In recent editions of the Post Register, countless local residents have joined in an epic debate over whether or not it is appropriate that we, as a society, can accept marriages between one man and one man or one woman and one woman, or whether it is in better wisdom to make changes to our state’s constitution to ban such unions (if even just civil ceremonies).
I have no pretensions that this debate is anything but a political move by politicians to gain support from Idaho’s “reddest” residents, but it does bring up a valid point – why not allow gay marriage in Idaho and other states?
In my experience, the opposition boils down to a handful of arguments:
- “Marriage” is traditionally, and has always been accepted as, a union between one man and one woman.
- Allowing gay marriage violates the “sanctity” of marriage, as a blessed union approved of by God.
- If we allow such unions, straight men would marry other men simply to take advantage of the tax benefits.
- Society is not ready for such a drastic social paradigm change.
Of these arguments, it seems that only two seem to have any basis in reality and, in turn, are the only ones which we should really scrutinize. First, we can lump the first and last argument into one category, which I will call the “traditional society” argument. The next group I will call the “religion” argument, because it is based on select scriptural passages which seem to condemn homosexuality.
So, regarding the first argument, I cannot help but bring up the issue of slavery. When the issue of abolishing slavery was first presented to a well-meaning, rational society, it was met with the same violent opposition that the concept of gay marriage has seen today. The arguments seemed to make sense – how would the developing American economy survive without slave labor? What to do with the freed slaves, would they be citizens? Doesn’t God support the concept of blacks being taken as slaves?
Of course, in retrospect, we know the answers to these questions. We know that society, the economy, and the American concept of nation-building benefited greatly from abolishing slavery. However, the concept of allowing equal citizenship to blacks (and women) would take another hundred years or so to become a real issue. Again, in retrospect, we find it utterly absurd that we would not allow an African-American or woman to vote or own property, because our society has been reared to accept these things. We now look back in astonishment at how our fathers viewed those that we now consider equals.
Let there be no mistake – our childern will view the current debate over gay marriage in this exact same light.
Society has a funny way of becoming incredibly resilient when it comes to culture shock – from the Irish immigrants pouring into Boston’s harbors to the current integration of Mexican citizens into our own culture, America is not as frail as opponents of gay marriage would have us believe. We are a nation that, despite the desperate cries of the minorities, will survive and flourish under social shock and drastic change. We may even find that America is better off when gay marriage is finally accepted.
Now, as a Christian, I understand that I am very much in the minority when it comes to my position on gay marriage. It seems almost unanimous among Christians that we pay very close attention to certain parts of the bible – namely, the ones that let us get away with judging others and enforcing our beliefs on them. We read key passages out of the old testament, deconstruct it, and display it in such a way that we mangle its intent to suit our own bigotous agenda.
My response to the Christian community is this: have you forgotten the whole other half of the bible, the new testament? Have you forgotten that Christ commanded us (not recommended, mind you) to love one another, and accept everyone as they are, and never to allow our pride to let us judge one another? It is not allowed us the authority to judge anyone, for anything, regardless of how we interpret this incredible book we call the bible.
So, how then can we judge homosexuals who want to enjoy the blessing of marriage without assigning ourselves powers and authorities denied us by Him that we worship? Think about it. This is not an issue of God’s will, His sanctifying of marriage, or what the bible tells us about marriage – this is about your pride, your bigotry, and your fear of something that you don’t understand.
Jesus Christ was the original individualist – He tells us, don’t worry about what your neighbor is doing, just love him. Make sure that you live your life according to your relationship with me, and let me handle the judging. What a relief! We don’t have to be God’s secret police – we just have to love His creations! This should be very, very good news, friends.
As a happily married man, I can say that the prospect of having two men or two women getting married and enjoying the same happiness as I have found will in no way affect the vows I made on that day in July. Opponents of gay marriage seem to think that the second Adam and Steve get hitched, those of us who are already married will have to pack it in, because our sacred vows are now bunk. I fail to see the logic here – maybe one of you can enlighten me?
It is my honest belief that someday, we will shake our pitiful heads at this silly debate, the same we do now at school segregation, womens’ sufferage, and how we dressed in the 80’s. Society can handle more happiness, more blissful reunions, and more acceptance of all of God’s children.
If you’re still not convinced, look at it this way – America has a 50% divorce rate. Wouldn’t allowing more marriages at least help our odds of keeping those vows? We could use all the help we can get when it comes to keeping the “sanctity” of marriage.
Popularity: 8%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 135 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m an atheist so the whole religion so I could care less about the whole religion argument except to point out the problems with the religion arguement. Throughout history religion has been used as an excuse put down certain segments of society. Religion thrives on creating seperate classes of society – those who are god’s beloved and those who are going to burn in some fiery lake.
Women are inferior to men because the bible says women should serve them. Society still hasn’t escaped this one completely. Women can’t be priests or their equivalents in many christian religions. Catholics and mormons to name two. Our nation founded on christian principles didn’t even think women should vote for a long time.
Blacks and Indians suffered horribly under our christian justified policies. Many religious people believe blacks are the descendants of Cain and thus its okay to discriminate against them. I’ve heard this exact thing come out of two my mormon coworkers mouths. And while blacks have gained a lot more equality there is still a a lot of racism out there.
Now its gays the religious people are after.
I’ll be utterly blunt on my opinion. If you are against gays you are within your rights as an American citizen just as you are within your rights to be a racist. But as an anti gay person you are in my opinion no better than a KKK member.
I 100% believe being gay is genetic. You can’t change who your primary preference of attraction is. The only time choice comes into the whole thing is who you choose to actually have sex with. Then its called bicuriousity or bisexuality.
I also believe civil unions are no different than seperate but equal drinking fountains, schools, and resteraunts.
And lastly, if your going to use the religion arguement the only way you can do so without being a complete hypocrite is live by ALL the bible, not just the parts you cherry pick. Thats means if your going to use the verses against gays you better be out there throwing rocks at kids who curse their parents since thats only a few lines away.
Two main points:
1) Just because something was justified by the bible by some misguided fool doesn’t mean religion supports what they did. If you read the bible as it is, you will find a much different message than has been assigned to “religion”. Lest we forget that Jesus hung out with the outcasts of society – if Christ came today, he would chill with gays, Mexicans, and liberals.
Our nation was not founded on Christian principles. Most of the founding fathers were either agnostic, atheist, or deist. Our nation was founded on the principles explored during the Enlightenment Period (ie Humanism and Social Contract). I hate that argument … sorry. However, just because our nation was not founded on Christian principles doesn’t mean it couldn’t use some about now.
2) I’m not sure I agree with your argument against unions. “Marriage” indicates a religious ceremony, so maybe people should get civil unions for legal purposes, then get “married” for religious reasons. We can have the best of both worlds
I am not against gay marriage, but I have to comment on your comparison to slavery.
You cannot compare gay marriage to what slaves went through. They suffered way more than anybody supporting gay marriage has. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
It’s a matter of comparing how society will react and conform to the drastic changes. People today seem to believe that we will never recover from the social shock of allowing gay marriage, just like people believed America would collapse without slavery.
Please read before posting.
I did read it, thank you, and I still don’t think the two issues are related or can be compared to each other.
You know,a lot of your comments and your articles you publish have a very negative attitude. In addition, you have made some sarcastic and down right rude comments back to people when they comment on either your comments or your articles you have written. A little respect and common courtesy would go a long way on your part. Just because someone does not agree with you, it does not warrant being rude.
This site generally has a positive attitude in its postings, it would be nice to see that continue.
“You cannot compare gay marriage to what slaves went through.”
Ehhh, yes and no. I think of reports of gays being harassed, beat up, and killed (let’s never forget Matthew Sheppard next door in Wyoming).
I think they can be compared in terms of exclusionary concept, just certainly not in scale.
Have gays been enslaved, beaten, and tortured like slaves? Of course not. But as Joe said lets not forget Matthew Sheppard and lets not forget that he isn’t an isolated case, he’s just the most famous case. There is still validity in the comparision because the mindset of the people who supported slaverly is similar to the mindset of the anti gay crowd.
Jeremy — I gotta disagree with you on this one… Your entire argument on Christains and their requirements not to judge — love their neighbors etc. etc. You miss a very imprtant part of this whole concept. The Bible teaches us that we ARE suppose to love our neighbors and not stand in judgement. But it also teaches that we are to actually HATE sin. We are never to embrace sin — accept sin or encourage sin — period! You can love the sinner — and still hate the behavior. The Bible tells us that God hates sin, but he loves every sinner. You can feel sorry for — fogive — and totally love the homosexual without approving of the act itself. For a young Christian to think that he must accept this behavior — and to encourage or even allow it to be accepted is very very wrong. In the beginning you listed the primary arguments that are given by people who oppose gay marriage. You forgot the main one. BECAUSE IT IS WRONG! PERIOD. If you (or anyone else) don’t personally believe its wrong then put it to a state wide vote. You will find that a tremendous majority of people who live here believe that its wrong — and want no part of it. Two men who take pleasure in placing certain body parts inside certain body parts of other men — its sickening — immoral — against nature and just plain wrong. To think that we should allow these people to share in the benefits of marriage — and be allowed to adopt children and expose them to this sickness is so far gone it makes me want to throw up. Now I have a persoanl opinion of this particular sin that is a bit different than most and might surprise you. I believe that we are all sinners — HORRIBLE sinners for the most part. I am a hetro-sexual, white male — married — as happily as the next guy. My flavor of sin is this: Right now — at this very moment I am dreaming of having 3 beautiful woman in a local hotel room doing all kinds of things to my naked body — and me to theirs. Thats really what I want to do TODAY! — deep inside — being totally hionest with you. Does my particluar “flavor” of sin make me better than a homosexual? No. we are exactly the same. we were both born like this — yes we were. We both have an obligation to fight our demons and the temptations that we have — and to ask God to help us through it all. One is not better than the other — and knowing this allows me to not stand in judgment of homosexuals. God will do that on an individual basis — as he will with me and you. But I will never help promote — condone or accept this behavior (mine or theirs) — and will do whatever I can to resist and keep our society as clean, and tradional and as “inline” with Biblical teachings as I can. And for the athiests out there — I really feel sorry for them. There is no words for them. They can look at the night sky filled with stars — a newly born baby — a flower blooming in the spring and not see God. Thats the sadest part of it all….
Guest – I think I agree with your general premise, that being that sin is a bad thing. We should hate it. However, we should hate it on a very personal level, not project that on others. This is what gets me about so many Christians. We are so quick to say that Homosexuals are sinners, and we hate the sin … but like you indicated, everyone is a sinner. There was only one person who ever lived without sin, and well just imagine, he turned out to be God, so that takes care of that.
Why are we so reliant on the bible to define sin for us, when Jesus tells us that a relationship with God is the most valuable, rewarding way to understand Him? Why trust in one person’s recorded experience when we can have our own. I am not entirely convinced, scriptural evidence or not, that homosexuality itself is a sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin. It’s about intent, not disposition.
Anonymous: Obviously, you did not read it, or you wouldn’t have made the argument you did. It’s not about comparing gays and slaves, it’s about comparing society’s reaction to that issue. I made that very clear. It seems to me that you’re the one being negative – I’m standing up for a discriminated section of society, while you seem to be content to demonize them.
Jeremy — I have to make one last comment. Read your last paragraph and really THINK hard about it:
If you’re still not convinced, look at it this way – America has a 50% divorce rate. Wouldn’t allowing more marriages at least help our odds of keeping those vows? We could use all the help we can get when it comes to keeping the “sanctity†of marriage.
How do you keep the “sanctity” of marriage by completing letting go the “sanctity” of marriage? And why would we try to correct one horrible and sad statistic by creating another one? I bet there are better ways to try and correct the high divorce rate and uphold the real “sanctity” of marriage. Don’t worry — its ok. You are quite young. Rookie mistake.
One more note, Guest. You mention about having a state-wide vote on whether homosexuality is wrong. I agree that the vast majority will say that it is – but does that make it right? As a Christian, you must know that the majority “voted” to murder Christ. The majority is very, very rarely correct. Nazi Germany came to be because of the Tyranny of the majority. What’s popular is rarely what’s right.
Well Jeremy — In regards to your questions in paragraph 2 of your last post — Time goes by very very fast. You are too young to really know how fast it goes. As a matter of fact — you are almost the exact same age as my currnet pair of hunting boots. I can tell you — I am over half way “done” and it went by in a flash! Soon — actually much sooner than you think — you can take these questions that you have — and ask Him yourself….
And you are correct — there have been times in history when the majority got wrapped up in a cause or an idea and they were wrong. In time — the majority of the people in the US and Idaho for that matter will no longer believe that it is wrong. Idaho is one of the few states which tends to hold onto to traditional values a bit longer than some others — so for now — at this time — my state wide vote comment was correct. More people feel the way I do than the way you do. Hang in there cause in another 50 years (or much less) that will change. Guess I used a bad example to make my point. So are you saying that Homosexuality is right — and those that say it is not right are wrong? If so — add that one to your list of questions to ask him when you get there… He’ll probably be happy to explain it to you….
What I’m saying is that I don’t believe that it’s as simple as homosexuality being “right” or “wrong”. We tend to try and capsulize things as “immoral” or “moral” and it’s never that simple. My point in that homosexuality can be immoral just like heterosexuality can. I refuse to believe that being born a certain way can qualify as a sin … if that is the case, can we then say that being born a woman is a sin? Black? Short? I believe that it is the way in which we live our lives that dictates sin. Someone can make mistakes and even commit horrible sins and be closer to God than the sinless (“All of these commandments I have kept from my youth.”) Need we forget that the people who could not recognize Christ were those who lived closest to the Jewish law?
Your last post indicates that maybe you know something that I don’t about how God views homosexuals. I think that if this is true, you may have a responsibility to let us all in. However, I suspect that you and I believe in the same God, and in doing so, we believe that it’s possible to have a personal relationship with Him. So maybe we should let those who struggle with homosexuality (or don’t) take it up with Him directly … we don’t need to speak for Him, He can do that Himself.
Jeremy,
You’ve already established in other posts via your partial username who your relatives are. That being said, I read your posts based simply on YOUR experiences, not theirs. If your relatives wish to express their thoughts, from my viewpoint, they can register and say what they want to say.
Unlike some who have lived their entire or a great majority of their life within a three county area of eastern ID, you have lived in different states and cities. Since you have probably had far more exposure to the polygamist culture, when you were younger and maybe even went to school with or knew kids whose parents were practicing polygamists, how do you feel about plural marriage? Should we be tolerant and accepting of adults who decide to live their lives in that lifestyle relationships?
Before anyone says anything, I have two disclaimers: First, IN NO WAY AM I SUGGESTING JEREMY’S FAMILY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLYGAMY. Rather, I’m simply saying you lived for a period in your life close to about 5-10K polygamists.
Secondly, I want to clarify that I have worked in the area where you use to live – not f/t, but worked there every month. So I have opinions too, based on the polygamists I met. However, given my work, I met perhaps a more skewed population than you. Probably, you had exposure to a more accurate cross-section of people living this lifestyle, perhaps even some of the students in your school, than I did working there monthly. If you didn’t have classmates that lived as polygamists, I’m still willing to bet you knew some.
I’ll be interested in reading your thoughts about this subject and how it pertains to what we traditionally know as marriage (between one man and one woman). Lots of people talk about polygamists and have had NO experience with them or have known none personally. What do you think, based on your own experience?
What’s the first thing that pops into your mind when you hear or read the word “gay?”
I’m willing to bet it ain’t: happily excited, or merry, or exuberant, or in high spirits. That was the primary meaning of the word “gay” when I was growing up.
I don’t want the first thought that pops into people’s minds to be “homosexual” when they hear of read the word “marriage.”
So, if the homosexuals want to become legally bound to each other, then let ‘em — just don’t let ‘em steal the word “marriage” while they are at it.
I have a question you, Jeremy. (Others who agree with Jeremy are welcome to answer, too.) Would you put any restrictions at all on who could “marry” and who could not? What would the restrictions be and why?
There are biological reasons why a male can not, and should not, engage in sexual intercourse with a closely related female. Incest, I believe, is a crime. Those biological reasons are not biologically applicable to homosexual relations, so would you allow brother to marry brother? Sister to sister? Mother to marry daughter? Father to marry son? If not, why not?
And what about plurar marriage? If the definition of marriage can be expanded to encompass homosexuals, why can’t it be expanded to encompass multiple wives and multiple husbands?
Jeremy — I think I can help you out — seriously. As you are obviously a young Christian and a brother in Christ — it is easy for you to find out the answer to your question. Go out to Calvary Chapple — East side of Idaho Falls. IF is very fortunate to have a very serious man of God on what I believe to be almost the “Billy Grham scale — time will tell if I am right about that. Go there and meet with Pastor Brown and ask him to explain this to you. Then take what he tells you and pray about it. I promise you that at some point in the near future you will find the answers to the questions that you have about this. Trust me….give this a try. Let me know…
Jeremy,
I never said that gays are not discriminated against and I do not “demonize” them. I in fact do agree that they experience discrimination and that it is not right.
I simply do not think that it compares to slavery. I think I just chose bad wording in my first comment. Joe said it better when he said that it just doesn’t compare in scale. That is what I meant.
Just to clarify, my post # 15 was posted at 4:21 p.m. Ironically, 8B posted at 4:23 p.m. and at the end of that post the author asks a similar question to what I did about polygamy.
In no way were my remarks a coordinated effort with any other person visiting this site. I imagine that 8B and I were writing at the same time and my post just got posted first.
I don’t know who 8B is (and probably vice versa). I admit it is odd we both asked questions about polygamy and they were posted within 3 minutes of each other. However, please contact 8B, if further clarification is needed to ensure this was not a “team effort.” Coincidental -yes, but not planned.
8B and OK4Now – I can see where you’re leading the discussion, so I’ll cut right through the pleasantries and address the “slippery sloap” argument right out. Allowing gay marriage is an altogether separate issue than plural marriage – in fact, I wonder how the two events could possibly be connected. Gay marriage is recognizing the validity of a loving, faithful relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. Plural marriage would present legal and tax problems that would take ages to overcome. Plural marriage is the threat to the idea of marriage, not gay marriage.
But the point is moot when it comes to the gay marriage debate. This is about one man and one man or one woman and one woman – not two or three. So unless someone can explain the logic of one leading to the other, I don’t see a reason to go further into it.
Now, someone brought up my family history. I don’t see the significance, but I’ll bite. As far as I know, my family has never engaged in polygamy. While Mormon, most of my family converted long after the Mormon church abolished this practice. There was a second cousin marriage on my mother’s side, though. And speaking of, I’m against family marriage as well, and here’s why.
It would drain the gene pool. Simple enough.
If we allow close family to marry, we must assume that these marriages would produce children, and incestual or family breeding produces far-reaching health effects including mental disorders and immunity issues.
However, this doesn’t apply to the gay marriage debate either.
Guest – I may or may not check out the church you mentioned. Firstly, because I am happy as pie with the Presbyterian church that I attend. Second, I am not gay, so I don’t need guidence from Pastor Brown on the issue, especially when deciding on my personal view of civic policy. I do appreciate the invitation, though. (ps for the record, comparing someone to Billy Graham or any other televangelist is not a good way to impress me.)
Now, let’s get this discussion back on track – can someone, anyone present a logical, strong argument against the idea of gay marriage that does not rely on religious interpretation or slippery sloap logic? I am yet to hear one, from anyone, anywhere.
Some things to ponder. Idaho Falls like most towns has a problem with men having sex with other men in parks. While I don’t have the stats in front of me as I don’t think anyone has ever actually tracked the stats I can tell you this with fair certainty. The vast majority of these men were married to women. One was even a “general authority” in the LDS church who was married with kids. Its the exception when you find an openly gay male there.
What that tells me is that like I believe being gay is genetic. These men have “chosen” to try and ignore their primary attraction for religious reasons or a desire to fit in with what society demands but every now and then they give in to biology.
Also, I’m glad that so far no one has made the moronic argument (unless I missed someone saying it) in the the slippery slope debate that people would try to marry animals or rocks or crap like that. Because your doing nothing but showing your own idiocy by doing so. Its about CONSENT. If you can’t consent to marriage then the marriage won’t be legal. So it won’t lead to marrying animals, it won’t lead to marrying children, and it won’t lead to marrying inanimate objects. Of course there will be the occasional nutcase, as there is now, who tries but they won’t suddenly pop out of the woodwork any more than now. Its just a red herring argument.
Polygamy is another matter and I’ll grant that allowing homosexual marriage would possibly crack the door open on it. Because its theoretically possible for multiple adults to consent. I say theoretically because in the mormon world of polygamy there isn’t a lot of consent since girls are basically sold into it at a young age.
Still though its better to open the door a bit with a risk of polygamy and be on the side of decency and righteousness than it is to be no different than the slaveowners of the 1800’s were – bigoted and inhumane.
You know, I think some of what bothers folk about gays is not the gay marriage but the in-your-face attitude. I’ve lived all over the country and met hundreds of people and worked dozens of jobs. Although there were exceptions, for the most part, the heterosexuals didn’t discuss their sex lives. There were some undeniably crude people who did, but management was allowed to shut them down. Too many gay people want to be allowed to force their sex lives down our throats whether we like it or not. Think I’m kidding? Ask your human resources department what will happen if you talk about your sex life at work and someone objects. You’ll get reprimanded or fired. Now, if you’re gay, it’s protected under freedom of speech for some reason and the rest of us are forced to listen to it. I don’t want to hear the details of anyone’s sex life, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or otherwise. I have some wonderful friends who are gay and they know I care about them very much. They also know I don’t want to hear the agenda. This issue is very complicated and convoluted. I’m glad I’m not gay because they are discriminated against, but I get tired of the dialog.
As for the religous side of it, well, I remember when Christ came up on the adulteress (not personally) and he said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” But he then turned to the adulteress and told her, “Go and sin no more.” That really encompasses a lot of issues for me. He loved her but he didn’t approve. I don’t know if this applies to the gay issue or not. I fall back on the second greatest commandment when I find myself in this spot. “Love they neighbor as thyself” and also “judge not lest ye be judged.”
Isn’t it great to live in America where we’re all guaranteed the right to not only have our own opinion but are allowed to vocalize it as well? It makes for some “interesting” discussions, no doubt, but would you really have it any other way? Who would you choose to decide for everyone else?
Jeremy,
I don’t appreciate your comments directed to me in post #20, as they aren’t factual. You ASSUMED I had an agenda about gay marriage and polygamy. That is not correct as far as gay marriage. It is correct in the fact I’ve wanted to ask you for a while (like since Warren Jeffs got put on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list) what it was like to grow up around and potentially have classmates who lived that life. I DID NOT connect anything about being GAY and POLYGAMISTS! Please read what I wrote in #15 again.
You would have no idea what has or hasn’t happened in my life this last week that would make me think of polygamy today when reading some of the discussions (and no I don’t practice it). However, having worked with polygamists previously, perhaps I have work that pertains to further information than I know or have personally experienced with the skewed population with which I worked. I don’t think it’s fair to me or anyone else for you to assume what our “motives” were without asking. And I would certainly appreciate it, at least with me, if you would ask for that clarification. There may be limits of what I can say given my work, but I could at least say something like there was an issue at work today, or I’m worried about violence in that culture, or I was blown away as I met someone who was a polygamist or I wondered about the support groups/agencies that have formed to help those who have left that culture. You have a unique perspective that I’m not sure if many writing on this blog have experienced.
So you don’t think I’m limiting my polygamy comments to you, as I don’t think they relate to gay marriage (or at least that isn’t what I was thinking), let me make this a wide open question.
If anyone who reads this knows facts about polygamy would you just identify yourself as anonymous and a #. Then I can create an anoymous e-mail address for me that perhaps I can ask you so more direct questions. AGAIN, I asked Jeremy because I do know where he lived and the approximate dates. I don’t know about anyone else reading this….so if you have knowledge, I need your help in trying to figure something out.
If you want to be offended Jeremy, that is your choice. As I’m sure you’re learning in school, as prep to training as a LMFT, I have NO CONTROL over how you feel or how you perceive what I write. I know how I intended it, which is why I would greatly appreciate the courtesy of you asking me for clarification of what I wrote before making assumptions and firing off something that in this case is totally inaccurate.
As far as your family, I’m the one who brought it up in this thread. Please read that part again. You have openly told us on this board things about your family. NEVER did I say anything about your family and polygamy, except as a disclaimer. Please read it again.
I did write a comment after I saw the comment of 8B posted so quickly after mine (3 minutes) as I wanted to clarify there was no joint attempt to prove a point.
Perhaps I should have submitted an article writing about polygamy. I really don’t know if I could have written certain things, given limitations of what I can openly ask. For that, I apologize to you Jeremy. And I would appreciate you taking a breather then re-reading what I wrote so you don’t confuse my comments with homosexual marriage.
Ok4Now – I was never offended, I was making pre-emptive clarifications and comments before the discussion got to that point. I lumped yours and 8B’s comments together because you were both addressing the same issue – setting limits on marriage, ie. defining it, which innevitably wanders into realms of polygamy, etc.
I assumed by the tone of your question that you would wander into the question of polygamy, because since you seem to know a bit about my past, you know that I once lived in St. George, Utah, which is adjacent to a highly polygamist-settled area.
It was never a matter of being offended, but of keeping the discussion on track. We’re discussing gay marriage, not polygamy, marriage of a dog and cat, or anything of that matter. If my reply seemed defensive or aggressive, it’s for that reason alone. It was never personal.
Ok4Now, I’m wondering when you say in comment #24 that Jeremy has a “unique perspective”, are you referring to his experience living next to a polygamist colony, or his claim of having correct knowledge about the LDS church?
I am interested in your inquiry.
Anonymous – I think you’re in the wrong topic. We’re talking about the politics of gay marriage – the religious discussion is on another page … and I’m still awaiting your response to my request for you to refute any of my points.
So unless you would like to contribute to the topic at hand, let’s take the LDS issue to the correct forum.
Gosh, I would think anyone who wanted homosexuals to stop having sex would be in favor of allowing them to get married. It works like a charm for heterosexuals.
Ba-zing!
It’s about time someone lightened up around here.
I was kicking around the same joke … but you told it better than I could. Kudos.
Wrong “anonymous”, Jeremy. I was responding to a request by OK4Now. I have not received a request from you. I am willing to discuss religion with people who aren’t full of hate, who don’t prejudge, and who don’t take particles (tiny particles) of truth and distort them to be fact. Therefore, I will not discuss specifics of religion (lds religion) with you, until the anger and hate leaves your dialog. I can respect your opinion about religion, and your choice of religion, even if I don’t agree. What I don’t appreciate is when you present information as fact,that is not. Now, Jeremy, I also,probably have church shoes as old as you. I too went to seminary for four years, and my church shoes have taken me to church for lots of years. I do know the truth about your claims, but I will not ARGUE with you. It is not my intent to change your opinion. Maybe you could redirect some of your hatred for mormons, towards doing more good in your new found religion. After all hate, anger, and resentment only hurts ourselves. Lastly, I know the topic is about the politics of gay marriage. You opened the door, and I chose to voice my opionion–I don’t care if you disagree.
Anonymous from #26- my question pertained to the fact Jeremy had lived close to polygamists. And potentially even had interaction at school or socially.
I didn’t think it was a good idea to post a seperate topic about Polygamy, because as Jeremy so rightly points out – it is ILLEGAL. I don’t want to write a post about an illegal subject.
If you might be a resource I could ask more information, please just give me a # for your anonymous (like anonymous #7, or whatever) so I can address you and not someone else by error. Then, I can set up a different e-mail account so questions can be asked there instead of here.
And Jeremy, in your post # 25, my point was NOT ABOUT YOU be offended – it was about ME! As you even say there, you ASSUMED.
Thanks anonymous. Hope we can connect. I think some would have a difficult time to find other threads that didn’t introduce other subjects, generated by previous posts in the current thread. If I’m wrong, then perhaps someone could reference which threads and posts addressed nothing but the listed subject and no other subject somewhat related. As I read information from others who write, questions, thoughts etc. in my brain get triggered about other things.
As I stated before, I will not post a formal discussion about a subject that is illegal.
Anonymous# – okay, if I have in any way demonstrated a hatred for Mormons (not an ideological disagreement about Mormonism), then I need to be made aware of it. In the religion thread, I asked that someone, anyone please point out anywhere that I made a hateful remark toward Mormons or judged them as people. There have been no replies. And yet, while I wait for some kind of justification for your assigning me as being hateful toward Mormons, you just keep throwing around judgements and labels without cause or justification. So right now, either show me where I have been hateful (not argumentative) or stop staining my reputation. Enough is enough.
If I made a hateful comment about Mormons, I will retract it immediately. As I’ve stated, I love many Mormon people, but disagree with them highly on a number of ideological bases. In fact, in one of my replies, I stated a list of things that I like about Mormons and Mormonism.
So, until the time comes that you either retract your comments about me being hateful or present evidence of the truth of those accusations, I will be waiting.
Also, if this site is going to be about dismissing someone’s view because of their age, I’m getting the hell out of here. Give me a break.
“Also, if this site is going to be about dismissing someone’s view because of their age, I’m getting the hell out of here. Give me a break.”
Trust me, the site’s philosophy is age does not matter so long as writers are civil and mature (it’s the passions that get even adults into trouble).
Therefore early high school to one foot in the grave is allowed to express their opinions.
And I must say I’m older than Jeremy but have always hated those ‘i’ve got crap older than you’ statements. I always smirked at the difference between respecting elders or betters.
Okay4Now, I would look forward to communicating with you “anonymous26″ would be fine.
Jeremy, I will retract my age comment, and apologize for it. I don’t enjoy those comments towards me either.
I will not retract my statements. So, you may wait if you want to.
I find it interesting that you choose to write articles about issues that have such varing and emotional opinions, then act surprised when you get emotional and intense comments. Maybe you should “lighten up” your choice of subjects–if you can’t handle people disagreeing with you.
I liked that quote on your link: “Wisdom is thinking something stupid, and not saying it” , or something like that.
Chiasm–FYI-I know who you were talking about in the park, and he was not a “general authority”. Do you know what a general authority is?
Please keep this discussion on topic to gay marriage in Idaho.
Anonymous – I will reply to your last point. Gay Marriage is emotional, but why can’t we discuss it in a rational, intelligent way without resorting to personal attacks and slander? Humans are rational creatures – why can we not look past emotions and compare and exchange ideas without emotions boiling over?
See, I do not agree with homosexuality, because I am not homosexual. However, just because I don’t belong to a group doesn’t mean I can’t empathize and understand their plight. I believe that marriage is a good thing, maybe the best that society has created thus far, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t extent this gift to a segment of the population just because biology created them to be of a certain inclination.
So again, I plead with you all, anyone who is against gay marriage, tell me why. Help me understand. Maybe I just don’t “get it”. Please, someone present the case against gay marriage from a rational, intelligent point of view. It would help in my battle to avoid cynicism.
I do know what a general authority is. Although, now that its brought up I may have mixed it up with stake president. Regardless it was an upper level muckity muck of the LDS church in the area.
If your thinking of someone else then there obviously has been more than one bigwig in the church.
Why this is relevant to gay marriage though, just so its clear we are still on topic, is that this man was married to a woman but couldn’t control his biology and his predominant attraction no matter how he tried to use religion to obey societal mores.
So if you accept my supposition that being attracted to the same sex is not a choice but rather biology then in all deceny you have to allow them to marry as well.
I don’t have any comment myself, but I read an interesting quote in this week’s TIME magazine:
“Marriage is not about love. It’s about a love that can bear children.”
Spoken by Republican Congressman Todd Akin (Missouri) in support of a ban on gay marriage that failed.
Wow, I thought my marriage was about love.
Anonymous #26, from post #34. Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your generous offer to help me understand more about polygamists. I had technical difficulties with my computer today and it took a while to resolve. Give me 24 more hrs. to get you an address.
I look forward to being able to clarify some confusing things, for me.
Jeremy,
Let me see if I can put a train of thoughts together to help you understand how some of us may be feeling.
First, you claim this isn’t about age, but it can be. Those of us with a few more years on our waistline have seen the slippery slope in action. A few decades back, Hollywood was asking what it could hurt to bare Barbara Eden’s belly button on I Dream of Jeannie. Now, we’re baring Janet Jackson’s breasts, Dennis Franz’s butt, Girls Gone Wild, etc. Then it was what could it hurt to say “hell” on tv? Now, every dirty word ever coined is heard every hour of the day and night in music, in public and on tv. On tv, married people slept in twin beds. Now we get to see all the skin, all the sweat, every touch, every thrust short of the actual penetration, at all hours. A hundred years ago, women “just” wanted the right to take birth control to prevent pregnancy. Now, we’re sucking the brains out of viable eight-month old fetuses – under the same argument – it’s MY body.
Second, most folks feel morality in our nation is on the decline. We say it’s okay to lie, cheat, steal and even murder if you can come up with a reason. You may not think this is a moral issue, but some folks reading this thread think it is. That’s their right!
Third, you say this is about equal rights. When slaves were emancipated, that was the right thing. When they were given the right to vote, that was the right thing. When they were desegregated, that was the right thing. But now, we have affirmative action and reparations. They’re demanding MORE rights than the next guy. Are gays on the same track? I don’t know, but I have the right to ask if that’s where they’re headed.
Finally, most folks don’t like being pushed outside their comfort zone. Fanatics and zealots love to push the status quo “just because.” Sometimes it’s the right thing to do to push people outside their comfort zone, but sometimes it isn’t. That’s why we’re having this discussion.
Adultery and pre-marital sex used to be illegal. Now, if it is still illegal, it’s rarely prosecuted. So, we already took the first step down this road. Now, through same-sex marriage, we’re trying to take another. People have a right to be concerned that, like in so many other issues, it won’t stop here, and someone may demand the right to marry their dog, three sisters, or their ten-year old “lover”.
So, that’s what this thread is all about.
Personally, for the record, I haven’t made up my mind about this issue and was hoping to gain some insight through the postings. Can we restrict ourselves to comments about the issue and not make personal attacks.
By the way, Mormons aren’t the only religios group that disapproves of homosexuality, so can we leave a person’s religion out of it and speak only from the religious aspect. Religious belief is a factor for some in this debate, but let’s leave the denomination out of it.
Nothing worth having is easily gained, Jeremy. If this is worth having, you’ll accomplish more by giving people more than just “what can it hurt?” and “it’s ridiculous to think it would go further than this.” You have a challenge on your hand to convince us. So I say go for it. I, for one, am listening.
I very much appreciate your response. A few counterpoints.
First, I see your point regarding the slippery sloap. However, isn’t it possible that the “lower” standards on television is a reflection of where society is at, rather than television forcing these things on the viewing public? In other words, does life imitate art or vise versa?
Second, I see your point about affirmative action. However, I think that allowing two consenting adults to marry is on the same plane as womens’ sufferage, not affirmative action. It is a basic civil liberty that should not be limited to what have been called “accidents of nature”.
I truly do not believe that allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, underage marriage, or legalized beastiality, but maybe these are points we should consider as we move forward. As we pass laws allowing gay marriage (it will happen), we should keep in mind that slippery slopes need not happen if we are cautious.
I will do some thinking and respond to your last point sometime in the future. I think that making the case FOR gay marriage is much less dramatic than making the case AGAINST it because we tend to want to restrict others rather than enable them … it’s a mystery of psychology.
The State should treat all marriages as legal contracts only, and end the government-endorsement of marriage, including heterosexual ones. If the State no longer endorses marriages, there is no inequality, and gays, lesbians, polygamists, etc., can all draw up their own private agreements, just the same as heterosexuals could. The best resolution of inequalities under the law for gays would best be resolved by eliminating all State involvement in marriage (for heterosexuals, gays, polygamists, etc…), rendering every living human exactly equal under the law.
Jeremy, I’m extending a white flag to you. May I just suggest to you that if you don’t want to be “labeled”, that you be careful of the tone of some of your comments.
Now, as for the gay marriage issue, I personally do not agree with homosexuality, therefore I do not agree that gay marriages should be leagallized. I do not believe that people are born gay. I believe that we all have weaknesses, challenges, vices, or whatever you want to call them, from addictions to drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, food, to infidelity, dishonesty, or whatever your personal vice may be. Nobody is immune–not even “upper level muckity mucks” in any religion. Because we choose to give in to our vice, doesn’t make it right. Sometimes it might be easier to say “I was born this way”.
I’ve often wondered what I would think or do if someone in my close circle of family or friends was openly gay and wanted to get married. Over and over, I try to teach my children to be kind and to respect others. I would hope that that is what I would do. I do not have hateful feelings or ill-wishes for people who live this lifestyle, I just don’t think it is right. Therefore, when we are asked to take a stand and vote,I believe we have a responsibility to vote according to our own beliefs and conscience—in the end majority rules, and we move on.
I also wonder why so often we hear the philosophy: “I don’t agree with it, but others may as well do it.” It’s as if we’re so afraid of offending someone, we don’t dare take a stand. Have we become so politically correct, we can’t freely voice our opinion without being labelled as a hate monger? I don’t hate anybody for their choice of lifestyle, or think that it’s okay to persecute anyone for being gay or any other reason. It just means that I don’t think it’s right.
I appreciate the gesture of the white flag, though I cannot make any promises about my tone. I try to be as frank and forthcoming as possible, and sometimes, that may be misinterpreted. All I ask is that any replies to my comments be made after putting forth an effort to understand what was said, not what was infered by the reader.
If I may ask, where did you develop your view that homosexuals are not born that way? As a student of psychology, I spent a course studying gender roles and human sexuality, and there is a multitude of scientific evidence that supports the biological basis of sexual preference. For a small example, there is a conclusive study that correlates the pattern of male-female births in women to whether or not one of the children will be gay. For example, a woman who gives birth to three boys, then has another boy has a 75% chance that the last boy will be homosexual. That’s a staggering figure! There’s also the observation that in nearly all cases, the inner-ear of homosexual women is around 40% larger than heterosexuals. While it’s unknown why that is, it’s a definite biological difference that we need to consider.
I do agree with your vices argument, which actually goes back to my original post. We are all messed up, but in different ways. The bible tells us all kinds of ways that we should live – giving to charity, loving one another, taking care of our parents, not overeating, etc. but we cherry-pick at it to justify our position on certain issues. As far as I can tell, there are only about 2-3 places in the bible where it outright forbids homosexuality, and only one of which I can find in the new testament, the basis of my faith. However, the times you will find the commandment to love one another is staggering.
So, what should be the message we get from our religion on homosexuality? Love them, care for them, accept them, never judge them. If you have talked to God and chosen the life of a heterosexual, because you believe that is pleasing to Him, that’s great – but instead of judging homosexuals, why don’t we try to lead them to God, so they can take it up with Him, and decide for themselves?
Here is a question to ponder – consider a homosexual couple that is not having sex. Perhaps they’re not comfortable with the act, maybe they don’t have the desire, but love eachother more than anything in this world. They have dated other women and men, but have not found someone that makes them feel as alive and loved as this other person, who happens to be of the same gender as them. Are they still to be told that their love is an abomination, and that we will not allow them to be joined in the union of marriage?
In other words, is it the sex that we have a problem with, or is it the love?
I was gona stay out of this but I have to share this recent happening… first let me say to Insider Observer and annon…# that you two make some great points. And I know that I am not suppose to make referances to peoples young age — so I will put it this way: Jeremy has climbed out of bed approximately 8030 days. Assuming that he learns something every day — how much more will Jeremy know after he climbs out of bed another 8030 days? That is the question that I ask in regards to the age issue… now for the story… Back when I was a young kid growing up in Idaho Falls guns were very accepted. Everyone had a gun. Kids in High School use to have them in the back window of their pickup trucks — and we would leave from school and go hunting ater school let out. Most kids I knew received rifles for their 12th birthdays — me included. You could buy gun in the news paper — guns in garage sales — guns from the Drug Store — whatever. Now at that time — Homosexuals were something that I had only heard about — existed out there somewhere — but not in our city. Elton John was one — we thought — but really homosexuality was more of an urban myth in my mind. Now — 30 years later things have changed. I am looking to sell a hand gun. A nice Coly .45 semi auto. Now you can’t sell one of these in the news paper — eBay won’t list them — God knows I wouldn’t want to put one in a garage sale and have my neighbors know that I am a closet gun owner — so I went onto Craigs List — online — to list my gun. I tried to place that listing 4 times — each time it was kicked back to me and denied because it was a gun! Now while I was on carigs list I cruised around to check the site out… you can buy anything there! (anything but a gun) Now don’t misunderstand me here — I went here only because I was curious — but I went into “Casual Encounters.” Here I found that men were listing their wants and desires for oral sex — anal sex man on man seemed to be pretty darn popular. No one was shutting down these posts! It was obvious that sexual encounters between men were being set up here on a daily basis! Then it occurred to me — we live in a time when you cannot list for sale a firearm — to be used for the protection of a family — but you can set up the oral encounter of your dreams with a guy named Frank — even when your name is Joe! What the hec is up with that? I for one want no part of this movment. I will call it a “movement in motion.” Will it stay the same once the next level of perversion is accepted — or will it just keep getting worse? As we accept on level of sickness — does the next — deeper level just become that much easier to take? I just thought this was interesting. My 2 cents…
WILL SOMEONE MAKE ME SHUT UP! Have ot make one last comment — then I will disappear forever — I promise… In another 40 years — when Jeremy is 60 something — he might just be sitting here typing about those “good old days.” I really wonder what that converstaion will be like? How far down the toilet will our society be by then? What will Jeremy look back on when remembering times more pure and the way it “use to be.” You know he will. You know it will change. Will he be conversing with a young 20 year old propoanant of the Boy Man Love society — hanging tightly on to his position that sex with children is wrong — no matter what society says? Sounds outragious. Just like it would have sounded to me 30 years ago if you would have told me that someday I would be conversing with people on this damn thing — defending my belief that se should be between men and women — and two men should not be allowed to get married and adopt kids….
let me redo that last few lines — I missed a word: defending my belief that MARRIAGE should be between mAn and womAn — and two men should not be allowed to get married and adopt kids…. orry about that. Ok — now I am gone
Let me get this straight – you’re saying that you’re against gay marriage and against gun control. Point taken, but you’re not supplying any compelling evidence regarding why gay marriage is wrong – specifically, simply talking about how when you were a kid you didn’t really think homosexuals existed is not evidence, it’s a rationalization for why you feel the way you do about homosexuals.
Now that you know homosexuals exist and that they are indeed people, why should they not be given the same opportunities as other Americans? Or will you argue that they are niether people or American? That is the only path which a logical argument can lead, as far as I can tell, so let’s talk it out.
Also, I’ve said it before, stop talking about my age. “Common sense is a series of biases achieved by age 20″ – Mark Twain. (paraphrased)
At any rate, I would like to comment on your last point, that two men should not be able to adopt. You are so right. These hundreds of thousands of kids are better off bouncing from foster home to foster home, living in and out of often abusive homes, lacking any sense of security than live with loving, caring, nurturing men.
Is it that you’re afraid that being raised by gay men will make these kids gay? If that’s so, then why do two heterosexual people sometimes raise a homosexual?
Seems to fly in the face of nature v. nurture.
Jeremy,
Can I ask if you’ve already made up your mind on this issue? You sound pretty entrenched in your belief that gay marriage should be legalized. Are you open-minded enough to listen to anyone else’s point of view or have respect for their opinion?
I have a little brother who during family dinners, during which we had some fascinating discussions, would take the contrary position just to get everyone arguing, not because he actually believed in the side he advocated. He really enjoyed it and it upset everyone else. It wasn’t fun then and I don’t want to be part of that again if that’s what you’re doing here.
I’m sensing a little of that here. Are you taking such a strong, never-say-die, don’t-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way, position, that you can’t tolerate an opposing position to your own?
I notice in one of your previous posts that you quoted the bible and admitted that homosexuality is forbidden. You go on to make slightly disparaging remarks about people who cherry-pick from the scriptures, but isn’t that what you’re doing? If the bible says it’s wrong, how many times does it have to say so to convince you. I guess I’m asking how many times does God have to say something is wrong before we believe He’s serious? “What part of thou shalt not don’t you understand?” I love that quote!
I guess it really sounds like you’re asking those people who object to legalizing gay-marriage on religious grounds to explain. And yet, you say you go to church. Do you ask Dennis to explain what God’s reason was for all those commandments?
I mean really, why shouldn’t I covet my neighbor’s wife? If God didn’t want me to covet her, He shouldn’t have made her so damn sexy. And why should I honor my mother and father? They did some rotten things to me when I was a kid, Why shouldn’t I steal? I’m hungry and homeless and no one will help me. Should I just allow myself to starve to death? What will happen to my kids if I do? Why should I love God? Why should I be nice to my neighbor? He’s kind of a putz to be honest with you. Why shouldn’t I judge? How can I keep that commandment and sit on a jury? Why shouldn’t I kill? There’s some folks who I think the world would be better off without. Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama, Hussein . . .
For many people, they keep the commandments, including the ones that are damned inconvenient, because God told them to. Plain and simple. They don’t question why. I would say for many, that would be why they don’t approve of gay marriage. It’s in the bible. God’s words, not mine.
It also sounds like you’re accusing people who don’t approve of gay marriage of disliking gay people. I haven’t read that here. What post is that in? There is a difference, you know. People can disapprove of gay marriage and still be non-judgmental of gay people and even love them for who they are.
Just a thought.
I have an opinion that gay marriage should be allowed, but I’m open to hearing from the other side. The problem is, I haven’t heard a well-thought, reasonable argument. All I have heard is slander and emotional responses.
As for the “cherry picking” argument, point taken. However, homosexuality is only discussed in a handful of verses, while the commandment to love and accept one another is repeated time and time again by Christ.
How can we condemn homosexuals if we love and accept them? We should leave that to God and create public policy according to logic, compassion, and above all, the constitution. All people are equal under the view of the constitution … not all straight people, not all black people, all of them.
On your last point – you can disapprove of gay marriage all you want. Still doesn’t give you the right to outlaw it. I disapprove of owning a gun, but I’m not about to advocate banning guns.
Referring to guest’s post at 2:20 concerning the good old days.
Ah yes, the good old days of 40 years ago when society was still decent instead of the immoral cesspool it is now. When you could punch your wife and she was just supposed to shut up or learn to take a punch better. And when the police would say things like “try not to leave bruises” rather than throwing the SOB in jail. When it was okay to discriminate against blacks. When an interracial couple was considered an abomination and you were justified in shunning them. Are those the good old days you refer to?
While today’s generation has its problems, every generation will have them, I’ll take todays morals and values any day over those that promoted wife beating and racism.
Jeremy said it best in a very early post. There is no doubt that our children and grandchildren are going to look at us with the same kind of repugnance that we look upon our racist forefathers with.
Jeremy,
You’re still saying that people are condemning the homosexual when what they’re saying is they don’t approve of gay marriage.
I love my children. When one of them does something wrong like stealing a candy bar from the grocery store, I don’t stop loving them when I disapprove. I didn’t stop loving my parents when they yelled at me for something I didn’t do when they were too tired to investigate properly. I didn’t stop loving my friend for being gay. I didn’t stop loving my neighbor when he lets his dog take a dump every morning in my flower bed. I didn’t stop loving my spouse for having political views contrary to my own.
Christ didn’t stop loving the Jews when they crucified Him. We can love and accept someone without approving of their behavior. We all have desires within us that are contrary to God’s laws. We’re not required to act on them.
As for you, Chiasm, may I say, my ancestors didn’t own slaves, they didn’t join the KKK and they didn’t beat their wives. They did work hard, raise their children to be honest hardworking contributors to society. Granted there were laws on the books ( or a lack of laws ) that weren’t great. It wasn’t the moral of the day back in the good ol’ days to beat your wife. In a sense, what they did was look the other way when they should have done something. Are you advocating that everyone writing on this thread should do the same thing? A law is being considered. Should we just look the other way and let it go through cuz if the neighbor beat his wife it wasn’t any of our business, and if the two gay guys next door want to get married it’s none of our business?
“Mankind is our business.” Who said that, by the way?
Inside, you’re still under the assumption that being gay is wrong, and now you’re putting it on the same level of theft and murder. That disturbs me, because there is a lot of evidence (I sound like a damn broken record) that favors the belief that homosexuals are born that way – as in, they have no decision whether they will be homosexual or heterosexual. How can we, in good conscience, say that being born a certain way is wrong?! Someone, please respond to this point. Either supply evidence that being homosexual is a choice (let’s try and avoid fundamentalist Christian website while we’re at that, okay?) or reason with my how we can say that being born under one disposition is immoral.
ps One point stood out to me in your post, regarding “God’s Laws”. I happened to be reading in Romans today while my wife was having surgery in the hospital, and in that wonderful book, it is declared that the Christian that accepts Christ is no longer bound by law, but by grace. The very basis of the Christian religion is that freedom is not adhering to a strict set of laws (aka the Laws of Moses), but in abiding in Christ in a very personal way. So perhaps the Christian response to gay marriage should be a celebration of that freedom, rather than shaking our finger is disapproval and condemning the “gay” action. The Christian response should be a joyful acceptance of love, unconditional love, a love that only free people, under the Grace of God, can have.
Besides the point, we’re talking about the law and civics, not necessarily theology. So let’s try and stay away from the religion topic for a moment to save our non-Christian (like my new favorite person Chiasm) from that kind of discourse. Let’s talk turkey.
You say it wasn’t the moral of the day to beat your wife. I say it was just as it was the moral of the day to be racist and own slaves. And all sanctioned by christianity.
Women were considered property of their husbands for much of this countries history. That was the moral of the day. Why do you think the concept of a dowry exists? Or why do you think women were not allowed to vote. Women were supposed to obey their husbands, women were supposed to stay home to cook and clean, and women were supposed to spread for their men whenever they asked. If a woman got uppity it was expected that the man would use a firm hand (or fist) in guiding her back to what a woman should be.
Blacks were most definitely property to be beaten, raped, and enslaved. Thomas Jefferson was a serial rapist – unless you think all those slaves wanted to have sex with him out of their own free will and not out of fear of being beaten. It took a lot of decent people and judicial activism (Brown vs the Board of Education is classic judicial activism) to finally start changing things for the better.
Christianity and selective verses from the Bible were both used to justify and encourage the subjugation and discrimination of blacks and women. Now those selective verses of the bible are ignored and different but equally selective ones against gays are used by christians to discriminate. It is a little different of course because a you can’t tell a gay person (most of the time anyway) by looking at them whereas women and blacks couldn’t hide who they were. But immoral behavior of those against gays is the same today as it was when our forefathers were doing to blacks and women.
I used to be a christian so I’m not ignorant of the bible. Jesus in the bible taught to love and accept one another. Something that most christians have utterly failed at throughout history and are still failing at. Most christians now are – I’ll love you if you are like me and I’ll pretend to love you if your different but really I’m against you.
Jeremy — for crying out loud — stop it with the “How can we condem homosexuals when God tells us to love them.” I explained that in HUGE detail a few days ago. If we illegalize murder — and speak out against it — can we still try to forgive and “love” the murderer? If your position was even remotely correct — It would hold up very well as an argument for leaglizing Murder –for all those who believe in Gods commandments. “He told us not to judge and to love…. How can we illegalize murder” Thats rediculous! I will say it again. This time slowly… We are suppose to hate the ACT — NOT the ACTOR. We are suppose to stay away from and not endorse THE SIN — not the sinner. Jesus washed the feet of a protitute when people were trying to stone her to death! He loved her! Does that mean he was promoting prostitution? I guess it depends on your point of view. Oh and Inside Observer — you are a sharp guy! And Chiasm… I was refering to the steady decline of the morals of the people in the US. There have been improvements in many areas — I was strictly talking about sexual immorality. If we look back through all of mankinds time — there was not a time in the history when we got it all right. And there never will be. We have made improvements in the area of civil rights for humane beings and consumer electronics for that matter That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the very sad decline in sexual morality. As far as the wife beating goes — we have inacted laws to help try to prevent that — a little late in the game — but its been done in recent years. Men still beat their wives with smiles on their faces — always have and always will. But at least now we are raising awarness and TRYING to stop that horrible problem. If you do not see a serious decline in the morals of this country in the last 30 years — you my friend do not get out much.
And Jeremy — quit complaining aboutthe age comments. They are valid — and you invited us in when you opened the door. Check out the title you gave this post….
Guest – I’ll stop reminding you about God’s commandment to love (and accept) everyone when you STOP comparing being gay to murder! For crying out loud!
Besides, I’m doubting everything you’re posting now. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. Martha washed Jesus’s feet with her hair. Mary Magdelene is whom I have to assume is the “prostitute” you’re refering to, and even that is misunderstood doctrine. It’s widely accepted by religious scholars that Mary Magdelene was not the prostitute, but a disciple.
So chill, mr. Guest. And please, let’s stop talking religion and start talking about the issue here – WHY NOT ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE? We’re talking civics, and this is not a Christian site, so let’s stick to the point. Right about now, I very much regret even bringing my faith into this, so let’s drop it. Let’s talk ideas.
And I strongly disagree that morals have been in decline. But you know what? I’m not going to change your mind, so whatever.
Guest – okay, then I’ll turn the tables. You’re all just a bunch of old farts who are going to die soon anyway, so your opinion doesn’t matter.
Sound ignorant and stupid? Have a look in the mirror, buddy.
Thats the smartest thing you have said yet. I’m even going to agree with you on that one — as I take another drag of my cigarette. Had another thought — can’t resist: you say that no one has given a good legitimate arguement for NOT allowing Gay narriage. I said because it’s WRONG — period. You don’t buy it. Question for you — give me one good legitimate reason why we don’t leagilize murder… seriously… Just one. God tells us not to do it. That doesn’t count. Its wrong. That doesn’t count either. We really dislike murderers — they scare us. Thats out too — they are people too — have feelings and the real bad ones were born that way! Lets see — what else… The vitim has a right to live. Well murders have rights too… and really — as long as the victim is old and gona die anyway …..
Ignorant and stupid? we really shouldn’t get that low. Thats mean. Especially comiong from a gut who recommends that we uphold the sactity of marriage by ruining sanctity of marriage. Noe there is a rocket scientist!
“gut” was suppose to be “guy”…ignorasnt and stupid people have great difficulty typing. My appologies…
So your reasons against gay marriage are:
- It’s wrong.
- It’s against what God wants.
- It scares you.
Is that really all the case you’re able to make for your point of view?
When I said someone help me understand this, I was hoping for more than ramblings on someone’s particular bias.
Oh, and if you think what I said was mean, think about some random guy who happens to be homosexual dropping by the site to read that you think him being born gay is wrong.
And will someone define “Sanctity” for me? I’m still a bit fuzzy on what that term really means.
It means Holliness Jeremy. Touche’
One thing that you need to think about Jeremy — then I PROMISE to never post on topic again — I MEAN IT THIS TIME! The issue of Gay Marriage for MOST people IS religious. Like it or not. Religious people believe it is a terrible sin — and do not want to condone it it or encourage it in any way. The comparison between murder and gay marriage is drawn with that in mind. Not that gay marriage is as bad as murder to us here on earth — but to a perfect sinless God — how do they compare? Will he give a little break to one over the other? Read your Bible. I don’t think so. He sees all sin as the same… ALL sin. That means the last time I snuck out and doinked my little girlfriend when my wife was out of town — I am just as “bad” as a gay person. All sin — just a little different flavor. God didn’t like it — and I promise he didn’t say — “well — thats ok… at least he’s not Gay.” And guess what — I was born this way. I really was! But I have to try to resist — every day. I have an obligation to not do the things I know are wrong — even though I want to — and I was born with a desire to do it. So — a gay person reading this will just have to deal with my opinion that he/she is a sinner. Welocome to the club. No better than me — no worse. His sin shouldn’t be cherished by society any more than mine. Now the murder comparison is meant to show you the real passion that some people feel for this issue. True — I would rather be — (blushing) well — you know — than murdered….but the point is valid. Its valid because there are people who will argue that it should be ok. There are people who will argue that its fun — it’s their right — whatever. Have you ever interviewed Paul E. Rhoades? I have. Have you ever studied serial killers and homicide? I have reviewed in detail over 5000 cases out of NYC. And I can tell you that there are people who believe it is FUN! Did you ever see a picture of Ted Bundy NOT smiling? There are actually people who believe it is or shuold be acceptable. Doesn’t mean I have to. Doen’t mean WE should. Means they have a problem — need to deal with it — stay within the confines of the law or pay the price and check out commandment #1. But to leaglize it is to allow it. To allow it is to ecourage it. To a person who is trying to be a Christian — you just can’t do that. Period. So just because someone says it’s fun — or they were born that way — or its their right or whatever — I will draw a comparison — THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE THE SAME REASONS FOR — to point out that hey — you know what — that doesn’t matter. Its wrong and the majority of the people around here know it. And when there is no longer a majority who feel that way — then we as a society will reap the benefits of these “wise” people — or pay the consequences. The truth is Jeremy that ours is a religious debate — because this is a religious issue. Even for someone who doesn’t believe in God — the person arguing the other side does — and therfore it boils right back down to religion. I give up. Hey — start a post about gun control and I will chat more with you there…
Okay Jeremy,
I guess it’s my turn to take up the standard again. Let’s see if we can take religion out of my post here and go from a strictly biological standpoint. For the record, I was born heterosexual. I will confess to having had the occasional fantasy though. Is that fantasy nature or nurture? I don’t know, nor do I care. I haven’t acted on it though.
I have dear friends of both genders who are gay. The males claim to have known since adolescence (prior to any sexual experience) that they were gay. The females thought they were straight but came later in life to believe they were gay. So I have friends who are gay but in the grand scheme of things, admittedly, it’s a small cross-section of the entire community, so my info is undoubtedly restricted.
I also have made the acquaintance of a couple of men who are admitted pedophiles. They too claim to have known their sole sexual attraction was for young children since prior to their first sexual experience and they believe they too were born this way. They have struggled with counseling, prayer, prison, medication, to no avail. They cannot seem to overcome their desire for the tender flesh of youth. With the exception of their sexual proclivity, their lives appear to be normal as far as nature/nurture. No molestation, no abuse, just the deviation from the “norm”.
So, what’s the difference between the gay men and women and a pedophile? You say they were all born that way and I have no proof to the contrary. Should I then, deny these men’s rights to love their little neighbor boy? Your argument is that it would be wrong to ask them to go against their genetic inborn tendency and refrain from same sex relationships.
Again, based on your position to this point, what is the difference then between being gay and being a pedophile? Both are inborn/genetic. Both are sexual proclivities. Both are children of God (oops, there’s that religion thing again) and should be loved and accepted as they are – and therefore given permission to act on their natural desires.
Right or wrong?
On another note, one of the definitions of our democracy is that the majority rules. Like it or not, if the majority takes issue with gay marriage, then the majority rules. The wonderful thing about a democracy though is that the majority is not supposed to trample on the rights of the minority. That is a difficult balance to achieve as it is very tough sometimes to let one person have his rights without denying another person their rights. For example, freedom of speech allows people to speak their mind whether the listener wants to hear/see it or not, but it does not allow a person to yell fire in a crowded theater or to walk naked in public. Speaking of walking naked in public, that’s the way we were born (there’s your argument again), so where did the law come from that we all had to wear clothes? Because it offended somebody? It might offend me to be required to wear clothes, but the majority ruled and thus, you all don’t have to see me parading down Broadway in my birthday suit! Lucky you!
One last thing. I think my favorite sermon of all time was “The Favorite Sin.”
The basics of it was that we all have a favorite sin. We go to church, find God, get inspired and decide we need to do better. So we make a list of things we need to do – charity, tithing, prayer, community service, whatever. But there’s that one sin, our favorite sin. And we don’t even put it on the list. We just keep coming up with other things we need to work on so we don’t have to go after that favorite sin. We like it, we want to keep doing it, we believe God won’t condemn us if we do all these other things, just don’t ask me to give up that favorite sin.
I know you don’t want this to be religious, but could fighting so hard for the right to act on homosexual tendencies be like refusing to work on our favorite sin?
Yes, I have a favorite sin.
No, I won’t tell you what it is.
Inside Observer — I just want to say — I really enjoy reading your stuff. You should write more on other topics. Very very impressive….
Inside Observer – Comparing homosexuality and pedophelia is like comparing … well, you can’t compare the two. One is a psychological disorder, the other is a sexual preference. One is a crime, the other a fact of nature. Besides, there is one threshold that is in place to protect against what you’re worried about – consent. The standard age of consent in the United States (generally speaking) is 18 years old. So allowing homosexual marriage will not automatically lead to man-boy sex anymore than allowing heterosexual marriage leads to man-girl sex.
The belief that homosexuals are pedophiles is a bias propogated by the so-called “religious right”. There is no evidence which supports that homosexuals have any higher rates of pedophelia. None. They are two entirely different conditions.
There is also one major difference – in pedophelia, there is a victim. Someone is hurt by the act of pedophelia. In a consentual, loving relationship, who is harmed?
I do agree with your last point about democracy … but think about it this way: if we allowed the tyranny of the majority to have its way all the time, women would not be voting. Blacks would still be slaves. Children would be working hazardous jobs for little pay. The mainstream never wants to change according to ethical right and wrongs, and it has always been small groups with their heart in the right place that has made change happen for the better. So just because something is not pleasing to the majority doesn’t mean it’s not right. “Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same.” It’s a widespread misconception that the constitution exists to protect the majority – wrong. It exists to ensure rights and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, including the minority.
On your last point, I’m not sure I understand the relevance to the homsexual marriage discussion. We’re all born naked, yes, but we’re not all born gay. All of us enjoy the joys of clothes, but those of us who are born homosexual cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Are you saying that homosexuals should just “get over it” and make themselves straight? It’s been tried before, but if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that biology will win over psychology every time. You can’t make a leopard change its spots, basically. Enforcing the belief that homosexuals can be made “straight” reaks of Hitler’s treatment of homosexuals during his reign of terror. In fact, I think Adolf would have agreed whole-heartedly with some of the comments made in this discussion.
ps I do have a favorite sin, but I don’t think they’re about to outlaw my sin. Funny how that works. Out of sight, out of mind …
While taking the Idaho Falls Citizen’s Police Academy, an officer from Boise who dealt with lots of sex offenders spoke his professional opinion on the difference between pedophiles and molesters.
He felt molesters were oversexed, and would not prey on children if they had opportunity to have sex with normal adult partners. They are more opportunistic and give in to their hormones more than actually fantasizing about children. You hear about molesters like the former state senator died recently and was convicted of fondling his grandaughter.
This officer then said his opinion of pedophiles was that they were biologically wired to be sexually attracted to children. They fantasized about kids and were not interested in normal adult partners even if they were available.
I just wanted to throw that out because a few comments back there was some discussion of gays vs. pedophiles and nature vs. nurture.
This officer clearly believed that pedophiles result from nature and molesters result from nurture.
That’s all.
Jeremy,
You ask that we not judge homosexuals because they are born that way then you condemn a pedophile whose sexual preference is different from the norm, as is the homosexual. You claim pedophilia is a psychological disorder, but I’ve listened to men from both camps and their argument for their “condition” is the same. “I was born this way.” Who gave you the last say on why a pedophile feels the way he does? For that matter, who gave you the final say on why gay men are gay? Science has been working on a solution/explanation for both for years, but admittedly has dumped more resources into gays than pedophiles for the very reason you cite – there’s a victim. It’s easier to lock up a pedophile and seek scientific answers for homosexuality. The scientific explanations for both have evolved over the years and will continue to do so.
Are you saying a pedophile should just “get over it” because he’s not “normal”? Says who?
I state with fair certainty now that you aren’t looking for an answer to your question. You argue with any answer someone posts with the vehemence of a true zealot. I applaud the courage of your convictions, but the extra years I have lived have taught me that the world is not as black and white as you currently believe it to be. There are wonderful shades of gray in nearly every issue.
You asked for a reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I ask you why they should. Your answer is because you believe it is the right thing to do. Others answer that they believe it is the wrong thing to do. This argument is circular. I say black, you say white, we agree to disagree and return to our corners to hope and wait for an issue to debate where open-mindedness can be part of the equation. I submit no answer anyone provides here would be good enough for you because you’ve already made up your mind, God’s word in the bible notwithstanding. You’ve cherry-picked the commandment right out of the way because you want it so badly. You believe you’re right, which is great. The folks on the other side believe they are right too. So I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
I have yet to read or hear a sensible argument as to how same sex unions is somehow going to bring the “sacred” institute of marriage to it’s knees (pardon the unintended pun). For an institution with a mere 50% adherence rate, these numbers already suggest a rather dismal rate of successful hetero couplings.
To discriminate against gay folks seems downright un-American. Aren’t these people our neighbors, co-workers and otherwise decent productive citizens of the community? Who are we to decide with whom they can and cannot legally conjoin? A civil union to give them the same legal status that we married heteros enjoy would seem equitable and just.
As Idaho voters, we will be called on in November to decide whether or not this segment of our society will feel, in Jefferson’s words, “the tyranny of the majority”. We must decide if the golden rule applies to our treatment of these brothers and sisters of ours who just happen not to share our sexual leanings.
Post Register contributors, Raymond T. Swenson, Mike Duff, Frankie V. and of course, from the pulpit, the Mormon Church advocate depriving equal rights to this segment of our citizenry and in so doing they hurt us all.
Remembering Roy Cohn (Joe McCarthy era), could it be these guys are not all that secure in their own sexual identities? Methinks they doth protest too much.
I saw a bumper sticker a while ago that says it all:
4 out 5 divorced christians want gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage.
For Anonymous From #26 (I think) here is an e-mail address you can use to contact me, if you can answer any of my questions or share insights. The address is: ifztalkz2U@yahoo.com. Thanks.
It was my error, the address: ifztalkz2U@yahoo.com is for the kind person who wanted to be identified as Anonymous #26, if he/she is still reading this. Thank you.
So, I just spent a LONG, LONG time (probably to much time) reading through the various posts and bantering on this topic and let me perhaps give you all a different point of view that I didn’t catch thus far in my reading. I do this only because I no longer live in the area but trust that I have experienced life in Idaho Falls, and the surrounding areas, well enough to be able to do this.
We have all experienced something in life that meant so much to us that we were willing to do or give just about anything to protect it or ensure we could have/keep it. For some of us it’s a sibling or a mother/father and for some it’s a pet or a treasured book passed down for generations and for some of us it’s someone we’ve grown to care about. I want any of you that are currently married or dating someone to put yourself in the position of anyone in a homosexual relationship and simply imagine what it feels like to be told that your relationship is wrong, disgusting, horrible and the list goes on. Yes we live in a different era now than 40 or 20 or even 10 years ago but I’ll tell you…you wouldn’t like it.
As I have been dating the most amazing guy the past few weeks it’s been an interesting experience and tonight was probably one of the most interesting of our nights. We went to dinner at Chili’s, two average guys minding our own business and were seated in what would be considered an open, commons-type area where we placed our drink orders (water for him and strawberry-lemonade for me) and then ate our chips and queso and then began our meals. As we sat there talking about the events that transpired in each of our days and the various aspects of life we, out of habit, slipped of our sandals and began to over-so-slightly rub each others’ lower legs. What was a seemingly small gesture towards each other was quickly noticed by the couple seated across the aisle and though nothing was said observations were made and opinions were made known. Now mind you, we didn’t say anything to them about their age difference, or the differences in their two kids, or the differences in them personally and yet, they felt it okay to pass judgement and let us know their thoughts of our actions. How many times do we do this to others?
I will just share one other thought and that is on being gay AND religious. Can it be done? I say yes! I have grown up in my religion my whole life and know what I would consider a majority of the aspects/teachings considerably well. Knowing this I completely understand my church’s views on homosexuality and all of the complexities the go along with it. Thus, I offer this question to you all: Why is that YOU go to church? I will tell you my answer to that question. I go to fulfill that part of my life that requires the spiritual learning and feeding to my soul. I go to feel closer to MY God and to Jesus Christ to strengthen my relationship with them and to feel of their love and to increase my knowledge of them. I do not go to please someone else (i.e. parents, wife, kids, neighbors) or out of guilt or because there is nothing better to do on Sunday. My boyfriend is very active in his church as well and part of the reason that brings us so closely together is that understanding of the important/essential parts of life. We have discussed our future and the possibility of adoption and would it be easy? Of course not but fortunately enough for me, and him, we live in a land that provides us the freedom to be ourselves, to attend religion if we choose, and to adopt a child or children if we so desire.
May each of you take a moment to evaluate your individual life and take a moment to be grateful for the things you have and for the challenges you have been given. Remember that regardless of what you think you are NOT better than anyone else and instead be glad that we are all different and are able to have and share our own unique points of view on life.
Thanks for reading and good luck with your decisions in the future.
Well said! Thank you very much for your refreshing, positive post. It was much needed.
God bless.
Gay marriage will never be allowed in Idaho or Utah due to the large number of LDS people in those states. If that were to pass, where would it leave the LDS church? The members are commanded to “obey the laws of the land”, but would they then allow temple marriages between gays?
It’s easier for them to just bury their heads in the sand for as long as possible and hope it goes away.
The LDS Religion is not the only religion opposed to gay marriage.
Hey, Anonymous.
It is the LDS religion that is speaking out from the pulpit on this political issue. So how is it this cult is able to maintain their tax exempt status?
Hey, play nice. The LDS religion is no less cult than the boy scouts or the Catholic church.
Who defines what a ‘cult’ is anyway?
At any rate, I am a believer that religion should be about healing, not so much about divisions. I’m guilty of it, but let’s not be so hostile.
And Meso – almost every religion is political these days, especially the evangelicals. The LDS religion is actually one of the more tame politically-active religions, at least publically.
Jeremy,
Try Webster’s definition: “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.”
I think the early church under Joe Smith would certainly qualify for that definition. Just because they have some semblance of a mainstream religion today doesn’t change their past.
Point taken. You win.
Then again, if going against the mainstream is cultish, where can I get some ADIDAS?
Jeremy,
Been waiting to see your response in religion thread concerning Bonn/Pacific Corp.
I thought this discussion was on gay marriage not the mormon church.
Yes, please keep this discussion on topic, originally about gay marriage in Idaho debate.
I deleted a comment pointing to links about the Mormon church as cult; it was not relevant to this discussion. Afterwards I realized I should have left the comment but replaced the words with ——- sorry. I don’t have to edit comments that often and forgot how it’s usually done.
So is the upcoming gay-marriage ban vote in November about protecting traditional marriage or about enforcing bigotry?
Sorry, Joe, it’s just that they are the organization that is lobbying so hard on this gay marriage issue. Won’t happen again.
Good point about enforcing bigotry.
I was just asking the question to put the discussion back on track (not making a point).
Sounds like you believe the upcoming ban is bout enforcing bigotry? Why so (not challenging you, just want to hear your reasons)?
Sorry again, Joe, it sounded as if you were making a point.
Excluding minorities from enjoying the same rights as the majority because they are of a different sexual persuasion certainly would seem a bigoted act.
“Protecting traditional marriage”…..Protecting it from what……The chance that allowing same sex marriages or unions will somehow entice heterosexuals to jump ship and take up the gay lifestyle? I kinda doubt that will happen.
I guess I am still in a quandary over what we are protecting traditional marriage from. It already seems tarnished enough by it’s own dismal success rate.
With a 50/50 “success” rate, what is there to protect? Not my personal suggestion, but laws to make divorce tougher or require pre divorce council would do more to protect the “institution”. I don’t really think that allowing more people to get married is going to destroy other marriages. On a limb without data, I’d say that cross cultural marriages, once not just debated but actually forbidden by law (or just a lynch mob…), have
not destroyed marriage.
Besides, facts are facts and the planet is overpopulated with not enough homes for a lot of children. These unions would create more solid relations between some people, and maybe create some solid 2 income homes for more kids.
Anonymous 26, from post #43 (I think), I apologize. I got your e-mail and somehow in the process of opening it accidentaly deleted it. If and when you see this, pleae feel free to e-mail me again at: Ifztalkz2u@yahoo.com. That’s assuming you are still willing to answer some of the questions I had about the polygamists, which aren’t appropriate for this thread. Thank you, and I apologize again for my error.
Jeremy,
I’m rather confused about your last paragraph…and I quote “If you’re still not convinced, look at it this way – America has a 50% divorce rate. Wouldn’t allowing more marriages at least help our odds of keeping those vows? We could use all the help we can get when it comes to keeping the “sanctity†of marriage”.
I repeat…..We can use all the help we can get when it comes to keep the sanctity of our MARRIAGE???
So what you’re telling me is….a GAY marriage is going to help you keep YOUR vows with your wife?? Are you kidding me?? I seriously doubt that!! Also, do you honestly belief that by letting gay people marry, that our 50% divorce rate will be improved?? WHAT?? You think just because their gay…that they don’t break up with their partners or cheat on their partners, or whatever the case may be for splitting up with their partner?? C’mon man! Give me a better couple of reasons than THAT to support gay marriages! Personally, I don’t think they should be allowed to get married just for the financial benefits. It’s not going to effect me one way or the other, but wasn’t marriage always intended to be between a man and a woman?
Wow, here’s a blast from the past.
Eclipse, the last paragraph was almost exclusively a joke, but the underlying concept is true – we keep running our mouths about the “sanctity” of marriage, but we live in a society that supports, with zealous enthusiasm, weddings in Vegas, multiple marriages, and wedding for monetary gain.
So we’re essentially full of it when we talk about our sacred marriage, aren’t we?
I support marriage as a civil commitment with tax benefits and such, but also a personal, spiritual commitment made before God. One should not have much, if anything, to do with the other.
You say you don’t support Gay marriage for the financial benefits, but why not? Shouldn’t all citizens be given equal protection under the law, as the constitution allows? Simply because someone is born with a different genetic identity doesn’t mean we should exclude them from society and its benefits … or have we forgotten the lessons of the civil rights movement?
Ohhhh now that’s a whole other can of worms there!! So you think that gay people are BORN that way? I don’t buy it for a minute! I personally think they couldn’t hack it in the real world, they were either abused when they were children, they got shot down by too many women, couldn’t perform sexually, or what have you….and THAT’S why they “turned” gay! I don’t believe for a minute they were “born” that way. It’s a choice, and they CHOSE to be gay. I’ve seen it too many times, women who have been with plenty of men, but then DECIDED to be with a woman exclusively. And I’ve known men who were too afraid to even talk to a woman, so they “CHOSE” to be with a man because they felt more comfortable.
And yes….I like my punctuation. (not that it’s perfect by any means) But I believe its rather refreshing from many of the other posts I’ve read on this site. Punctuation is how one expresses oneself through words, over the internet, when one is not face to face with another individual….look into it sometime. You’re supposed to be learning to be a teacher, you’re going to have to know how to use it!!
I would be interested to see your evidence for your conclusion about homosexuality. Mainly because you likely have none save your own opinion, as ignorant and misguided as it may be.
Have you ever studied the physiology and psychology of homosexuality? Do you really understand what it is? Or are you basing your judgments simply on bias?
I am really interested here. If you have evidence, let it be known!
I suppose you HAVE studied the psychology of homosexuality?? If so, lets see YOUR evidence that’s it’s genetic or some other form of mutated gene.
So given the fact that there is a huge amount of criticism and intolerance for gay people, why would adults then “choose†to be gay? Why would someone at 30 or 40 years of age, after seeing how gays are treated, suddenly decide to go against the flow of what is accepted and turn gay? That makes no sense to me.
The sanctity of marriage is what the two people put into it whether they are of the opposite sex or the same sex. If two people love each other then that is what truly matters to me.
As for the financial gain, I don’t understand this one. If you are a single parent in the middle income range or lower you qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit which can be several thousand dollars. It seems just as likely that if people are looking to get married for the “financial benefit†that they would be just as likely to become a single parent so that they can claim this credit.
So you’re pretty much a hipocrite right Jeremy? You claim to be a “Christian”, but the Christian faith is oppossed to both gays AND gay marriage. What’s up with that? Guess you’re only a Christian when it’s convienent to your beliefs huh?
I already regret opening this discussion up to this debate – like the issue of Mormonism, another hot topic lately, those on either side have pretty much already made of their mind. Those who believe the research are inclined to believe that homosexuality is a biological issue, those who don’t believe it make it a moral one. There is little argument can do to persuade either camp otherwise.
If you really cared to research the topic, you would have done so already. It’s not my job to persuade you, is it?
However, let’s stick to the topic at hand. The constitution of the United States ensures equal protection under the law to all citizens (a guarantee that Americans have a shoddy record of keeping). Homosexuals are a part of society, and yet they are excluded from one of the major pillars of that society. Is that right? You can agree or disagree with homosexuality, but does that give you the right to deny them participation in the system?
For the record, I do not agree with homosexuality as a moral thing, but I refuse to believe that gives me the right to tell them they are not welcome in my society!
As far as my Christian beliefs go, shut your mouth. My God loves all of His children, not just the ones that the “church” deems righteous enough to enter into “their” kingdom.
Last I checked, Christ commanded us to love one another unconditionally, and NEVER gave us the authority to judge one another. Christ actually said that He will forgive and accept whomever He will, but for us, it is commanded to forgive all. And love all.
LOL!! You kill me!! When our freaking founding fathers drafted the constitution…they didn’t have homosexuals in mind, and gay marriage was NOT an issue in that time!
Like you said….you’ve made your mind up, just like I have. HOWEVER, you’ve brought no proof to the table either, so I guess we’re even!
You better read your bible again Jeremy! Christ vehemently denies homosexuality and IS against gay marriage! I KNOW what the bible says, maybe you should look into it a little closer, instead of giving me your hipocritical points of view. Truth hurts don’t it!
And another thing…. I NEVER said they weren’t welcome in our society!
You know, I’ve learned to ignore comments from ignorant, uneducated people by now. So, until some more information comes into this discussion, I’m pretty much avoiding it. I’m done getting into pissing matches.
However, one last note: As soon as you’re willing to take on the sins of mankind, you can judge, as Christ did. Until then, I would recommend a strong dose of humility.
Wow…a homophobe, wolf hating, defiler of the environment all wrapped up in one. Do you suppose he listens to Rush Limbaugh for inspiration?
I never once judged ANYONE in any of my posts! That’s the problem with most of the posters on this site! They read only the parts of the posts they want to read, instead of the post as a whole. Guess it just hurts Jeremy to be such a hipocrite as to think he’s a Christian, when he doesn’t practice what he preaches!
And all Meso wants to do is add fuel to the fire…he never has anything of substance to add. I’m not a homophobe, a wolf hater OR a defiler of the enviroment…
Edited by site admin
It’s interesting the the google ad in the left column links to a very interesting article that perhaps our hateful friend should meditate on for a while.
Uneducated?? LOL that’s funny…I’ve got a Bachelors degree in Business…what…oh that’s right…you’re still in college huh? ok…enough said.
You talk about people putting other down in their posts, but your right along side them doing the same!
Perhaps I should….all of this hipocrisy is making me wonder what kind of people I’m dealing with here.
As a Christian, I “preach” love and acceptance. Indeed, I usually fall short of that goal, but I try. What are you doing?
I was not on this site for the fun back in August, but I would make one point that I didn’t see in the numerous postings on the subject.
What about bi-sexuals? If it’s about the way your born that governs who or what your attracted to then logic would say the bi-sexual should be allowed to mary one of each because he or she loves them more the life itself. If we were to apply all aruguments to allowing gay marriage all would apply to the bi-sexuals would they not? So we would have to allow them to marry under the same rules that would lead us to sanction gay marriage.
The slipperly slope argument again I know but if gay marriage were to be sanctioned by government there would be a multitude of court cases for the allowance of bi-sexual marriage/polygamist marriages like it or not that’s what would happen.
One of the coolest cities I ever lived in ALLOWED gay, bisexual, and polyamourous (loving more then one person at a time) pseudo marriage – it was called Domestic Partnership. They were allowed almost all of the rights as typical heterosexual marriages. Sorry, but I don’t see the ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ connection to letting anyone get married to the downfall of Idaho. Portland Oregon is a great town – and letting gays, bisexuals, and polygamist’s get married has not crumbled the city.
Regarding your question “what about bi-sexuals?” Well, what about them? They have the ability to love both sexes equally, that’s all. They are human beings with feelings and emotions and deserve all the same rights as any American.
Ah_non_e_mus, have you read all the posts on this thread????? It’s obvious you have not as your response does not follow the logic of the topic thread.
But, ohh well.
Is marriage a religious institution?
Maybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel that I am at times the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil unionâ€. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. I hope that we gay men and woman will stop our belly aching about the issue of “marriage†until our work is done. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that has been courageously fought by a very few, is about equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. We live in a country that has a law of separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those darned heathens.
They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one even compete with that kind of service? I think they even change your oil. That may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Fennville, Mi 49408
Good points, Aaron. I do agree with the “separate is not equal” argument in your first paragraph – though, I’m not sure how this fits with history. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, and it wasn’t until fairly recently that it became a government matter (in the form of tax breaks, etc.). But then again, the concept of separation of Church and state is a fairly new concept as well – actually, about 230 years old.
So we are faced with a problem – we cannot, under court precedent, allow for a separate but equal arrangement, and we cannot simply disallow marriage to an entire section of society because of the equal protection clause. We also cannot revamp thousands of years of religious tradition to make it a purely civil matter.
So, again I propose a compromise – make marriage both religious and civil. Allow for any two people to marry under the law, and if they want, they can also marry before God. Allow two people to marry before God, and if they want, before the courts as well. This way, we make a clear distinction between Church and State, provide equal rights under the law, and maintain the fine tradition of religious marriage.
Now who can argue with that?
Thank you Aaron Silver – very nice post. I am not gay, nor bisexual, or a polygamist for that matter. I do, however, believe in equal rights for everyone.
My husband and I were actually not going to get married. I mean, what’s the point, we love each other and want to be together, no amount of paperwork can force you to stay married. Then it dawned on us after 6 years of living together – if either one of us became seriously ill – neither one of us would have a say so in what happens to the other person. As a matter of fact, his family could kick me out of the hospital because I would not technically be family. Not being married also means neither one of us could get on the others health insurance policy nor could we get family discounts any where. So we got hitched.
It was not a union for religious reasons. Rather it was a statement of love and a way to prove that were now legally a family in the eyes of the government and other institutes. There are technical perks to being married – perks and benefits you can’t have if you just live together.
I don’t understand why people that are attracted to the same sex can’t have those same rights?
As a side note – flyonthewall – you asked in your post…
“if we were to apply all aruguments to allowing gay marriage all would apply to the bi-sexuals would they not? So we would have to allow them to marry under the same rules that would lead us to sanction gay marriage.â€
I answered your question specifically in my thread. If you don’t understand my answer, perhaps you may consider asking me a question about my intentions rather then assuming I had not read the threads of this discussion.
Wow, I leave this thread for a couple days and return to see that Eclipselt is still running his mouth. To quote, “I know what the bible says. Christ vehemently denies homosexuality and is against gay marriage.” I searched and searched my Bible but could find no reference to Christ even mentioning homosexuality or gay marriage. Perhaps Eclipselt (with his bachelor’s degree) might enlighten us uneducated souls as to the location of those scriptures. Or perhaps Jesus speaks directly to him, if such is the case then his next post will be much anticipated for it’s enlightenment.
Looks like Meso is just trying to pick fights with posters he doesn’t like. ie: there are 8 other posts made AFTER the eclipse guys post, but does MESO comment on them? No, he goes after someone that posted his views days ago, instead of sticking to the topic at hand. I’ve noticed this in a number of posts of Meso going after a particular poster instead of just staying on topic.
Whats up with that Meso?
Indeed, Christ never mentions homosexuality, and likely for good reason! Our Lord commands us to love our neighbors, to serve and protect one another, and to love God with all our heart – and, funny, He never commands us to “cleanse” this world of nasty people (like those pesky gays) or to carry out His justice (we learn in Revelations that He will do this very well on His own).
All of the references to homosexuality (all but six of them!) in the bible are found sporadically throughout the book, mostly in Leviticus (the book of Holy Laws for the Jewish People … funny, America doesn’t use Holy Laws and we’re not the nation of Judea.)
Not that it matters to me one way or antoher, but actually, the Bible DOES make reference to homosexuality. (links I used as a reference were Geocities “What does the Bible say about Homosexuality” and “Religous Tolerance.org”)
Go to your Bibles and read:
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 say “Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is an abomination.” I don’t know how some of you cannot say this isn’t about homosexuality, but this verse CLEARLY condemns sexual activity between two males.
Deuteronomy 23:17 states “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Isreal, nor a sodomite of the sons of Isreal” And similar passages in 1 Kings14:24, 15:12 & 22:46, as well as 2nd Kings 23:7.
These versus basically condemn all male homosexual activity. The bible repeatedly upholds “one man, one woman” marriage as God’s intent for relationships.
Also in Genesis 19, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, clearly states that the sins of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city, were indeed linked to homosexuality.
You can also reference:
Romans 1:21-32 & 1st Corinthians 6:9-10
And Jeremy…NOBODY in this post has made ANY statement in regards to “cleansing” this world of nasty people, OR judging anyone by carrying out “his justice”.
We all understand that America doesn’t abide by “holy laws”, but were only pointing out that the Bible DOES make reference to homosexuality, a topic that you think does not exist in the Bible.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me if two men OR two women want to get married. I could care less. But like Jermey stated, in not so many words, one day we’ll all stand in front of God and be judged, so I guess we’ll find out then huh?
Hey Chrisr671,
Nobody was disputing what the Bible says about homosexuality. The statement from Eclipselt made reference to Christ, and nothing has ever been written in the scriptures about his attitude towards homosexuality, just the opposite as Jeremy pointed out, Christ told us to love one another unconditionally.
It’s bad enough that eclipselt got caught in an earlier plagiarism, now he is quoting Jesus Christ from some unknown source. Wow!
If you want to live your life according to the guidelines set down in Leviticus, perhaps you should give some thought to stoning recalcitrant children and adulterers and offering up animal sacrifices unto the Lord, etc, etc.
As Jeremy correctly pointed out, most references to homosexuality are in Leviticus (didn’t you even read his post?). Perhaps you don’t realize that Jesus Christ came on the scene several centuries after Leviticus…or maybe you just forgot.
Meso…perhaps YOU need to read the whole post…it was Chrisr671 that pointed out the Leviticus scriptures, not Jeremy. If you’re going to bash posters, why not get your facts straight first & figure out who wrote what post. It seems many of you only want to live by the parts of the Bible that suit you, and forget the rest. Wow…that could be a new religion there!
The point is there are a lot more scriptures OTHER than Livitcus that condemn homosexuality. Just because Jesus loves us all, doesn’t make it right.
I like Guests posts #58 & 66, he makes some valid points.
Thanks scoobsnax, I wasn’t even going to bother replying. Some posters just like to start arguments instead of having a civil discussion.
Funny how some people just can’t accept another persons opinion or point of view if it’s different from there own.
It’s quite sad actually.
Okay, Chris. Let’s see it this way:
My point about the bible’s references to homosexuality had nothing to do with your argument – I was responding to Eclipse (or whatever his name was), who was putting words in Jesus’ mouth.
And if you were to read my post, not just look for what you wanted to see, you would see that I clearly point out that the bible does, indeed, condemn homosexuality. Nobody’s arguing that!
My point about “cleansing” the world is this: We’ve decided, unilaterally, that the bible condemns homosexuality. But guess what? It also condemns pride, lust, gluttony, using credit, having sexual relations with a woman on their menstrual cycle, etc etc etc. You get my point. The bible says a lot of things about a lot of things – are we going to adopt them all into our legal code? Of course not, we’ll just take the ones that are convenient to our own way of life, right?
Well, this is why we have a separation of church and state in American. Our founding fathers (Abraham Lincoln mainly) believed strongly in God, but knew that strict interpretation of the Bible and its inclusion in the development of the State could only lead to tyranny and bigotry. So, we have a secular government that is responsible to the people and the constitution of the United States, not the pages of the Bible.
I’ll say it again – you can thinking something is morally incorrect, but that does not mean it should be adopted at rule of Law. Like I’ve said, I cannot endorse homosexuality nor can I support it – but I’m not about to judge someone who lives that lifestyle, nor am I ready to outlaw their inclusion in our society.
So here is a question: Are you ready to be consistent with your qualifications for what should and should not be law? Jesus Christ advises us (no, really, He actually did) to not use credit to buy things and to avoid usury. So, should we make buying on credit illegal, since the bible clearly states that it is wrong?
There goes the economy.
The bible clearly states that adultery is wrong and anyone caught doing so should be stoned to death. There goes a significant portion of society – the bible defines adultery as sex outside of marriage, so let’s start throwing stones! Jesus Christ also states that anyone who lusts in their heart for someone other than their spouse has already committed adultery in their heart. We’re going to need more stones.
Wait, but Jesus also said “He without sin should cast the first stone”.
Crap.
Ok Jeremy, you do make some valid points.
Phew….at least I’m safe with my Visa check card!
After 126 postings…I’d say this post has run it’s course! We’ve got everyone & their Grandma’s opinion on this one!
Jeremy,
I would like to respond to the comment that being gay is not the same as being a thief or a murderer. In defense of homosexuality you ask, “How can we, in good conscience, say that being born a certain way is wrong?!” I would say, what does it mean to be gay, if not that you are born with homosexual tendencies and desires? Similarly, if someone is born with desires to steal or be aggressive, even kill someone, can we blame them for being born that way? I work for a psychiatrist and see people every day that truly cannot help the way they feel–desires to steal (kleptomania), to binge eat and then vomit (bulimia nervousa), to engage in sexual activity with children (pedophilia), to engage in sexual activity with objects (fetishism), to be physically or psychologically injured (masochism), and to harm or humiliate others (sadism). These are all real mental disorders that some people are born with and that others develop. You will note that not all of these behaviors are illegal, but they are clearly not to be encouraged! I hardly need point out how ludicrous it would be for us to pass a law that made it easier for bulimics to binge and purge.
Perhaps the reason that you can’t get an answer to your question of why we think homosexuality is wrong is because it is not clear how you define something as right or wrong. Obviously you discount any religious arguments, as well as the idea that something is right just because the majority of people think it is. So, how do you decide whether something is right or wrong? Do you measure whether it hurts other people? Fetishism hurts no one, so is it okay?
The truth is, we should fight whatever bad tendencies we have, whether they be homosexual, adulterous, or homicidal. We may have been “born that way” but it’s up to us how we act on it. As I said above, most people cannot help how they FEEL, but that does not mean that we can’t help how we behave.
Salamander, I think you and Jeremy tread into the never ending “nature vs. nurture” debate.
I think all of those situations you described are a result of nurturing.
People steal, set fires, kill, and desire in order to satisfy some need that has grown inside them (in my opinion).
I think people are innately homosexual by nature, not to satisfy a need that grew.
In America, we decide what is right and wrong according to the law. It is the law of the land (notice, not God’s Holy Law, as in the theocracy of Judea.) So, we are a secular society governed by secular law, neither endorsed nor accountable to Ecclesiastical concepts.
So, how do we decide what is wrong? Consult the constitution. It’s been said before – the constitution demands equal protection under the law, which means that all citizens are given the same rights and benefits, no matter what. So, if we have a section of society being denied a basic liberty (marriage), how can you reconcile that with the Equal Protection Clause? It’s the same argument that was raised during the civil rights movement in America – separate is not equal.
Now, for me, personally, since you asked. I believe that homosexuality is against the will of God – and therefor, sinful. However, of all the activity that is sinful, why then have we singled-out homosexual behavior? If we are basing our laws on sin now, why are we not commanded to love our neighbors? To love God? Why is it not law that we should follow in Christ’s footsteps and build His kingdom?
Again, it is because America is, by the virtue and wisdom of its founders, a secular society that should foster tolerance and acceptance (though it has a shoddy history of doing so). Believe what you will, condemn whom you will, but the law must be accountable to that supreme law of the land.
As for fetishism – who cares? What two consenting adults do in their free time is of no concern to me.
Now, I will pose a question to you – Am I my brother’s keeper? Is it our job to ensure that sin is stomped out at every juncture? No – I will leave that duty to my Creator, and I will spend my time getting to know Him.
I hope this is the end of the religious debate here. We are coming dangerously close to preaching/counter-preaching which is absurd.
Jeremy,
Young man you did a fine job on this post. You are head and shoulders above what I was at your age. Back then I was still in a survival mode, having married young, I was absorbed in putting food on the table for a young bride and baby son. If all the folks your age took as active an interest in world events as you do then I’d say this country is on the right track. That said, and having extended an olive branch, I have but one nagging question on my mind about your last post: You made such a fine presentation for gay rights, but then you finished by insisting that homosexuality is a sin, “against the will of God”. Are you confusing that which we hetereros simply find repulsive with immorality? Yeah, it was hard to watch two guys kissing in Brokeback Mtn. but I’m sure gays would view the things I do with a woman behind closed doors to be just as repulsive, but immoral or sinful…probably not. When I question religion on these chat room posts, it’s for reasons just like this. I can’t help but believe that your judgement is clouded by religious overtones that leave you classifying everything as good or evil as opposed to just the way they are.
The first homosexual I knew was only 5 years old. He lived down the street from my house (I was 5 also). He didn’t play much with the rest of us boys, as he prefered hanging out with the girls in the neighborhood. His older brother was the local bully but this guy was a real sissy. By the time we started school his folks were having him injected with testosterone in an attempt to give him male attitudes. It didn’t work. This guy grew up the butt of jokes, with few friends and from all appearances he lived a forlorn existence. I heard years later that he was living openly in a gay relationship in California. I just can’t buy any contention that he was somehow sinful or immoral. He was just wired differently, he was a little girl born into a little boys body. He couldn’t change who he was anymore than he could change the color of his red hair. Homosexuals are only sinful when they do sinful things, steal, lie, cheat, commit murder, etc., the same way that heteros are. I sure wish you would rethink the first sentence in that third paragraph. I just can’t believe that a five year old can somehow be sinful or immoral because his sexual orientation is contrary to the norm.
You bring to light an inherent problem with my religion – we acknowledge that there is such a thing as immorality (there is a “right” and a “wrong”) but in most cases, we are essentially confirmed that God is the only one who is in the place to decide what is immoral and what is moral.
However, my religion also teaches that we should strive for righteousness in all things – but how are we to know what righteousness is? Are we to somehow tap into God’s mind in order to know these things?
So, you highlite a struggle that I go through constantly.
However, when I say that I believe homosexuality is inherently sinful, you need to realize that most of what we as people do on a daily basis is sinful – essentially, we are selfish, and this is a sin. So when you ask me if I believe this person living his life as a homosexual is sinful, I will answer that is surely is, just as my dedicating my life to myself and my own happiness is incredibly sinful. It’s something I’m having to work out.
But now, we come to a split in Christian philosophy – simply because I believe a sin is being committed, am I charged with correcting it? I say no. I believe in God’s justice, and I will allow God to speak for Himself when the time comes. Until then, if this individual is happy and fulfilled with his life, then who am I to tell him he should be doing otherwise. If the time comes that he wants to assess his life and wonders if his lifestyle is wrong, I hope he finds someone who can direct him to the one who can answer that for sure. Until then, I hope he is happy with his life. That’s the best anyone can hope for.
Interesting article about why government is in the business of regulating marriage at all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It is ironic to me that Idaho’s uber-conservatives will argue against government meddling in our lives in every regard, but then they want government to ban personal contracts like marriage.
Yes, that is odd isn’t it. Kind of like liberals hating the death penalty but having no problem with abortion and vice versa of course.
This is where the principles of Ron Paul seem to kick in. Like it or not he is philosophically for freedom of the individual-it is not dependent on what group you belong to or have membership in. He is consistent in his application of political belief. How refreshing, albeit sometimes leery.
Same topic; different thread; has anything changed? Has anyone’s views changed? What is the point of debating this topic? (Sadly shaking head) I just don’t understand