing on the joy you missed out on by succumbing to and justifying your sinful habits. And woe on thsoe people who encourage homosexuals to continue on with their immoral lives. Because when you all die, and you all will, and they are in hell for their sins, they will also testify against you before God as being the one who encouraged them, and you will be held responsible. So think very carefully about what you are doing and if you’re willing to accept the responsibility for your words and actions!
Whether it was Obama or McCain that brought the next two justices doesn’t matter. There have been courts in the past that have decided in favor of gay marriage where a majority of those justices were appointed by republicans (Case in point: Gay marriage case in Iowa). Gay marriage isn’t a republican or democrat issue, nor is it a conservative or liberal issue. Its a question on human rights. Who even says that the Supreme Court decision will be a 5-4. It could very well be a 6-3, or a 7-2. Who know if Roberts or Alito are going to decide in favor of gay marriage? Again, just because you are conservative doesn’t mean you can’t be in favor of gay marriage if the arguments in favor of it are stronger than the arguments against it.
@Sam Your head’s in the sand, brother.
@Mike Kays: “What of the nature of love?”
Sacrifice.
Jesus on the cross.
The will of the Father.
If the SCOTUS okays SSM we Catholics should avoid a counter-attack that copies interminable pro-life trench warfare. Strategic voting and church politicking has done relatively little to change abortion policy in the United States. Allegiance to the Religious Right lobby and the Republican party have nearly displaced devotion life and sacramental piety as markers of Catholic loyalty.
The drive to overturn abortion law has taken on overtones of the Reconquista. Win a few skirmishes here, take a few setbacks there. It took seven centuries to drive the “Moors” from Iberia. If we’re in this for the long haul we’ve got to find better culture war tactics than the ones the Church has tried in the almost forty year struggle against Roe. I don’t know what these new tactics will be, but something’s got to break the stalemate.
@Sam: “Its a question on human rights.”
And, WHERE do those rights come from?
They come from “Nature and Nature’s God.”
However, gay ‘marriage’ advocates DENY what “Natue and Nature’s God” designed - Male + Female = Children to be nurtured and educated by the parents in a a stable environment.
So, the entire argument is irrational, as advocates claim certain “God-given” rights but ignore other “God-given” rights.
@D:
Jesus did not tolerate sin. “Repent and sin no more!”
To love God (the first commandment) is to not sin (turning your back on God, not doing his will). How can you love God when you sin?
“Love your neighbor as you would yourself.” Absolutely! I would not want my neighbor to sin just as much as I don’t want to sin and to reject God’s will. I would want my neighbor to repent and stop sinning, you know, like Jesus commanded. That is love.
It bugs me when somebody always misinterprets (whether ignorantly or purposefully) these two commandments, all for some ambiguous, secular-humanized type of “love.”
Thus your argument fails.
No we don’t hate the sinner. We hate the sin that is intrinscally disordered and immoral which separates us from the love of God….....
Wow, there are some serious issues in this thread. I can’t address all of them (especially the inane rambling posts), so I’ll try and state a few points and keep them brief.
1) Here is a link on other instances of homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom. But remember, we too, as homosapiens, are included in the Animal Kingdom. We are vertebrates and mammals. There are human mothers who drown their children.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
Some animals engage in same-gender sexual activity for a variety of reasons (pleasure, dominance, etc). Others actually mate for life.
2) Regarding the ‘bible’ scriptures I quoted, you can go ahead and attempt to justify the slaughter of innocent children all you want to. It won’t make a bit of difference to me, and I will never worship your selfish, egotistical, whining, childish ‘god’.
3) The word “God” holds no magic power, and it doesn’t impress me (or cause me fear) when people use it in a sentence. Actually, I doubt any of you even know where the word originated. It didn’t come from Hebrew, it actually came from Sanskrit, the language of Hinduism.
Carry on ...
Mike
“”“and I will never worship your selfish, egotistical, whining, childish ‘god’. “”“
If that was what God is, I would join you in denouncing him. That is not the God that Christianity professes.
If you have met individuals who were so confused that they professed such a god, then they are to be pitied.
If that is your opinion of what Christians believe on the whole, then you have missed the first step of rational thought. You must understand a concept before it can be logically rejected. Otherwise, you are just building and destroying gods made out of straw.
Mike
Your 1) presupposes that that which occurs naturally is moral. This is untenable. A lion who wants to mate with a lioness must kill any of her young cubs sired by a different male. There are countless other examples. Is that the new standard? Is there a serious logical claim you are attempting to make here?
Your 3) is strange to me. Did someone claim that God came from a Hebrew word? Every culture in every age had the concept of god (obviously, not all monotheistic). Who really cares about the English word’s etymological derivation?
Are you trying to disprove God with an etymological argument of the English word?
Hey guys, let’s try to take a deep breath and reel in some of the anger. Both sides seem to be playing into the other side’s stereo-types of them.
If you love homosexual people and think you are helping them by creating a right to same-sex “marriage,” then tell us what you think.
If you love homosexual people and think that you are helping them by not lying about what marriage is, and by encouraging them to root out the cancer that is killing their soul, then tell us what you think.
If you do not love homosexual people, then please just go away.
Come and let’s reason together. A precondition of reasoning is being reasonable. :o)
@Red-Beard:
I would agree with you that is not the god that Christ professed. 1 John 4:8 - He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
Yes. That aspect of a loving creative energy, I will worship. However, an energy that demands worship versus punishment of pain or death, no, that I will never worship and no one will ever be able to force me to. An energy that stands behind slaughter of entire cities, including elderly and babies, no, that I will never worship and no one will ever be able to force me to.
As much as anyone wants to forget, or speak of divine inspiration, ‘the bible’ was written by human men, in a time long, long ago.
@Red Beard:
As much as you want to, you don’t have the right to define morality for me. My own personal definition of morality is treating others how I myself would want to be treated. It is is the golden rule, and is the basis of most of our species religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
It’s usually when people stray from it, when the problems arise. And no, two people who love one another, in their own orientation, are not immoral to me. I fail to see a comparison there between they and murder.
Mike,
“”“As much as you want to, you don’t have the right to define morality for me.”“”
Well, I am amused that you are projecting ill intentions on me when I never wanted to “define” morality for anyone. Is that what how you would desire to be treated?
I believe that morality is objective and exists outside of any given person’s idea of morality. It is out there waiting to be discovered and understood by the use of our reason. One of the most exciting things people can do is use there reason to explore it together.
Does your term “defining morality for [a subject]” indicate that you believe in a subjective and not an objective morality?
“”“I fail to see a comparison there between they and murder.”“”
I didn’t make one. My biggest objection to “same sex marriage” is that it is an abuse of language. Divorce, is also an abuse.
There is a certain state which has been almost universally recognized as being uniquely beneficial to society. That state is the life-long union of one man and one woman for life. Using any measure you care to apply, you will find that this state is the best state for the procreation and education of children. Many variations have been tried and ultimately rejected over the millenia. This particular state was always and in every case found to be uniquely superior. This state is called marriage.
So marriage is a thing. It exists. It’s not a figment or a thought or an idea, it is a thing. It has been tried and tried and tried and it has been proven over and over. It is so beneficial to society, that the state has decided to encourage it with certain legal protections. Note, the state does not create marriage, it does not define marriage, it merely recognizes marriage.
Now the state wants to recognize some other kind of state and call it marriage. That is confusing and dishonest because words mean something. The state of “same sex marriage” is not the same as the state of marriage. Similarly the state of “I’ll marry you until things get hard and then I’m out of here,” is not the same as the state of marriage.
We’ve been abusing reason and language for a while now so that last point is lost on some people.
Once you get past that point, we can talk about whether or not it hurts people for them to be sexually active outside of marriage (again, life-long, monogomous, heterosexual)
I would argue that to be reasonable about it, we need to use facts and not emotions. That is, think with our brains and not with our passions. Unfortunately, passions and political correctness always seem to rule the day.
@Red Beard
It’s a bit bizarre when you fail to acknowledge your own statements. You spoke of nature and morality, attempting to equate the murder of lion cubs to same gender marriage. To be sure, I’m confident you’ll post a bit of babble trying to talk your way out of that, but you and I and any reader will see right through it. ‘Well, if everything natural were moral, i.e. including same-gender marriage, then that would include a lion killing it’s cubs!’ Gasp! Wide eyes! Oh my!
Get off it dude.
As to the rest, I understand what YOU believe marriage to mean. The joint efforts in childraising, of one man and one woman, may be the current standard, but you and I both know that it’s not been that way “in every case” throughout history, nor is it even NOW that way “in every case”.
As to what is the “best” state, you may find a recent study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics to be of interest. The study was conducted over 7 years, and focused on adolescents raised by lesbian couples.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/20486
What the study found was that the children were actually, typically, BETTER well-adjusted. Read the details of the study, they’re very interesting.
Now, is someone like yourself likely to be ‘objective’ in reading such details? Most likely, no. You’ll see it as a statement AGAINST heterosexual marriage, as being some attempt to discredit heterosexual marriage and instead posing as a statement that heterosexual marriage needs to somehow be abolished. This would be a completely inaccurate and unfounded interpretation.
Another thing you’re likely to ignore, is that heterosexuality will always be the majority. It’s that way in the rest of the Animal Kingdom as well, even in other species that have same-gender mating, it is the minority. Well, it’s the basic biology that we’ve already discussed in this thread. It is The Main Way, if you will, for the genetic code to be furthered.
Does that mean that two individuals of the same gender who love each other, shouldn’t be allowed to marry and raise adopted children? Why wouldn’t that be acceptable? Granted, obviously to YOU it won’t be marriage, because YOU can’t personally relate. To YOU, YOU see the way things are in YOUR eyes and YOUR mind, and thus anything else, including a minority or different point of view, will seem foreign.
I quite agree with you about one aspect of your definition of marriage. As I wrote in an earlier post, my friends Charles and Richard, who were together for 43 years until their deaths, were quite married. Did they need legal recognition? Nope. Did they need a certificate to validate their love? No way. Did they ever have a ceremony? Not in the strict sense of the word, although over the years they had many celebrations in their home. People loved receiving invitations to their dinner parties, or to come and stay for a weekend. Why? Because their home was one of love, and acceptance, where dreams could come true. Because the fact that they had found one another and been able to live together for their lives, was a joy and a wonder to behold. I am thankful to have had such an experience, as their guest. It changed my mind and my life.
Do you or anyone else have the right to invalidate their marriage? Nope. Just as you have no right to invalidate the marriage of a man and a woman who choose not to bear children. I understand that, currently, to YOU the term “same sex marriage” is an abuse of language, but I guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt, if you were of homosexual orientation and you found the person you wanted to spend the rest of your life with, you would NOT.
So do I agree that marriage is a “thing”? Yes. My parents had it, still have it. Charles and Richard had it. I hope to have it someday. I think I’ve met the person I want to spend the rest of my life with, and raise children with. I hope so.
It would be interesting to hear what you think the word ‘family’ means. I have a feeling I already know. But the reality is, it means different things to different people. Some people are given away for adoption, and they have to wait for their family. Sometimes that family is a man and a woman, sometimes it’s a man and a man, and sometimes it’s a woman and a woman. Sometimes a person’s first ‘family’ is so abusive and terrible, that they have to leave of their own volition and find a second family which loves and nurtures them. For others, friends become like family. There are no hard and fast rules. To be sure, for the MAJORITY, the term ‘family’ is defined as a mother and a father and maybe some siblings (and maybe not) but that is not the absolute rule, nor do I believe that it should be, or that it HAS to be. It certainly CAN’T be, obviously, judging by the hundreds of thousands of children waiting to be adopted in the world, even just in our United States.
I understand how much you want to believe in your personal fairy-tale, that everything should be as YOU have it and as YOU see it. But, unfortunately for you (and fortunately for others), that’s not the reality of life. Sometimes things happen in different ways, ways which are just as precious and just as cherishable.
Mr. Akin has written well on this topic before: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411bt.asp
The Catholic Church loves people with a same-sex attraction enough to tell them the truth.
If the governor and AG really believe in our republican form of government, they would honor the will of the people and refuse to consider such a law as suggested by Judge Walker. It is not yet law and won’t be until it is adjudicated, probably through the 9th circuit and to the supreme court. But bad law does not need to be followed. Would the CA gov’t have the guts to stand up against it? Would the voters keep voting out their gov’t until they get it right? Who knows.
Mike
“”“You spoke of nature and morality, attempting to equate the murder of lion cubs to same gender marriage.”“”
I posted a counterexample to a claim that you made that sounded untenable to me.
You seem to have interpreted my meaning to be something like, “All bad things that happen in the animal kingdom are equally as bad as homosexual so-called marriage” This is not an honest representation of my statement. One of the many possible honest characterizations would be: “There are some actions that occur in animals that would be immoral for a rational being.”
A little consideration would help this conversation quite a bit. You and I disagree. Our positions are in opposition to each other and therefore we have the possibility of examining the real differences between our positions. Let’s focus on responding to each other’s actual positions instead of attacking positions that the other isn’t actually taking.
Mike
“”“Now, is someone like yourself likely to be ‘objective’ in reading such details? Most likely, no”“”
I’ll have to read it. This is literally the first study I have ever heard of to make such a conclusion, but I have read several that reach the opposite conclusion. I will have to do a little digging.
You are so quick to assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with you like this?
“”“Does that mean that two individuals of the same gender who love each other, shouldn’t be allowed to marry and raise adopted children? Why wouldn’t that be acceptable? Granted, obviously to YOU it won’t be marriage, because YOU can’t personally relate. To YOU, YOU see the way things are in YOUR eyes and YOUR mind, and thus anything else, including a minority or different point of view, will seem foreign.”“”
You on one hand seem to acknowledge the concept that there is something unique about my definition of marriage and then attack me for, what? not allowing people to love each other? Trying to take something away from people? I’m not sure. I’m fairly certain that I am misunderstanding your indirect responses.
You say you saw 2 men in a loving relationship. That may be. That state deserves a different word than the state that I’ve described because it is representing a different reality. No matter how much two men love each other, their relationship is a different state than the relationship defined as marriage. Applying a different word or stating that the differences are real does not inherently attack that state. It doesn’t belittle the love that could have existed. It doesn’t take anything away.
What it does is obstinately state that there is a difference between 2 men who live a lifelong monogamous relationship with each other and a man and a woman who live a lifelong monogamous relationship with each other.
It seems that differences can not be tolerated. The “Tolerant” crowd is forcing all to concede that differences don’t exist.
It is every bit as irrational as hating those who are different from you is.
The number 2 is not the same as the number 1. They are different. I’m sorry if that offends you, but the truth is more important than your feelings.
We are currently being bombarded with people angrily shouting that “2 is just as good as 1! 2 and 1 are the same! Let’s call start calling 2 1!”
A deep breath and the slightest amount of objectivity should be able to allow any honest person to realize that, at the very least, 2 does not equal 1.
Mike
I think that there is a hidden assumption in your position (these are my words): “If two things are different, one must be better than the other. Therefore we must fight against the idea that the things are different”
Now, I think that I can make the case for inequality of the 2 states in question, but that really is a secondary concern. The first concern is that there is in fact a difference between the 2.
Thankfully, the “will of the people” was disregarded in the cases of slavery and segregation as well.
As Judge Walker so aptly stated, “Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.”
He is most correct. It is not about YOU.
No, Red Beard, your argument crumbles because marriage (up until this point in history, anyways), has NOT meant a “man and a woman who live a lifelong monogamous relationship with each other.” Again, this is what YOU want to believe, and how YOU see things. Men and women can go to Las Vegas and get married and then divorce the next day. Where is your ‘up in arms’ at that? Do I see you posting madly on blogs related to such antics? Indeed, I doubt I would. Further, HALF of ‘marriages’ between men and women, end in divorce. Finally, the number of males who are NOT monogamous (even if they profess to be), is never going to be quite as ideal as you would suggest, not in all the years of history until our sun becomes a supernova and our planet is dissolved. Why have you not fought so ‘valiantly’, to protect your ‘definition of marriage’, towards THOSE entities? No, this is all much different than what you’re superficially presenting, and you know it.
It’s a word. It’s a word that means different things, to different people. Granted, it sounds like it means something special and sacred to you, and I think that’s wonderful. For you.
“”“Where is your ‘up in arms’ at that?”“”
It is in my first post and many of the following posts.
“”“As Judge Walker so aptly stated, “Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.”“”
This is not true. The Catholic Church went from being the largest adoption placement organization in MA to being prevented from operating. They were given the choice: “Do all your charitable activities in a manner that violates your core religious beliefs or stop these charitable activities.”
Thus, an enumerated right in the constitution is infringed for the sake of an imaginary right. You know, the kind that “eminate from the penumbra of the constitution.”
“”“No, Red Beard, your argument crumbles because marriage (up until this point in history, anyways), has NOT meant a “man and a woman who live a lifelong monogamous relationship with each other.” Again, this is what YOU want to believe, and how YOU see things”“”
Are we in the same world? Care to expound on this strange majority of cases you are trying to cite?
Christendom, check.
Judaism, check. (all polygamous relationships end in tears.)
Ancient Greeks and Romans, check (slaves & lovers on the side but marriage is set apart as something different.)
Start listing others if you like. There are exceptions to the rule but they virtually all end badly and have been rejected for monogamy.
Are you making the fallacious assumption that the way things are (current acceptance of fornication) is the way things have always been?
My 5-year-old’s addition to the conversation:
1 is not the same as 2. 1 is same as 1. 2 is same as 2. So these people should not go on saying that 1 + 1 is 4.
Mike Kays: you stated that you won’t have any truck with a God who demands worship versus pain and death…
the reality is this : God is Love and the source of Life- He does not demand pain and death - He is Love and offers us participation in His life through His Son Jesus Christ - if we refuse we have chosen spiritual darkness for ourselves - He does not condemn us - we condemn ourselves - When you participate in a Love relationship you naturally want to praise and adore the beloved…this is worship..When you see your beloved suffer as we saw Christ suffer for us you naturally want to share in His suffering for the sake of others..the creation of the Universe is an expression of mind boggling infinite celestial Love…Marriage done properly as a sacrament is a finite reflection of that infinite love….if we refuse Life (as in taking the life of an unborn child -definitely NOT an act of Love)we refuse God - we choose something other than God…We are free to choose…
@Red Beard: When you start quoting me out of context, is when I question if you’re truly interested in debating honestly. I already stated that your assertion of marriage between a man and a woman as being some sort of automatically sacred sanction, is a fallacy. Las Vegas, divorce rates, abuse, infidelity, these are facts. It all boils down to individual situations.
What you keep referring to is monogamy, a completely different topic altogether.
As for your 5-year old, you know, I work in Pediatrics, and I often say, ‘the hatred in the world, comes from ... these beautiful, pure creatures? How can that be? From beautiful babies?’. I always get the same answer from the other Docs ... ‘from the parents’. Sad, but true.
Your 5-year old would no doubt feel differently if he was being raised in a household that was different than the one he’s currently being raised in, i.e. one headed by two daddies or two mommies.
Besides doing research into children raised by same-sex parents, I would suggest (urge) you to familiarize yourself with some same-gender parents and their families, in your area. Get to know them and their children, and then make your decision based on self-knowledge rather than hearsay and dogma.
Me? I read that AAP study and say, ‘good on ya’. Kudos to people who raise children to be responsible and caring adults. The world needs more of those.
@Mike Kays: The study of the lesbian children had a few problems with it. One of which was that the “adjusted-ness” of the children was SELF-REPORTED by the lesbian moms.
@choir: Hmm, I dunno, it also says that the children were interviewed.
Here are some others:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/an-end-to-gay-adoption-bans/
Please tell me, choirloftmember ... how many adopted children have YOU taken into your household? Has the Love of Christ compelled you to TRULY do His work?
@Mike Kays: “Do you or anyone else have the right to invalidate their marriage? Nope. Just as you have no right to invalidate the marriage of a man and a woman who choose not to bear children.”
First - they DID NOT have a marriage.
Second - Since they did not have a marriage, there is nothing to invalidate.
Main issue - that these men even call their friendship a ‘marriage.’ Tell me how this relationship in any way completes the entire purpose of an individual being one sex or the other and how it provides for the existence of a society (there is no chance at procreation.)
@choirloftmember
43 years of marriage, referred to as a “friendship” ... lol, well I would sure hope it was at least that!
Buddy, I seriously doubt they would have cared what your opinion was one way or the other. You obviously have a lot to learn about homosexual orientation, as well as love.
I wasn’t aware that all married men and women procreated, or that all procreation comes from men and women who are married. Thanks so much for that enlightenment!
“”“When you start quoting me out of context, is when I question if you’re truly interested in debating honestly.”“”
Fair enough, so then, when did I start? When did I misrepresent you? Or is this just another dodge? I firmly believe that the person with the last say on what your position is is you.
Please point out any cases where I misrepresented you. I will gladly take correction on this topic.
“”“Your 5-year old would no doubt feel differently if he was being raised in a household that was different than the one he’s currently being raised in, i.e. one headed by two daddies or two mommies.”“”
I know this won’t help, but this is exactly the reason why same sex couples shouldn’t adopt. The question is, “Is morality arbitrary or is it an external truth.”
If the former, then, as you assert, it makes no difference. If the latter, then brainwashing a child to act contrary to that external truth is to be avoided.
As to that truth, reason alone is enough to point out the disorder of the natural passions involved but people react emotionally and not rationally.
By the way, my daughter was commenting on the mathematics. 5 is young to talk about sex, let alone perversions thereof.
I will follow with some studies of the actual effects of homosexual activities.
Ok, I know everyone likes to respond emotionally and not rationally on this topic so lets look at some points from some studies, shall we?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
Some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:
* One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3)
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)
* Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16)
* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27)
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10)
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10)
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)
* Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10)
* Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8)
* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8)
* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8)
* Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8)
* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8)
* The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8)
* Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8)
* 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8)
* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18)
* About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).
Please note that there are citations for all claims, though I have not read all of the primary sources.
Does anyone still want to argue that marriage and homosexual relationships are really the same thing?
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, two examples of Catholics who have no idea of the tenets of their own faith. You can pass a law that says a dog should be the head of every family but nature says otherwise. You can nullify the truth with a numbskull judge and a couple of fools who agree with him but the truth is that marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriages can be annulled due to nonconsummation. How will this be accomplished between two sterile men/women?
How long will it be before the Catholic Church is attacked and destroyed by the same sex attraction crowd who, like Herod, do not wish to hear that their form of perversion(taking a brother’s wife in an incestuous gesture) or sodomizing each other in a ratification of ***** ?
Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. The world is in a darkness that destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. And yet, good Californians voted for the righteous Prop 8. Save us, O Lord!
Love the sinner. Hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin.Same sex attraction is a perversion. Satan, the Father of Lies, has convinced this judge that turning marriage on its head is ‘good for society.’ We know differently.
Do we want to see our brothers and sisters on the path to perdition? If so, applaud this decision and promote the rampant sin that will be unleashed by this ruling.
If we desire to take as many folks with us as possible to heaven, then we have our work cut out for us. It won’t be easy. It won’t be pleasant. Some of us will be martyred for speaking the truth in love. But it needs to be said so that those who are being deceived by the promises of the world, will not point a finger at us on Judgment Day and say, “You didn’t stand up for the truth, and we have been unwittingly deceived.”
On loving the sinner and hating the sin… I think that the most important starting point is the honest admition that all of us have disordered desires and passions. It is a side effect of the fall.
“”“How long will it be before the Catholic Church is attacked and destroyed by the same sex attraction crowd”“”
Attacked? Old news, we’ve been under attack for 2000 years. Destroyed? Don’t worry, we know how this story ends! The gates of Hell shall not prevail against us.
@Mike Kays: “I wasn’t aware that all married men and women procreated, or that all procreation comes from men and women who are married. Thanks so much for that enlightenment!”
Well, let’s think.
You hit on one truth - “all procreation comes from men and women,” well, one man and one woman.
Now, do we NOT have a bunch of societal problems BECAUSE of out-of-wedlock births? Do societies run best with and do we not want to increase births happening within committed marriages?
Second - one man one woman marriages are the NORM. The fact that you have those who cannot procreate and those that will not does NOT change the NORM.
@Red_Beard:“I know this won’t help, but this is exactly the reason why same sex couples shouldn’t adopt. The question is, “Is morality arbitrary or is it an external truth.”
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this topic.
I will add to your thoughts on this one.
Sending a child into a home with 2 mommies is essentially saying that FATHERS are not necessary. It is easy to come up with statistics and experiences that show the opposite is indeed true.
To place a child with 2 daddies is to say that MOTHERS are not necessary. I’d like someone to say that with a straight face.
@chiorloftmember
You have a very good point about the obvious necessity of both parents. The argument that people will make against you belies a false idea of equality.
It is the idea that men and women are equal, therefore they are the same. Anyone who has spent time with both genders knows that this is patently absurd, but it is still a foundational assumption of anyone who says that “all that matters is that they love the child.”
Men and women are equal, but they are very different. Children deserve to have both a mother and a father. Again, responses to the contrary will almost always be emotional appeals rather than rational ones.
Let me toss this one out there to illustrate a fundamental difference between REAL marriage and same sex unions:
ARRANGED MARRIAGES
We know these exist now and have existed throughout time. Marriage CAN exist between individuals that didn’t choose each other for themselves. As such, you cannot say that ‘love,’ of the warm, fuzzy type, IS NOT what marriage is fundamentally FOR. (However, ‘Love,’ the sacrificial kind, is necessary for the long haul.)
Anyone ever hear of a same-sex ARRANGED marriage?????
Correction>>>>
As such, you cannot say that ‘love,’ of the warm, fuzzy type, IS what marriage is fundamentally FOR.
I want to get married, but cannot decide whether to marry my truck..or my horse. Do you think I could marry BOTH if I petition a judge ?After all, I do have rights..! There is also a cute little boy, age 2, next door..but I can do that later..After all..I do have my rights…ta…
So apparently a gay judge is incapable of being impartial, yet married, overwhelmingly heterosexual and overwhemingly christian judges can?
Vote on fairness and freedom for ALL religions. There are people of different lifestyles, religions and beliefs. For whatever reason, Catholics and Christians fail to realize basic understanding.
The thing that makes gay marriage possible is contraception. When most marriages are neutered, and not procreative, the Gay equality argument gains steam because people cannot see the difference. It is my opinion that gay marriage along with acceptance of contraception and abortion, will come to a natural end when population demographics dictate that procreation is a social obligation and a necessity. And that time is coming pretty fast.
david..yeah..apparently heterosexual judges ARE better when it comes to marriage. That’s all there is to it..!Homosexuals simply lack experience in marital relationship..Too bad. Do you care which I marry..my horse or my car..or/and the kid next door..? hmmmmmm…
Rachelle..WOW..Where is your romantic side ? I think you have been brainwashed by modernism…I think someday in the far future..a couple may love one another enough to produce a child they love…
Mia Archer - I like your thinking. Someday I can see a person marrying ONE (or two or all) of their multiple personalities to partake in all of the gloriuous government handouts (ooops, benefits).
@Rachelle: “...will come to a natural end when population demographics dictate that procreation is a social obligation and a necessity.”
Well - Europe is already there. Some countries are providing benefits to couples to HAVE children. Some others are paying UNMARRIED women to NOT have abortions…....
@Red Beard:
Your low attempts to pull up propaganda from during the AIDS crisis is really, really pathetic. You are to be pitied. It’s due to people like yourself, that AIDS became the pandemic did. It’s good to know that the median lifespan of a homosexual male is 42 LMAO. Too funny. And you’re allowed to be a parent? No, seriously? YOU are responsible for raising a daughter? Completely questionable.
I work in medicine. I see STDs on a daily basis, don’t talk to me about STDs. And yes, the majority I see are in teens who don’t use protection. To be more specific, HETEROSEXUAL teens. They spread some really, really nasty bugs. I’m constantly writing for chlamydia and gonorrhea, for both partners. I’m just thankful there are antibiotics to cure their afflictions.
As for your attempt to spread the notion that all homosexuals are child molesters, that is most definitely false (except, perhaps in your religion, obviously). I actually did my Psychiatry rotation on the ward of a State Mental Institution which housed pedophiles with psychosis, so I can back up the following based on my own observations.
Note:
“Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Here are some findings from the scientific peer-reviewed journal, “Pediatrics” published in July of 1994. The study was done by Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. The subjects were 269 sexually abused children seen at Denver Children’s Hospital over the course of one year.
98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.
99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.
” ... the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.”
http://www.ralliance.org/PedoMyth.html
Here’s some more:
The father of a family is 36 times more likely to abuse a child than a priest is, according to the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964&page=1
The majority of rapes of men and boys are perpetrated by heterosexual males (Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame. Scarce, Michael. Insight Books. New York, New York. 1997.)
Researchers estimate that between 96-100% of accused child sexual abusers are heterosexual. (Are Children at Risk for Sex Abuse by Homosexuals? Jenny, C., Roesler, T., and Poyer, K. Pediatrics Vol.94 No.1, 1994.)
http://www.wcasa.org/info/factsheets/childsa.htm
And here are some random facts about men who abuse women, as well as ‘parents’ (presumable mothers and fathers) who abuse children through neglect and other:
Note:
* Of women killed in 1992, their relationship to the killer was known in 69% of homicides. of this percent, 28% were killed by spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Bureau of Justice Statistics: National Crime Victimization Survey, 1995.
* In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends. — Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996MULTIPLE-VICTIM HOMICIDE
* In cases of marital or dating violence, which accounted for 82% of all protection order cases, 90% of defendants were male. Adams & Powell, Tragedies of Domestic Violence: A qualitative analysis of civil restraining orders in Massachusetts, Office of the Commissioner of Probation, Massachusetts Trial Court, p. 9 (1995).
* Of women who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18, three quarters (76 percent) were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabitating partner, date or boyfriend. — Prevalence Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, November, 1998.
In 1999, an estimated 1,401 child abuse and neglect related fatalities were confirmed by CPS agencies, nearly 4 every day. Since 1985, the rate of child abuse fatalities has increased by 39%. Based on these numbers, more than three children die each day as a result of child abuse or neglect (NCPCA’s 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).
http://www.yesican.org/dvstats.html
Poor, poor Red Beard. Your hate is so vicious, I feel like I’m watching one of the Star Wars prequels. Is what your ‘God’ does for you? Revs you up with the fire of Satan? Yes, I think we can all see where your allegiance truly lies.
Come to think of it, your hate may be directed more at yourself than anyone else.
From a study done on heterosexual males, both homophobic and non-homophobic, who were shown homo-erotic videos:
“Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
I’d bet it’s safe to say that we’d all be more than a little interested in what really turns YOU on. I think we can make a safe guess, based on your voracity.
Should I start in on ‘the bible’ now? Because I could really, really, say a lot. Seriously tho buddy, I wouldn’t be looking to eagerly to meeting your Maker, if I were you ... I don’t think things are going to go as well for you as you’re thinking.
@Red Beard:
Your low attempts to pull up propaganda from during the AIDS crisis is really, really pathetic. You are to be pitied. It’s due to people like yourself, that AIDS became the pandemic did. It’s good to know that the median lifespan of a homosexual male is 42 LMAO. Too funny. And you’re allowed to be a parent? No, seriously? YOU are responsible for raising a daughter? Completely questionable.
I work in medicine. I see STDs on a daily basis, don’t talk to me about STDs. And yes, the majority I see are in teens who don’t use protection. To be more specific, HETEROSEXUAL teens. They spread some really, really nasty bugs. I’m constantly writing for chlamydia and gonorrhea, for both partners. I’m just thankful there are antibiotics to cure their afflictions.
As for your attempt to spread the notion that all homosexuals are child molesters, that is most definitely false (except, perhaps in your religion, obviously). I actually did my Psychiatry rotation on the ward of a State Mental Institution which housed pedophiles with psychosis, so I can back up the following based on my own observations.
Note:
“Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Here are some findings from the scientific peer-reviewed journal, “Pediatrics” published in July of 1994. The study was done by Dr. Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. The subjects were 269 sexually abused children seen at Denver Children’s Hospital over the course of one year.
98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.
99.5% of the girls in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 80% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.
” ... the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.”
http://www.ralliance.org/PedoMyth.html
Here’s some more:
The father of a family is 36 times more likely to abuse a child than a priest is, according to the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964&page=1
The majority of rapes of men and boys are perpetrated by heterosexual males (Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame. Scarce, Michael. Insight Books. New York, New York. 1997.)
Researchers estimate that between 96-100% of accused child sexual abusers are heterosexual. (Are Children at Risk for Sex Abuse by Homosexuals? Jenny, C., Roesler, T., and Poyer, K. Pediatrics Vol.94 No.1, 1994.)
http://www.wcasa.org/info/factsheets/childsa.htm
And here are some random facts about men who abuse women, as well as ‘parents’ (presumably mothers and fathers) who abuse children through neglect and other:
Note:
* Of women killed in 1992, their relationship to the killer was known in 69% of homicides. of this percent, 28% were killed by spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Bureau of Justice Statistics: National Crime Victimization Survey, 1995.
* In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends. — Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996MULTIPLE-VICTIM HOMICIDE
* In cases of marital or dating violence, which accounted for 82% of all protection order cases, 90% of defendants were male. Adams & Powell, Tragedies of Domestic Violence: A qualitative analysis of civil restraining orders in Massachusetts, Office of the Commissioner of Probation, Massachusetts Trial Court, p. 9 (1995).
* Of women who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18, three quarters (76 percent) were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabitating partner, date or boyfriend. — Prevalence Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, November, 1998.
In 1999, an estimated 1,401 child abuse and neglect related fatalities were confirmed by CPS agencies, nearly 4 every day. Since 1985, the rate of child abuse fatalities has increased by 39%. Based on these numbers, more than three children die each day as a result of child abuse or neglect (NCPCA’s 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).
http://www.yesican.org/dvstats.html
Poor, poor Red Beard. Your hate is so vicious, I feel like I’m watching one of the Star Wars prequels. Is what your ‘God’ does for you? Revs you up with the fire of Satan? Yes, I think we can all see where your allegiance truly lies.
Come to think of it, your hate may be directed more at yourself than anyone else.
From a study done on heterosexual males, both homophobic and non-homophobic, who were shown homo-erotic videos:
“Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
I’d bet it’s safe to say that we’d all be more than a little interested in what really turns YOU on. I think we can make a safe guess, based on your voracity.
Should I start in on ‘the bible’ now? Because I could really, really, say a lot. Seriously tho buddy, I wouldn’t be looking to eagerly to meeting your Maker, if I were you ... I don’t think things are going to go as well for you as you’re thinking.
Apologies for spelling errors.
@choirloftmember:
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question ...
How many children have YOU adopted?
Some enlightening articles on gay parenting (not that too many here are striving for enlightenment, based on the posts I’ve read so far):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=belkin+lesbian&st=nyt
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html
http://open.salon.com/blog/momlogic/2010/07/27/study_same-sex_couples_can_thrive_as_adoptive_parents
Everything I read from you people strikes fear into my heart, because it’s obvious you really don’t care about the children in these families. All you care about is your hate. I wouldn’t want any of you around my pediatric patients, or my own children when they arrive.
@ Mike Kays
1) Wrong Mike. Humans are not members of the animal kingdom, they are made in God’s image. So sorry if you have some false misguided beliefs that evolution and naturalistic philosophies about mankind are true, these are unscientifically verified and only religious beliefs that you hold and they have no sway here. Men and Women are made in God’s image, and animals posess and display nothing anywhere near the complexity of human emotions, actions and thought. This is plainly obvious.
2) No Mike, it is you who are selfish and egotistic. You quoted some random Biblical passages in a hamfisted attempt to try and make God out to be evil. I showed you why you were wrong. Children are not ‘innocent’, no man is, all have bene corrupted and all are prone to sin. God, being all good and holy and perfect OUGHT to slaughter us all and wipe us away from existence, but He has not, He has had mercy, and He came and sufferred and died Himself so that we have an escape. There is an afterlife Mike! So death isn’t as bad as you’d think it to be. And nowhere was I justifying the slaughter of innocent Children. The Bible passages you quote when put in context clearly show that they are natural punishments for nations that becomes immoral. Innocent children are being slaughtered today in immoral nations, yet I bet you fully support this! Or if you don’t, maybe you ought to open your eyes and realize that nations and people who abandoned God will naturally succumb to such vile actions as killing their own children for convenience and inviting war and breed turmoil and murder amongst themselves. Without God Mike this will continue and become worse! But that doesn’t make a bit of difference to you it seems! FIne continue to ignore God Mike, and don’t cry when all these bad things continue to happen. Remember, it makes no difference to you!
3) A utterly pointless point Mike… What made you even think of it? Hinduism as well as many of the other old religions all find their origins from the same place. Once the world was united. In their wickedness and proud actions at Babel, God confused their tongues and scattered them. Overtime the ture revelation become corrupted. Have you read the Vedas Mike? I doubt you have, but you know the Sanskrit word for God, so you get a little star! Have you studied the ancient religions from the East and West, from the Indus to the Abornginies to the Native Americans, Mike? They all have in common the accounts of Eden, Adam and Eve and the Flood. And they condemn things that you here are vigorously fighting for! Perhaps you ought to actually study some other religions too Mike! The world began from Adam and Eve, whom God made and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. The same God who condemns homosexuality and other sexual devencies. The point that should be driven home to you Mike is that nobody cares who you are. You are not God, and I’ll follow Him over you anyday Mike, because you’re just some random guy, and God Almighty who created you and me and everything else knows His creation and the right way to do things a heck of a lot better than you are your misguided group of scientists and psychologists and psychiatrics would ever imagine. No wonder there’s been no progress on those fronts for awhile now… Just empty speculations and fairy tales to satisfy your preconceived notions and ungodly beliefs and human pride.
And Mike Kays…
Justifying homosexuality by trying to show how heterosexuals have fallen does you no service. That’s really the point I and others have tried to make and that you’ve ignored. Homosexual rights are only possible because heterosexuals have also abandoned morality. So you’re only trying to justify further immorality and making the situation worse. And in justifying further immorality, you are endangering the lives of the children you say you care so much about. Well what will you do when inevitably pedophilia is one day justified Mike? You are so caught up in your crusade that you don’t reaize that you’re helping pave the philosophical foundations for one day legitimizing the sexual abuse of children! YOu can stop your ears, call me crazy and pretend it’ll never happen, but it has already been happening for some time now! Don’t let the current protests against the Catholic CHurch’s issues with sexual abuse of minors (90% of which are homosexual related) fool you! There is a very real movement going on to one day legitimize sexual intercourse and activity with children! Some of which has led some victims to identify themselves as homosexual btw because of ‘romantic encounters’ with older men in their youth! You seem to know a lot, why haven’t you brought this up? Or do you only link to information that suits you and that you want to see and call the rest of us ‘unenlightened’ and feel cozy with your efforts?
You must realize Mike Kay that there is an afterlife, and there is a heaven and a purgatory and a hell and those children’s souls are at stake, or don’t you care? Don’t you care about what those children will say and do when they grow? Don’t you care about what happens to them when they grow old and die? Or does your ‘caring’ have an age limit after which you cease to give a damn?
You’re the one coming in here Mike trying to teach us our religion and refute it, and then you whine and moan when your bigoted beliefs about Christianity and God are challenged? Many an infidel has proclaimed he has no fear of God and God’s name, but lets see how convinced you are when you are on your deathbed, heading for the state of non-existence, or so you’d hope, which is massively funny, as if you are an atheist, then you are campaigning for a cause for a people on a planet that will accoridng to your religious beliefs be destroyed and cease to exist one day when our Sun implodes and in the end none of this really matters anyway. Who are you then Mike, to say what is moral or right and wrong if there is no God and no standards and everything is at the whim of men whose thoughts are just determined by random atomic collisions? The irony here Mike, is that you care about some fantastical idea of right and wrong based on nothing and that matters nothing… Or at least you would love to convince yourself about it when all signs point to human beings and existence being a lot more than your simpleton philosopy about life can ever explain! In fact it clearly contradicts what you know in your heart to be true.
In the end Mike, ALL men are sinners equaly, homosexual, heterosexual, pedophiles, and we’re all accountable for each other and will judged by God when we die. The difference is only between those who admit their sin and repent and beg God for forgiveness, and those who are too proud and arrogant to admit that are wrong and that God Almighty knows better than them, thus walking into hell with their head held high and their banners waving proudly and locking themselves in the furnace from inside. You will have to decide which group you’re going to belong to. Because unlike the ‘tolerance’ shenanigans of today, God does not tolerate sin and will discriminate between those who tried to lead others to righteousness and those who encouraged others to continue on in their sin and expose children to immoral upbringings and endanger their souls. God cares about children very much Mike! I’m sure you know that one in the Bible about those who would prevent children from entering God’s Kingdom… something about them being better off tying a millstone around their neck and drowning themselves rather than facing God’ wrath… you know the one I’m sure!
The thing that needs to be done is to get everyone back on track, homosexuals and especially heterosexuals! We’re all in this together Mike! I’m just as vulnerable to go to hell for my sins as any homosexual. This isn’t about hate Mike, it’s about what’s right. God is right. You, a human creature with your limited knowledge and experience are not. Were you there to create the universe and mankind Mike? Do you weave and create the children in the womb in all their complexity and give them an immortal soul? Try reading the Book of Job, Mike, and learn humility and your place as a sinfl human, and that God does love you and the homosexuals for who you are fighting for for all the wrong reasons. You and they turn away of your own free will from the happiness and joy of copmplimentary heterosexual unions, the joys of monogamy and procreation and the faily that exist as a testament and mirror of God’s unchanging and faithful and diverse nature and His creative beauty and love.
Sorry for the spelling mistakes… I’m bad at typing, I am after all… only human. I also have limited internet time and so must rush…
Since politicians and the courts refuse to abide by moral standards, WE must speak out as we go about our private lives.
We must tell those in our own circle of family friends and acquaintances who are in a same-sex relationships that what they are doing is if not illegal, immoral.
We must win the battle on the local front, with zero tolerance for the same-sex lifestyle, if we are to win the battle on the national level.
Mike,
“”“Poor, poor Red Beard. Your hate is so vicious”“”
I don’t know why it is that you are so intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you that you project feelings and motivations upon them. Once again, you are violating the golden rule you claim as your foundation. Oh well, it is easier to marginalize an opponent than to answer him directly, though I must admit I’m grateful that you’ve answered a few of my points directly.
First of all, I don’t believe that comparing homosexual marriage to marriage to an animal or an inanimate object is a fruitful point of argument for the pro-traditional marriage side. It only makes us look like we equate homosexuals with animals and inanimate objects, even if such is not our intent.
We must show that homosexuality is wrong, pure and simple. This is not really too difficult, but for some, they will not be convinced regardless.
Look, all we have to do is look at the human body, and we see that the male has a sexual organ which has a purpose of reproduction. The female sexual organ obviously has the purpose of receiving the male’s, and is also fit for reproduction.
Any other orifice which might be pressed into service as a receptacle for the male organ is not made for that purpose. Indeed, it is self-evident that it is an unhealthy practice to put any part of your body inside one’s intestinal waste system. Oral sex is also unhealthy, and linked to oral cancer, among other things. Promiscuity, whether of the heterosexual or homosexual variety, is also unhealthy.
Based on these physical considerations, it is easy to show that the only safe and fitting use for the sexual organs is in a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. “Coincidentally”, this is also the arrangement that most benefits children. I would just repeat the statement someone made above that it is pretty difficult to argue against the fact that a child needs both a mother and a father. All I can say is that anyone who can seriously argue that a child doesn’t need both a mother or a father has either never been a parent or is seriously confused. If this IS argued, then the way is also paved for polygamy, because if only the NUMBER of parents is what matters, not their gender, then wouldn’t three or four parents be better than two?
Make no mistake, the push for polygamy is coming, as I have seen several articles about the spreading practice of living with several sexual partners in a semi-stable arrangement.
Mike Kays- One point to make about the statistics you presented….what has more meaning is looking at the percentage of the given population that is committing these abuses, NOT the sheer numbers. Since true homosexuality occurs in the 3-5% range, EVEN if ALL the homosexuals committed abuses, the total numbers would still be quite low compared to overall totals.
Per your wondering if I adopt children - what a red-herring. Are you suggesting that the KNOWLEDGE that a child is designed to have both a mother and a father in their life is somehow tied to whether a person adopts or not? Anyhow, the state won’t give me children because my house is currently bursting at the seams :-) But, we WOULD take any allowed!!
In regards to Mike Kays remarks on the the animal kingdom regarding sex. Mike, did you know that chimpanzees engage in cannibalism. So I suppose by your process of reasoning we should be allowed to copy that also…..
This case should be thrown out on the grounds that the judge did not recuse himself - conflict of interest.
But since we have a corrupt government, this point will not be brought up in an appeal or if it is, it will be summarily overruled.
“Like it or not” (as another black-robed tyrant wrote) - “gay marriage” will be Federal Law. Unless we pass a federal constitutional amendment version of DOMA. Not likely to happen.
And interesting that I got the captcha “married57” for this post. One day we will be able to marry multiple people.
@Bryan
“”“Mike, did you know that chimpanzees engage in cannibalism. So I suppose by your process of reasoning we should be allowed to copy that also….. “”“
Watch out Bryan, Mike has already shown that his response to such an argument will be to first accuse you of hating homosexuals. Next, he will attack the claim that you never made; namely that homosexuality is just as bad as cannibalism.
Mike:
In one breath you state that we should just leave each other alone and not interfere (as if that is all the SSM folks want);
Then in another you say we have no RIGHT!! to invalidate their “marriage.”
So which is it? Can we just ignore them, and they’ll leave us alone, or are we all going to be forced to recognize something that isn’t by them using the force of the state (i.e., suing us, as they already have on occasion) to force acceptance of their “marriage”?
Yeah, you know where this is going.
Mike:
Did it ever occur to you that the studies may have reflected more an issue of opportunity and access? If all they did was review medical charts, how did they control for that?
Matthew A. Siekierski
I appreciate the sentiment that a judge with same-sex attractions has a vested interest in the outcome of this case but find the argument that he must recuse himself unconvincing. If I understand the arguments against same-sex marriage correctly, a judge without same-sex attractions ALSO has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Under this logic, there can be no judge fit to preside over a case such as this.
Marriage rates are up in Iowa, with divorce rates down:
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_62ed7fd0-96ab-11df-bfc8-001cc4c03286.html
Look at the travesty that gay marriage has caused there! Oh, wurrah wurrah, woe be unto them, but ... fight it, right? Fight it!
So amusing, truly, all of you. Poor people with nothing better to do with their lives, I’m sure Christ is just BEAMING at all of you.
Well Choir, I’m glad to know that you supposedly WOULD adopt if you could. Still, in light of all the current evidence, to deny children good homes, regardless of whether the family is traditional or alternative, reeks of lack of consideration for the well-being of the children.
@Johnno: Dude, I read your first sentence and stopped reading. You obviously have never taken a course in Biology, Animal Biology, or Etymology. Educate yourself about vertebrates and mammals, and then get back to me.
@Johnno:
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#Etymology
Search in the list for us humans, we’re in there ... (I’ll give you a hint, we develop a notochord during our embryological development) ...
@Mike Kays: “Well Choir, I’m glad to know that you supposedly WOULD adopt if you could. Still, in light of all the current evidence, to deny children good homes, regardless of whether the family is traditional or alternative, reeks of lack of consideration for the well-being of the children.”
Speaking of that current evidence…..reviews of the research available point out the following problems with research that seems to indicate children do as well (or better) raised by homosexual parents:
“Cherry-picked” samplings of white, wealthy, lesbian couples – sometimes the same families are used in different studies. (sampling bias, lack of representative samples,
Small sample sizes which aren’t statistically significant,
Omission of certain of the measures of ‘adjustness.’
Unjustifiable conclusions from the data collected,
Children that are actually biological children of one of the partners and/or spent time in ‘traditional’ family before family situation changed,
Comparison groups used are NOT two-biological-parent families,
And, various other problems with reliability and validity of the data.
Check out Dawn’s story - http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/index.html – as she has first-hand knowledge of being raised in a 2(+!)-man household.
Mike Kays - Your comment reeks of arrogance…..arrogance at knowing better than nature what children need. “Nature and Nature’s God” designed children to be born into one man one woman famililes and to be nurtued and educated by those same individuals. To recognize this is far from “lack[ing] of consideration for the well-being of the children.”
@choirloft:
Oh, you didn’t like that study? Well, here’s one with a comparison group of biological-parent families. Enjoy!
http://open.salon.com/blog/momlogic/2010/07/27/study_same-sex_couples_can_thrive_as_adoptive_parents
Poor Dawn, it sounds like she had a hard life. I’m sure we all know children of abusive parents, including heterosexual parents. It’s always a hard thing to deal with. It would be idiotic, however, to suppose that every family is like another. Thankfully, there are good, and even great parents out there!
Here are some links for anyone who knows of a child in an abusive household or situation, maybe they will help someone:
http://helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm
http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=114&np=99&id=1646
So, as much as you, choirloft, or others, would like to portray all gay-parent families as from the depths of depravity and hell, the studies show otherwise. And truly, I’ve seen some ‘heterosexual’ parenting that would curl your hair, including one ‘mother’ who shoved her 9 year-old son off of their 2nd story balcony (the child was brought by ambulance into the ER where I was working at the time).
I feel sorry for you, to live in a world where you strive towards hate so strongly, focused on only one group in particular. What would seem more reasonable to me, is to focus on abusive parenting situations period. But then, it’s not really the kids you care about, is it. No, only your agenda, your pathetic agenda.
@Mike Kays: “I feel sorry for you, to live in a world where you strive towards hate so strongly, focused on only one group in particular. What would seem more reasonable to me, is to focus on abusive parenting situations period. But then, it’s not really the kids you care about, is it. No, only your agenda, your pathetic agenda.”
On the contrary - I AM talking about the best interest of the kids. Which is the optional parent - the MOTHER or the FATHER?
Oh and, choirloft? Some kids don’t GET to have a family (biological or other, for that matter), or don’t you understand what the word “adoption” means.
For anyone interested in adoption, there are some great references out there. Here’s an open adoption agency:
http://www.adoptionhelp.org/index.html
and their LGBT page:
No, you’re NOT talking about the best interests of the children, or those studies would MATTER to you. But they don’t, obviously. They do to me.
http://www.adoptionhelp.org/gay_lesbian_adoption/
Sorry, here’s the LGBT open adoption link:
http://www.adoptionhelp.org/gay_lesbian_adoption/
Huh? That study looks at PRE-SCHOOL –age children! We are to ignore decades of research on children’s needs and rely on ONE study of PRE-SCHOOL-age children? GMAB.
And, LOL, the story has this to say: “It’s worth noting that this study apparently represents the FIRST TIME that independent reports from teachers on children’s development and behavior have been considered alongside the SELF-REPORTED data from the PARENTS themselves.” [emphasis mine] And, pre-school teachers are hardly scientists, now, are they? To boot, how is one to believe that these pre-school teachers (paid by those very same homosexual parents) were able to report information COMPLETELY free of any bias?!?!
@Mike Kays: “Oh and, choirloft? Some kids don’t GET to have a family (biological or other, for that matter)...”
Really? EVERY child has a MOTHER and a FATHER.
Which was it again that was the dispensible one?
@Mike Kays: “Some kids don’t GET to have a family (biological or other, for that matter), or don’t you understand what the word “adoption” means.”
Ah. So, which kids are the ones who DON’T deserve BOTH a MOTHER and a FATHER?
Yes, that’s right ... pre-school aged children who were adopted at birth.
So is it their age, or the fact that their parents pay the schools? Because the study included a comparison group of heterosexual parents as well ... or didn’t you understand that.
Personally, as someone who works in Pediatrics, I very much value the opinions and evaluations of teachers, no matter what grade they teach.
You, choirloft, are as far removed from the message of Christ as anyone I’ve come in contact with in a long, long time. Your satanic hatred and vehemence is so loud, it leaves me in wonderment. I truly do feel sorry for you, and actually, I’m thankful that you’re unable to adopt any more children.
@Mike Kays: “I feel sorry for you, to live in a world where you strive towards hate so strongly, focused on only one group in particular. What would seem more reasonable to me, is to focus on abusive parenting situations period. But then, it’s not really the kids you care about, is it. No, only your agenda, your pathetic agenda.”
Sorry it seems like an agenda to you. But take a deeper look…as you fail to realize an important point – parental rights. Those other children you talk about, being abused in homes BY their biological parents, were BORN into those homes. They were not PLACED there by an agency. The government has absolutely NO AUTHORITY to prevent children from BEING BORN into families! However, it should have the authority to keep children from being PLACED into homes where the risks of (multiple types of) abuses are so high.
@choirloftmember: “Really? EVERY child has a MOTHER and a FATHER.
Which was it again that was the dispensible one?”
I don’t know the personal story of every child orphaned. It could be that the mother didn’t know the father. It could be that the father wanted nothing to do with the pregnancy. It could be that the father is in prison. It could be that both the father and mother are on drugs, or even just a single mother. It could be that the mother and father are too young to conceive of raising children. It could even be that the mother simply doesn’t want the child, but didn’t want to have an abortion.
You seem to have very poor skills of comprehension ... these are basic points, it’s not rocket science.
@Mike Hays: “Your satanic hatred and vehemence is so loud, it leaves me in wonderment.”
Well, if we haven’t gone from the sarcasm to the name-calling. Deal with the ideas and facts, please.
@Mike Kays: “Personally, as someone who works in Pediatrics, I very much value the opinions and evaluations of teachers, no matter what grade they teach.”
That’s a GOOD use of the opinions and evaluations of teachers. Opinions and evaluations are NOT un-biased, scientific observations however.
@choirloftmember:
Finally, something we agree on! And that, I would hope, is where Social Workers come in. Thankfully, they’re in charge, not you, and I’m sure that Social Services is more than capable (in most cases, I would assume), to oversee protection of children. The case workers that we deal with are highly capable.
Your assertion of “multiple risks” being higher in any one home versus another, seems to be based on one horrendous abusive case written by one person. Of course, you’re using that case to represent an entire population, as that fits your agenda. Fortunately, the studies show that NOT to be a general trend.
Again, you make it painfully obvious that you do NOT have the well-being of adoptive children at heart, or you would rejoice for every one of them who does well, regardless of whether they are raised in an alternative parenting situation or not.
@choirloft:
“Opinions and evaluations are NOT un-biased, scientific observations however.”
Actually that’s not correct. Many studies which compile data are based on questionnaires. Haven’t you ever taken a Statistics class?
@Mike Kays: “You seem to have very poor skills of comprehension ... these are basic points, it’s not rocket science.”
Indeed. Not rocket science at all. Then, you do agree that every child DOES have a mother and a father!? And, yes, it is tragic to a child to lose one or both, whatever the reason. So, yes, we seem to agree there. But, that is the NATURAL loss of the parent(s), no? It is NOT the PLACEMENT of a child INTO a home WITHOUT either a mother or a father, though. If you really and truly believe it is OK to put children into homes ALREADY MISSING one or the other, please, tell me which is the one that is dispensable, the MOTHER or the FATHER? It IS really an easy question, not rocket science at all.
@Mike Kays
“98% of the boys in the study were molested by heterosexuals. Of that number, 75% were molested by heterosexual males KNOWN TO THE VICTIMS in an incestuous scenario.”
I know this is from a while ago but after seeing this I’m wondering how it isn’t gay for a man to abuse little boys? Make me kind of doubt the integrity of the study, you know?
Anyone who thinks that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended for one activist judge to be able to force his will on the people after hundreds of lawyers pored over Prop 8 and found it constitutional, and the state legislature approved Prop 8, and the voters also approved Prop 8, is either insane, stupid, evil, or a combination of the three. Trying to debate with them as if they are reasonable men and women is a complete waste. Instead, we should employ their tactics:
-Whenever any politician who supports anti-sanity “progressive” policies wins an election, we should sue. Find some nutjob judge who will declare the election result “unconstitutional” and make them spend years trying to sort it all out.
-Whenever any anti-sanity politicians pass “progressive” legislation, again, sue. Go to the same lunatic judge and get him to declare the law unconstitutional because he doesn’t personally like it. That’s what happened in this case; it doesn’t matter what your ruling is, as we see, it can be 100% political crap, but if you’re a “Judge”, it’s all good.
Tie them in court for years with this idiocy. Make them defend things which should never need defending. If one of them declares that the sky is blue, sue him until he says that the sky is green. This is, after all, the kind of utter nonsense we’ve been putting up with from “progressives” for over fifty years.
@Mike Kays: “Your assertion of “multiple risks” being higher in any one home versus another, seems to be based on one horrendous abusive case written by one person. Of course, you’re using that case to represent an entire population, as that fits your agenda. Fortunately, the studies show that NOT to be a general trend.”
On the contrary. The research (many studies, not just some ‘one’ you allude to) has shown that homosexual lifestyles ARE more risky. And, as you indicate, children shouldn’t be PLACED into potentially harmful situations. And, the best-interest of the child should be considered.
Again, which is the dispensable parent - the MOTHER or the FATHER?
@Red_Beard
<flattery> Far from being “filled with the fires of Satan” I think you did an excellent job. You were very fair and kept to the point. I’d love to have a mind that clear. </flattery>. I think your in God’s hands now Mike. I’ll pray for you tonight.
@Red Beard:
Thank you, I’ve always considered myself a bit of a Hindu at heart. God is good ... peace and good will towards all.
@choirloftmember: I’m talking with my father at the moment, and will get back to you later.
@ad nauseum: I don’t fault you for not understanding. I encourage you to read up on the topic of pedophilia, if you have the stomach for it.
@choirloft:
First off, I’d like to put some resources out there, for anyone who might be interested in what children of gay parents have to say (other than the sad and unfortunate case which choirloft seems to want us all to focus on). So, here are some links which will present a different, and most likely more general and accurate outlook, from the kids (around five dozen) themselves:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060527587/
http://familieslikemine.com/
http://www.childrenofgayparents.com/
Great, so now that’s out of the way, and we’ve tried in our prior discussion here to better distinguish what exactly makes a home abusive or not, I’ll try and answer this ‘question’ which you keep presenting.
Choirloft, you said, “which is the dispensable parent - the MOTHER or the FATHER?”
I’m not sure of what context you’re relating this question to, it doesn’t seem to be related to our discussion and so thus I’m a bit confused. We were speaking of adoption, and you are now asking me which parent is dispensable ... but we were speaking of children who don’t HAVE a mother or a father. Then you said something along the lines of, ‘EVERY child has a mother and a father’, but you didn’t seem to be understanding that we were (at least I was) speaking of children who DON’T (for whatever reason), outside of conception (obviously).
So, I’m going to approach your question supposing that you’re NOT referring to children who are orphaned. Okay ...
Which one is dispensable? Neither, is the answer. Why would they be? Do you think I want them to be? If a man and a woman, who are in love, capable, and psychologically healthy and sound, want to bear and raise a child in a loving, wonderful home, why would either one of them be “dispensable”? I guess I still don’t understand why you’re asking the question. Or, more accurately, I think that you’re asking the question with an ulterior motive, which is to try and get me to say that I don’t think children need a mother and a father. Is that right?
choirloft ... we are not made of plastic. We are not all manufactured in some plant which churns out mom-dad-4-kid-1-dog-1-cat households. Some mothers raise their children on their own, from the start. In that case, does that mean the father is dispensable? Well, that word doesn’t really apply there, right? Because he’s already extricated himself from the situation. Or in another example, a woman may be raped, but choose to have the baby. Was that father dispensable? I would guess the answer is yes. Let’s say a mother and father have divorced, and the father has remarried into a family with other children, and chooses not to remain close with the children he had with his first wife. Is that man dispensable? Again, I would say yes, he is.
I think what you’re getting at is the matter of male and female influence. I think that most people would agree that a child needs positive role models (and influences) of both genders. But truly, there are no hard and fast rules. Some mothers stay at home and cook casseroles all day long, they are the ‘traditional’ model, if you will. Other mothers put their kids in day care after their first year (some earlier), and go back into the secular world. Does that mean that they’re “dispensable’? No. But it’s an example of the wide range of variability in parenting.
I think what you want me to say is that a male-female parenting model is automatically ‘better’, for lack of a better word. Honestly, I can’t say that. It all depends on the situation and the family. For example, today I saw a family with 3 boys and 1 girl. The father and mother were both present. Those kids were some of the most unruly, undisciplined children I have ever seen. The father sat in a chair doing nothing, while the children screamed, cried, raced out into the hall, tried to grab equipment, etc. He did nothing, until the one time when I requested he take his daughter who was throwing a temper tantrum, out of the room so that I could continue talking with one of his sons. Now, do I look at them and say, ‘man, if only they were children of lesbian parents!’ Of course not. But I do look at them and say, ‘man, if only those children had better parents’. Because they’re going to grow lacking in adequate development ... and yes, even with a mother and a father.
So, just because a couple are male-female, doesn’t automatically make them ‘better’ in my eyes, no. ANY parent who fails to raise their children with structure, guidance, and love, IS dispensable, in my opinion.
I hope that answers your question, though I suspect it won’t. And I’m not the end-all of information and knowledge, I freely admit that. I can only state and respond to things as I am best able.
Mike Kays
“Dude, I read your first sentence and stopped reading. You obviously have never taken a course in Biology, Animal Biology, or Etymology. Educate yourself about vertebrates and mammals, and then get back to me. “
-Dude… I have. In fact you’d be surprised to know just how much I know! And I bet I can even school you on a whole range of things! I’ll give you a link to read too!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/darwins-sad-legacy
^ It’s a great website that you ought to look through Mike if you realy want to consider yourself scientifically literate! It’s Protestant… but you’ve got to give them redit for the fantastic job they do in this area!
My point is that mankind is more than just some dirty instinct driven animal. Too bad you didn’t read further otherwise you’d have noticed! So your attempts to draw comparisons to human behavior being natural to emulating the behavior of animals carries no merit. But anyway I believe you did read all I wrote to you, but you choose not to respond. So very well then, continue on with your intellectually dishonest campaign. This will be my last response to you. No use arguing with someone who won’t acknowledge anything you say.
And concerning adoption Mike. Two parents of different genders are better able to provide insight and persepective into a child’s life. To give a child to homosexual parents if to DEPRIVE the child of the RIGHT to be raised in a household where he/she gets the benefits of both genders for an upbringing in a world where men and women co-exist together! Also adoption agencies don’t just willy-nilly hand over any child to just about any heterosexual parent. There are standards to be met. Standards that you are only to happy to see fall it seems! Face it, you haven’t thought things through or you don’t really care. Not for the child’s life on this earth, and especially not for the child’s life once they die. Thanks for leading the charge to set the standards of child adoption so low, and its also thanks to people like you that many good Christian and Catholic Orhpanages had to shut down further depriving children because they didn’t kotow to the tyranny and demands of immoral governments. SO please don’t give me any sob stories that you care about the children. This is all and always has been to serve the homosexuals who suffer from cognitive dissonance and want to force everyone to accept them for their own psychological peace of mind and also to further comfort those immoral heterosexuals who want to continue on with their immorality undisturbed. The children are just pawns and chess pieces whose lives and upbringings people like you are tossing around as a dispensable commodity for the sake of of the freedom for sexual depravation. It’s sickening!
The argument of the anti-Prop 8 people in a nutshell: Haha, Prop 8 is struck down!!! If you supported it you’re a hateful bigot and I’ll pray for Jesus to forgive you!!! Also, you must be a complete idiot if you don’t understand why Prop 8 is wrong. Your bigoted law is gone, hateful morons! HAHAHA!!!
As I said, arguing with them is a complete waste. These people are exactly what Paul described in Romans:
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
-Romans 1:18-27
That perfectly describes everyone I have ever seen arguing against Prop 8. The time has come for us to employ the same tactics that these people have used for the past fifty or more years - constant arbitrary lawsuits.
Many people reject Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality, seeing as that he also called for the oppression of women and condoned slavery.
Further, there are many immoral decries in ‘the bible’ which are to be ignored, including regulation human slavery, requiring some hookers to be burned alive, advocating genocide, requiring victims of rape to marry their rapist, recognizing the torture of prisoners, and requiring the execution of non-virgin brides. There are more, but that’s a good place to start.
It’s interesting (and almost laughable) that right after that passage, Paul warns not to judge others:
Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”
Anyhow, who the hell was ‘Paul’? Some old dude who lived thousands of years ago, who was on some self-righteous quest to control the world. He know nothing of modern biology or psychology. He certainly couldn’t have saved your child in surgery.
I personally couldn’t care less what he says!
@Johnno: What’s “sickening” is your inability to comprehend the evidence, and to continue forward with your opinion.
As for “standards to be met”, I agree with you 100%. That’s what I base my opinion on.
Johnno, I wonder how many gay people, especially parents, you even know personally. My guess is not very many. Go meet some, let me know what you find.
You keep speaking of the afterlife. I wish I could disclose more of my personal experience with you, so that you could understand. Suffice to say that I have no fear of death. I have no fear of ‘God’. I think a “God” who would ‘require’ allegiance in the way that you profess would simply be a tyrant who needed to be removed from office.
I understand that you’ve surrounded yourself in a cloak of blindness, but I don’t have to. Think what you want of me for that, but there is MUCH more to life and existence than the puny ‘laws’ which parts of our society try to demand on our brothers and sisters, in an attempt to control and rule them with fear and intimidation.
I keep forgetting that this is a Catholic website lol ... I don’t think I’m going to ‘win’ any arguments here. But I do hope that I’ve opened a few minds and hearts, in those who have and who might read my words.
I do like some messages in the Bible. But one major difference between Christianity and Hinduism, is that the legends and stories of Hindu tradition and faith are presented WITH the knowledge that they are REPRESENTATIONS of moral guidance. Christians, on the other hand, tend to actually believe the stories in ‘the bible’ as ACTUAL (all the millions of species fit on a boat at one time, etc). In their staunch insistence that these legends are actually LITERAL, they lose the messages of morality. It’s sad to see, because life is so plainly obvious once you open your eyes and your mind.
Anyhow, in this thread, I’ve heard a lot of hate. Hate isn’t something i relate well to. I certainly don’t find it to be holy or sanctioned by a higher power. I think it is sanctioned by A power, but not the highest one. Love is that, to me. And when I see love, whether it be between two people, or from parents for their children, biological or adopted, it makes my heart glad. And I think it makes that higher power glad also. I really doubt that in the end of the grand scheme of things, ‘God’ cares if a child is raised in a loving home by lesbians, or two gay men. What’s important is the happiness and well-being of the child. There are too many children out there, adopted and otherwise, who are mishandled, abused, mistreated, and neglected. THAT is what deserves the fight, and where I believe Christ would focus his energies were He here.
Some of you people are so very misguided in your priorities.
Again, good will towards all. All.
@Mike Kays: “Anyhow, in this thread, I’ve heard a lot of hate. Hate isn’t something i relate well to. I certainly don’t find it to be holy or sanctioned by a higher power.”
Mike, what I am seeing is that anything you don’t understand or agree with you call “hate.”
Thank you for answering the question (sort of). By placing a child into a home with 2 ‘mommies,’ one is claiming fathers unnecessary. Vice-a-versa with into a home with 2 daddies. CHildren are designed to have one of each and DESERVE one of each. This is what we should strive for. What a shame you call this view “hateful.” What a shame for the children that you don’t hold such as your standard.
@choirloft:
Yea, when you’ve solved the problem of homeless children in the United Stated, or even the world, you be sure and let me know. Sounds like you have all the answers.
And no, what I stated was that children deserved to be placed into a healthy and loving home. Period. There’s just some difference of opinion between you and I on what that home might be.
I will tell you this much ... there’s room enough in this world for all of us, straight, gay, with mom and dad, with mom without dad, with dad without mom, with dad and dad, or with mom and mom.
Now, let’s all goto Disneyland and have a blast!
:D
Maybe leave choirloft at home tho.
:(
Keep up your fight! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! Me, I’m movin’ to Iowa, where divorce is finally on the decline! Seems people there are remembering what marriage is truly all about.
I remember perusing (and participating in) a comments section like this one a month or two ago. It was instructive and enlightening, not for the quality of the debate so much as for the demonstration of how morality is actually debated. When I was in high school and went to college, I was struck by the spectacle of such sharp disagreements by apparently intelligent people. The irony here is that I could never conceive that we would be arguing homosexual marriage, especially among Catholics. I mean really, the Bible and the Magisterium may be vague on a whole range of issues but on this one they are clear as crystal.
Rules of to live by according to Mike:
1. All evidence that support my pre-conceived notions is “evidence.”
2. All evidence that conflict with my pre-conceived notions are “propaganda.”
3. All who present propaganda should be scorned and ridiculed.
4. All who disagree with me must be motivated by hate.
5. Anyone thusly motivated by hate should be hated, scorned, and ridiculed.
6. Anyone who does not agree with me after reading evidence is an intellectually impaired.
7. Such intellectual impairment should be ment with scorn and/or ridicule.
8. Anyone who does not agree with me must be dishonest.
9. Anyone thusly dishonest should be hated, scorned, and ridiculed.
10. Any possible interpretation of “evidence”, (see #1) that conflicts with my pre-conceived notions, must be met with scorn and/or ridicule, with the possible response of condescension (“perhaps if you only read more on this, you wouldn’t be so [insert insult here].”)
11. People who actually believe in God and in the Bible are thereby disqualified from discussing what God is really like or what the Bible really means.
11a. Coralary: anyone who disbelieves in God is thereby an authority on what Christians believe God to be. Pesky Christians don’t know what they actually believe.
11b. Coralary: anyone who disbelieves in the Bible is thereby an authority on what the Bible means. Pesky Christians are not qualified to interpret this man-made book. Only non-Christians have the [God-given?] right to infallibly interpret this fallable text.
Hopefully this amuses someone, though of course it is rather childish.
Mike,
PLEASE don’t move to Iowa. You won’t like it here.
By the way, Red Beard, you are on the side of the angels. In case anyone was wondering.
There are 3 branches of government. 3. Not2, but 3. When the judicial branch upholds minority rights, it’s because that’s their job. And, too, when as you try to hurt gay people by denying them marriage, along with so much else, none of them seeks to hurt you the same way—by example, you practice bigotry.
“”“There are 3 branches of government. 3. Not2, but 3. When the judicial branch upholds minority rights, it’s because that’s their job.”“”“
No where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court’s job is to uphold minority rights. It’s job is to interpret the law, plain and simple. Anything else is an abuse of power. This is especially true when you see that historically, the Executive and Legislative branches have been utterly unwilling to exercise any of the checks and balances written into the constitution to defend against tyranny from the Judicial branch (removing judges who abuse their power, for example).
“”“And, too, when as you try to hurt gay people by denying them marriage”“”
I’m not denying them marriage, either God or an accident of birth (depending upon what you believe in) denied them that. Marriage is a thing. That thing involves the life-long, exclusive relationship of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation and education of children. It predates the United States Government and the government has no authority or ability to change the nature of the thing, no matter how many word games they try to play. Two men cannot have such a relationship. Two women cannot have such a relationship. Lying and telling them that they can does not help anyone. I should have just stopped at “lying does not help anyone.”
The claim that someone can deny two men the right to marriage is precisely analogous to the claim that someone can deny a man the right to be pregnant. Do I “hurt” a man when I tell him he has no womb?
It is patently absurd if you stop and think about it, but this is an emotionally charged issue so no one ever does.
“”“along with so much else, none of them seeks to hurt you the same way—by example, you practice bigotry. “”“
You have missed quite a bit on this thread. Search the page for “adoption” to see how an enumerated freedom of the constitution has been subjugated to a freedom that “eminates from the penumbra” of the constitution. (Talk about an abusive Judiciary!)
This isn’t a question of “live and let live.” This is a question of “live and prosecute everyone who disagrees for hate crimes.” Those who support traditional values are indeed under attack, but who will stand up for a majority when it isn’t politically correct?
By the way, I’m sorry if this was a little terse. It’s just that this has all been hashed through and remains standing so you need more than your previous post to make your point. Oh, and calling people who disagree with you bigots isn’t particularly nice or effective.
@Mike Kays: “I keep forgetting that this is a Catholic website lol ………Christians, on the other hand, tend to actually believe the stories in ‘the bible’ as ACTUAL (all the millions of species fit on a boat at one time, etc). In their staunch insistence that these legends are actually LITERAL, they lose the messages of morality. It’s sad to see…”
Sadly you do not understand that Catholics are Christians that DO NOT read the Bible in a strictly LITERAL sense. So, back to the drawing board for you, as you can’t write Catholic morality off that easy.
@Mike Kays: “Some mothers raise their children on their own, from the start. In that case, does that mean the father is dispensable? Well, that word doesn’t really apply there, right? Because he’s already extricated himself from the situation. Or in another example, a woman may be raped, but choose to have the baby. Was that father dispensable? I would guess the answer is yes. Let’s say a mother and father have divorced, and the father has remarried into a family with other children, and chooses not to remain close with the children he had with his first wife. Is that man dispensable? Again, I would say yes, he is.”
Actually, I would think you, too, would say that the fathers in all these situations are NOT fulfilling their expected duty to their children. I would also hazard a guess that you would agree that the ultimate best for the children would be if the father were to assume his duty and carry it out worthily. Unfortunately for the children, that is a long shot for them. And, unfortunately for these children, the odds are against them that they won’t be affected negatively by this situation. So, it is true that their biological fathers aren’t the greatest, but the children WILL STILL suffer the loss of them.
@Mike Kays: “I think what you’re getting at is the matter of male and female influence. I think that most people would agree that a child needs positive role models (and influences) of both genders. But truly, there are no hard and fast rules.” & “Which one is dispensable? Neither, is the answer. Why would they be? Do you think I want them to be?” & “And no, what I stated was that children deserved to be placed into a healthy and loving home. Period. There’s just some difference of opinion between you and I on what that home might be.”
Think about this, Mike. You seem to indicate that the best situation is a child having a home that contains BOTH a mother and a father. Nature has made a child dependent upon BOTH for his very existence, which is easy to see. And, I don’t think we disagree on these points.
However, I have been asking you whether the MOTHER or FATHER is the dispensable one. Why? Because if you support adoption by ‘gay’ parents you are essentially saying that MOTHERS are not vital (in the case of 2 men adopting) or FATHERS are not vital (in the case of lesbians adopting) to the healthy growth and development of a child.
In order to make your argument, you indicate that it would be best if the mother and father had a healthy and loving home. But, the examples you use are of BIOLOGICAL parents. Those BIOLOGICAL parents have rights, and they have a right to not be perfect, because they are the BIOLOGICAL parents. Also, the government has no right to interfere unless the child is in grave danger. BUT the topic at hand is ADOPTION, which is a whole different ballgame.
And so, you need to limit your argument to cases of ‘gay parent’ adoption. In ALL cases of ‘gay parent’ adoption you have a situation where one of the vital sexes is MISSING. You say that that is NOT an IDEAL situation, but you rationalize it by pointing out that BIOLOGICAL parents aren’t perfect. But, that is trying to compare apples and oranges. It doesn’t matter that BIOLOGICAL parents aren’t perfect. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if the gay parents are the MOST LOVING, MOST TERRIFIC, MOST AWESOME-IST, MOST ANTI-ABUSIVE couple around….because that gay couple CANNOT EVER be what the child NEEDS…from the get-go. And THAT is THE bottom line.
My guess is that you are unwilling to acknowledge the very truth you DO KNOW (“I think that most people would agree that a child needs positive role models (and influences) of both genders” & “Which one is dispensable? Neither, is the answer.”) because fear of appearing ‘homophobic’ or ‘bigoted’ clouds your judgment. As you told me, I tell you right back: “Some of you people are so very misguided in your priorities.” It is too bad for the children.
You would think these public servants, government and the courts would be swift in moving away from all this and their ignorance and demonstration of lack of education. It is apparent, from their statements and decisions they were, and perhaps still are, ignorant to the simple fact that God gave marriage to man in a time predating government and courts. They, government and the courts, are best to obey their own ends and workings and leave marriage alone for their claim of there being a separation of church and state. The book of Genesis, a compilation of oral traditions handed down since antiquity and the apparent beginning of man, and finally recorded by Moses, around 1440-1400 B.C., is the strongest evidence of their, government and courts, lack of authority to be involved in marriage. Have things worsened to the point they can no longer even recognize their own ignorance and errors? Then surely, the times written of, about satan taking rule, are here upon us! Or, are they claiming they have already held trial and decided against God and in their favor?
I’m impressed by the detail of responding comments. Thanks. Still inequality is mandated when it comes to gay marriage. I’m also surprised by the great numbers of the religious followers who are willfully ignorant of our 3 branches of government, and the independent roles they have.
And I am surprised at the number of ignorant gays who have never heard of Jack Owens, the originator of the movements for gays, to place them in a situation of fairness. Jack Owens did not “Fight” anyone. He did not “demand” anything, and was respected and even revered in his community and by far-away other communities who knew him well. He had the right ideas..and EVERYONE loved him. What’s the problem with the gays of today ? Got an axe to grind..? The example you present is poor. Everyone knew Jack was gay. Nobody cared. He was just always Jack…
I’m tired of getting the homosexual agenda shoved down my throat. You know who’s going to pay the price? Our innocent children will be targeted in schools.
Today homosexuals, tomorrow pedophiles?
Yeah, Rico, Me too ! Know what..? Too many people today are in that old pschological category called “just plain nuts “...
No, choirloft, they don’t have a right “not to be perfect” simply because they are ‘BIOLOGICAL”, that’s what Child Protective Services are for, to take the children AWAY from those parents, even if they are “BIOLOGICAL”.
As for Rico, no one cares what you’re sick of. And yes, in states (and other countries) where gay marriage has been made legal, the innocent children have been targeted in schools.
Not.
Poor Red Beard, the world is weeping for the harassment you are enduring. Hey, here’s a tip. Why not move on with your OWN life and stop trying to interfere in the rights of OTHERS. Also, please learn the difference between the words, ‘marriage’, ‘monogamy’, and ‘procreation’.
I think that Ted Olson really summed it up well in his FOX interview:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkProgress2#p/u/9/EJwSprkiInE
No one has the right to treat others like second-class citizens. You people might THINK that you do, but that doesn’t make it so.
@Mike Kays: “No, choirloft, they don’t have a right “not to be perfect” simply because they are ‘BIOLOGICAL”, that’s what Child Protective Services are for, to take the children AWAY from those parents, even if they are “BIOLOGICAL”.”
Mike Kays, Natural Law gives biological parents rights over their own children. Child Protective Services should only be used in cases of neglect and grave abuse, not for children running in a hallway.
Regardless of what BIOLOGICAL parents do, adoption is another matter. Placements need to meet certain standards - and, one would think that finding both a mother and father for a child would be a MAJOR requirement.
If the courts have no respect for marriage having been defined in Genesis 2:18-24 for thousands of years, and done so at a time before the existence of the government and courts of man, then how can the courts us to have respect for their flash-in-the-pan decisions? If government is about bringing on the demise of our present civilization, they could not be doing a better job of it. Other than that, I think their decisions will fall upon those who know not to uphold the law of man above the law of God.
NAMBLA is the “North American Man Boy Love Association”, they are politically active, are a thriving and growing group, and their motto is/was “Sex before eight or else it’s too late.” Correct or not, I don’t want them as neighbors, any more than homosexuals.
If homosexuals seem to have valid views to you, you should review some of this:
http://www.nambla.org/
http://www.nambla.org/hay2002.htm
http://www.nambla.org/pederasty.htm
Homosexuals are “morphing” their tactics and remaking their public image, but a wolf in sheeps’ clothing is a WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING. Once you shrug off the traditions, morals, etc. limiting you, it is easy to move on to more. Remember, the homosexual movement began here, it now attempts to “clean up its’ act!” Don’t be fooled. Acceptance of homosexuals invites monsters to the table.
Winston - good point.
J. Budziszewski has a good point in his “What We Can’t Not Know” book..
“Anti-discrimination ordinances already forbid discrimination on grounds of generic “sexual preference”; what are pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia if not sexual preferences? [p. 214]
I highly recommend this particular book by Budziszewski, which deals with common moral truths.
Evil is the lack of due good. There is only one Truth. Of course the rest or/and opposition to either one or both of these facts is merely drivel. Join those who realize this and practice it..or take your chances for a “swig in Hell with Gunga Din”..It’s always your choice.
The courts refuse to look at homosexuality in terms of behavior or choices, they cannot conceive that many homosexuals are victims of trauma and abuse, and while their behavior is no more a “choice” than a victim of PTSD has a choice about their exaggerated startle, it IS treatable - and if there IS a biological component in other people - it is still an abnormality - perhaps such as bipolar disorder - which is a chemical imbalance in the brain (I’m not saying that anyone has tracked down such a link - just hypothetically) - and yet, rather than looking at destructive behavior and very real health risks, they are looking at homosexuals as a persecuted “class” - hence the decision in June in another lawsuit - to quote - “The court’s decision, especially Ginsburg’s discussion of “status” and “conduct”, was promptly cited by plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is “an identifiable class”, opposing the defense’s argument that sexual orientation is “behavioral”.” - this does not bode well for future cases, at all… Maybe prostitutes will be the next “persecuted” and protected class… I can see it now.. “it’s the world’s oldest profession - it’s just another way of making money - it’s two consenting adults - what’s the problem if we monitor and tax it?” .... yeah, I can see it now..
I have to agree, to most I speak to, homosexuality looks like a mental disorder that governments and courts are attempting to give a “set of rights” to. Amazing to witness.
The current abundance of mental illness is not a matter of sexual preference…Mental illness is prevalent in the entire spectrum of mankind. Maybe it’s influenced by global warming..? Maybe it’s influenced by changes on the sun.We don’t know. One thing we do know, there is no money available to find out, because a few mentally ill people own most of the money and influence in the world. So the rest of us may as well just love and accept one another as we are…period.
Gosh, the recent comments show how the religios in our world are profoundly narcissistic and maintain defenses in the mind to guard against the learning of any new thing or to undergoe any learning experience that goes against your prejudice. Religion is truly evil.
Jerry, the recent comments show nothing other than attempts to validate bigotry and ignorance.
NAMBLA are pedophiles and should be shut down and the members fried in the electric chair. Still, saying that all homosexuals are the same as members of NAMBLA, is the same as saying that all heterosexual men are the same as the majority of child molesters (which are heterosexual men, usually a member of the child’s family).
To Lisa: Here is a 2008 study done on the brains of homosexuals, you might find it educational. Incidentally, I would say you don’t know many homosexuals ... I do, and I know none who were abused or traumatized as children, other than by unaccepting parents. You are clearly not an expert on the subject. Are you by any chance a Doctor of English, like Dr. Laura Schlessinger?
Further, Lisa, you would probably deny the spectrum of gender born into the word, such as individuals who are born intersexed. Maybe if gay people had something hanging off their body, maybe off of the shoulder, or knee, then this would make a difference to you?
Interestingly, something that HAS been shown to be related with homophobic males, is homoerotic arousal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Something else interesting to me is Genesis 19: 30-38, where Lot and his daughters had sex. Oh, that’s right, he was so drunk he didn’t realize ... they both bore his children. INCEST. In the bible. DISGUSTING. Yet later on, in 2 Peter, Lot is called “a righteous man”. Yea, read the bible ... invite those monsters. Hypocrites.
Mike Kays: no one chooses to be homophobic. God created them that way so they must be pleasing to God’s eyes. Also, Jesus ate with the Pharisees – those whom He labeled as hypocrites. Again, hypocrites must be pleasing to God’s eyes if the Son singled them out for His Presence.
The only argument for allowing homosexuals to marry is to gain benefits from the government only granted to married couples, by the government; And, there are no benefits afforded homosexuals under Gods’ marriage; Indeed, homosexuals are an abomination to God. So, the government first sets the stage, rules and regulations for the reasons homosexuals have an advantage in seeking to marry, then they justify the reasons to usurp the churches powers so these requirements, demanded by the homosexuals, to gain government advantages, can be realized. Really kewl!; And, self-justifying! Government “manufactured need” is sited by governments as the need to usurp Gods’ authority so this can be realized, this all effectively begins the casting of government in Gods’ role. I’d say that looks as much a plan of satans’ as any I have ever yet seen! Indeed, this absolutely qualifies for the title of “Diabolically Evil.” Thousands of years, and uncounted millennia of Gods’ ownership, authority and tradition are wiped away with one judges decision; Marriage is redefined into an abomination! And, the judge looks a “little light in the shorts” to me too; What about you? It all seems part of the puzzle of the continuation of the fulfillment of the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of in the bible. Christians should watch coming times closely.
Homosexual marriage does not usurp the churches as long as only churches who agree need to perform the ceremony.How do you figure that homosexual marriage usurps your church..?
It usurps my churches authority in the fact that my church takes its’ authority from God, for its’ teachings—specifically, in this case, Genesis 2:18-24.
NO one can usurp the authority of my church. What other people choose to do in their churches is not for me to try to dictate. Jesus came for sinners..I try to follow what Jesus said about love. Picking quarrels is probably not the best thing to do. I am no one’s judge or jury. I may disaagree with something..but..what they do does not in any way “usurp” my church. Hell itself cannot do that. I am Roman Catholic.
Mia Archer: you contend that no one can usurp the authority of your church. Some dioceses have stopped facilitating adoptions (i.e. care of orphans). While I do not know if your diocese is one of them, what would you call it, other than usurpation? Was the diocese’s decision really a non-coerced choice?
MY Diocese..Your Diocese..Are NOT “The Church”...Got it..?
It seems some are confused by the church. It is quite confusing with so many out to spread disinformation and obfuscate the truth. “The Church” in my use is only the church(s) which have followed the bible since long ago. The church(s) which existed from times before writing, when history had to be handed down in “oral traditions” until such time as writing was invented and these could be recorded in text. That list of “churches” is rather few. And, you local list of churches which follow is very few. The oldest church in existence, which I know of, is Catholic. This does not mean other churches do not uphold the bible just as vehemently. Any can research this to their own satisfaction. Arguments which spring up around this/these points are simply meant to spread the disinformation, ignorance and false beliefs. The internet and the churches lay before, do your own research and do your own visit to the churches to talk with priests, bishops, etc. and make sure you are in the right place. End of story ... the bible is a good source itself, and goes into some detail on false churches ...
Part of the problem is that, in a culture that doesn’t demand that childrearing and lifelong monogamy go hand in hand, it’s hard to argue logically against homosexual marriage. How can we argue that marriage is an institution designed to promote the best interests of children, while legally sanctioning divorce, adultery, pornography, and contraception, not to mention single parenthood and childless marriage?
I honestly think marriage, as it is currently understood, cannot stand much longer. Either it will need to be redefined more strictly, or it will be defined so loosely as to lose all meaning. Considering the state of contemporary American culture, my money’s on the latter.
@Mike Kays: “Further, Lisa, you would probably deny the spectrum of gender born into the word, such as individuals who are born intersexed. Maybe if gay people had something hanging off their body, maybe off of the shoulder, or knee, then this would make a difference to you?”
I cannot contain my amazement. As if anatomy indicators aren’t enough for gender?!?!?! One could also look at the karyotypes - with the XY showing MALE or the XX showing FEMALE.
My church would never consider homosexuals to be married. My church recognizes Genesis 2:18-24, where God gives marriage to the first woman and man, and Matthew 19:4-6 where Jesus reaffirms Genesis. Indeed, since marriage was given to man before governments and courts, I should doubt my church sees any sanity in the court attempting to define marriage, God already did that. The court has as much right to tinker with marriage as the church has to decide how government is going to recognize a marriage, once a valid one is preformed. Amazing, this idiot judge has made such a fool of himself! He is single handed-ly going to wipe away millennia of traditions, beliefs and practices with but a single ruling?
Love the way Winston Court quotes the bible willy nilly to support his own myopic point of view and then goes on to grossly insult the “idiot judge” who made a legal decision that may yet be either affirmed or overruled.
We know that leaders in some of our churches, and that certainly includes the Catholic Church have placed homosexuals along with thieves, murderers, male prostitutes etc. and quote various passages from the bible to support their view just as Winston Court does.
Rather than churning out the usual biblical quotations used to explain why God would actually deny human rights to the very human beings that he created, I would like to offer a somewhat different point of view.
We often hear that homosexuality (the word itself is never used in the bible) is clearly described as an “abomination”. In our modern English dictionaries an abomination is something “exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked or vile”.
I would like to make two points on the issue of “abominations”. The first deals with what most scholars seem to agree was the original term used in the Old Testament, in the language it was written in way before the King James bible was translated into English from about 1604 – 1611 by a group of English scholars – all of whom happened to be members of the Church of England. The word or words used in the original text were toeba or toba which simply signified something that was forbidden or unclean. It is very similar in sound and meaning to the Polynesian word “taboo”.
And I have to wonder if those early scribes were trying to set out what they believed, several thousand years ago, were the best practices for leading a good clean, healthy life, I think this view might be supported by a closer examination of other “abominations” as quoted in the bible, of which there are quite a few.
Before listing some of these as examples I would like to note that most of the bible’s “abominations” are NOT against the law in any way shape or form, and that if our religious leaders now tried to enforce punishment or denial of human rights for every abomination found in the bible they would have a very hard time because many of us “commit” them on a regular basis!
This leads me to my second point which is the need to take a close look at the bible to see what are these abominations. The first reference to an abomination appears in Genesis 46:34 which refers to every shepherd being “an abomination” to the Egyptians. This may well have arisen from the fact that the people of Egypt detested the nomadic habits of wandering shepherds. Do we now, in this 21st century, take this literally? Do we still consider all shepherds (the tenders of sheep) to be abominations? Or do we think that maybe those poor old shepherds living for weeks or months on end on the hilltops used to get really smelly and unclean in the extreme?
In Isaiah 66.3 “abomination” seems to be used to describe sin in general (of which we are all guilty), and Ezekiel refers specifically to adultery.
Proverbs 6 16-18 lists six abominations - “a proud look, a lying tongue, a hand that sheds innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, and feet that are swift in running to mischief, and being a false witness who tells lies.”. Are these loathsome, hateful, wicked and vile “abominations” for which we are condemned to eternal damnation, or are they guidance from our ancestors about what to avoid when trying to lead a good, clean lifestyle.
Yes, the word “abomination” is used in Leviticus to describe men lying with men, but it also says (in Deuteronomy) that it’s an abomination to cheat in the market by using rigged weights, while Proverbs (12:22) refers to dishonesty. Dishonesty?!!! We are all doomed! It’s also an “abomination” to tell lies (Proverbs 12:22), to be proud of heart (Proverbs 16:5) (Is Winston Court guilty of the abomination of being proud of heart) and to cheat in business (Proverbs 20:10 Proverbs 20:23). Cheating in business. Mmm. Now there’s one to ponder!
Leviticus goes on to label all sorts of other activities as “abominations”. These include eating any kind of seafood without fins and scales (Lev 11:10). If we interpret this literally then we would have to prohibit the catching or eating of lobsters or crabs, or any kind of shell fish. How many of us have committed that abomination on a regular basis? How many fishermen have been assisting others in committing abominations all their lives – catching lobsters? Can you just imagine a priest thumping on his pulpit to denounce fishermen for being loathsome, wicked and vile in providing lobsters and shell fish to all and sundry. Sorry, but the bible is quite specific. If we take it literally then an abomination is an abomination.
Is it just possible that some of those folks all those years ago often got sick – as they do now - when they ate shellfish? Nowadays we know that some of us are allergic to shellfish but our ancestors would not have understood allergies, so to be safe the scribes decided to prohibit their consumption. Surely, they were not advocating that people should be stoned to death or damned for all eternity for having a crab salad!
And it doesn’t stop there. The bible says it’s an abomination to eat birds of prey, and to eat insects. There are aboriginals around the globe who survive by eating insects. Do they have no chance of becoming Christians unless they denounce this loathsome, wicked practice? Or is it possible that those scribes thought it absolutely repulsive to munch on insects or to devour birds that ate flesh? Their answer - call it a toba - sorry, I meant an “abomination”.
As mentioned previously, those scribes were no doubt trying to set down rules to protect their peoples from unclean, or unhealthy practices based on their knowledge at that time. In my humble view they were doing their best, and it was generally good advice. But it is decidedly NOT the inerrant word of a god who is going to condemn to eternal damnation those who commit any of these so-called “abominations”.
Tragically, we still have people around like Winston Court who want us to accept every word in the bible literally, or should I say, those particular passages from the bible they choose to quote, while providing us with their interpretation based on their own biases, prejudices, and preferences.
I have no objection to our church leaders, including the Catholic church, and their congregations deciding that for them personally, homosexuality is not a lifestyle they can support, and that same sex couples cannot marry in their churches. That, to me, is their right.
But on the subject of rights I believe it is time for our church leaders to unite and to support the inalienable right of every person to be equal in the eyes of the law.
Any other course of action is, respectfully, both unjust and immoral.
Mike Kays.
I just happened to read your post of Aug 7th. and want to say that it is quite brilliant in every sense. It absolutely cuts to the chase with regard to the ignorance and bigotry displayed by so many on this website. Congratulations on having both intelligence and common sense - a rare commodity indeed!
why are you so against gay marriage is it really going to change anything. i went to a gay wedding not long ago although its not legal anywhere in Australia very little has seemed to changed. ps the wedding was beautiful on the beach sunny day everyone could feel the love of the wedding couple.
Duck = marriage
Chicken = “same-sex marriage”
Bird = relationship
Marriage: 1. Life-long 2. Exclusive 3.Between one man and one woman 4. For their mutual benefit/growth 5. ordered towards the procreation and education of children.
These 5 points aren’t key beliefs based on faith, but upon universal human experience. In all cultures in all times in all places there are witnesses to the fact that what we call “marriage” is a unique relationship. It deserves its own word. It is a duck unlike any other type of bird. Without any of these essential parts, the thing you have is not a marriage.
Same-sex “marriage” 1. Life-long 2. Exclusive 3. Two members of the same sex (ok, looking less duck-like already) 4. Mutual benefit (possibly, though we could dig into statistics here that would cause one to question to this claim) Wait, where’s 5? Hmm.. Of the 5 essential parts of what makes marriage what it is, “same-sex marriage” only has 3.
This chicken has wings. It has feathers. It does not quack, it does not have webbed feet. By its very nature, a chicken is not a duck. Both are relationships (birds) with the fact that they are quantifiable different types of relationships.
A parallel argument holds for many other relationships. I am a father of 3 children. It is literally not possible for me to be their mother. That being said, my rights have not been violated by this impossibility. Calling me their mother would be using words apart from the reality that they are intended to convey. It is irrational, confusing, and an abuse of language and reason. It does not help anyone.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.