4
   

Gay Marriage

 
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2004 10:18 pm
No, the American electorate is coldly rational, calculating -- just like a Godless terrorist!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2004 10:18 pm
Quote:
What do these consequences of homosexual behavior have to do with marriage?

Since homosexual behavior is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence, there is no reason to reward such behavior by granting it society's ultimate affirmation--the status of civil marriage--or any of the benefits of marriage.

For more information on the harmful consequences of homosexual behavior, see the following publications by the Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Marriage and Family Studies, Dr. Timothy J. Dailey:

· Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003); order online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK03F01

· "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)

· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)


This is typical of the kind of faulty or circular reasoning so often used by fundamentalists of all varieties. First they ask a question and provide authority for the answer by quoting their own literature. It's like proving the Bible is the true word of God by quoting the Bible itself. The problem with this technique is so obvious, one wonders why those using it don't see it themselves. All but one of the references cited above are their own publications. These "several studies" that prove or corroborate their claims that homosexuality is associated with any of the social problems listed are not identified for our consideration. I've seen studies that indicate that children raised by same sex parents are not more likely to be homosexual themselves in their adult lives than children raised by heterosexaul parents. I don't have the reference......so I can't offer it. Does anyone else know of this study? I'll try to find it.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2004 10:23 pm
Quote:
It's like proving the Bible is the true word of God by quoting the Bible itself.


Yes, exactly. A woman I know (who joined an Episcopalian church a while back -- she'd converted to Judaism when she married her second husband after becoming Catholic for her first husband) was amazed to learn in a Bible study class recently that the Good Book has periodically been edited over the years, and there are gospels that aren't in the KJV. Land 'o' Goshen, I thought this was the word of God, not some gol'dang historical record of a people and an ecuminical (is that the right word) tradition...
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 09:03 am
'fear' and 'ignorance' breed a comfortable lie!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 09:11 am
Found this, haven't found a specific study yet:

Quote:
Thirty-five different studies have shown that children of gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexuals than children of heterosexuals, and are just as well adjusted.

~Jane Gross, "New Challenge of Youth: Growing up in Gay Homes", New York Times, February 11, 1991.


http://pflag.ineb.org/facts.html
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 09:53 am
The problem with court decision gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with everyone's personal feelings about the morality of it. The problem with the decision is that the court has decided to legislate from the bench, creating all kinds of issues. The justices who voted against did not vote against gay marriage - they voted against the court defining or redefining the State Constitution. The problem is outlined like this:

The issue has been taken up in Massachusetts for only one reason - and not because we have more gay people that want to get married than anywhere else. Have you wondered why not California, or Florida, or Michigan? Why here? Because the Constitution of Mass. has the broadest definition of marriage. The problems are many.

1. It is absolutely wrong for the courts to legislate from the bench. What this means is that instead of allowing a vote of the public or the Legislature, they just make up the rules as they go along - and only one thing can overturn it. The only way to reverse such a decision is to amend the Constitution. So, say the issue was different - maybe that they decide to revise blue laws and everything must shut down on Sunday. Everything. Well, too bad about what you, the consumer or business owner think, because now it's the law. Just...like...that.

2. The Constitutional laws made by one state must be carried through by all states. This is the reason Mass. was picked - because it's the easiest bonfire to set. Unless the Constitution is amended (this was one option that the court didn't take) then this will go before a Federal Court. The Federal Court will decide in favor of the decision - they have to because the Mass. judges have said it is part of our Constitution so they can't rule against it. This will force a change in every State Constitution in the country. If another state chooses not to recognize it (this will happen - Ohio I believe has already started to prevent recognition) there will be lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. We'll all be dead before it's resolved. Not to mention that all of those voters, all of those Legislative bodies, become null and void. The Mass. court has dictated a law that everyone must follow.

3. By defining marriage this way, the court has stated that civil unions are not the same as marriage. If they had accepted civil unions, all would be fine and well. By denying that civil unions are the same, this can affect every civil union in the state and the country. It is saying that a civil union isn't the same as a marriage. So, anyone who has had a civil union (gay, straight, whatever) will no longer be protected under marriage law. This is one of the largest problems about this case. It is quite possible that anyone here who has had a civil union will not be protected by the rights of marriage - because the court has said that it is not the same thing - and not good enough.


I don't have a problem with gay marriage at all. I do have a problem with a court system that hands down decisions like a dictatorship and support or opposition based on emotion.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 10:22 am
Quote:
The justices who voted against did not vote against gay marriage - they voted against the court defining or redefining the State Constitution.


This is precisely how constitutional law is developed -- from precedent setting decisions interpreting that constitution. When a suit is brought on constitutional grounds, it is the court's charge to interpret that document. It's been going on for as long as our country has been around. (In England, btw, there is no constitution, just a tradition of "common law" -- that is, judicial precedent.)

Quote:
The only way to reverse such a decision is to amend the Constitution.


No, the court may hear a similar case on the same grounds in the future, and find differently.

Quote:
The Federal Court will decide in favor of the decision - they have to because the Mass. judges have said it is part of our Constitution so they can't rule against it.


No, the federal courts can also refuse to hear the case on the grounds that it doesn't fall under the provenance of federal law.

Quote:
If another state chooses not to recognize it (this will happen - Ohio I believe has already started to prevent recognition) there will be lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.


Yes, there likely will. Like it or not, this is how the process works. It has never been about what is acceptable to the majority of American people, but about how far the reach of the law does and should extend, as determined by whatever judiciary reading whatever document through whatever philosophical (or, sadly, political) lens they care to employ.

Quote:
The Mass. court has dictated a law that everyone must follow.


This is simply not the case. Abortion laws, to pick up another hot-button issue, vary from state to state, precisely because the federal government determined that said laws should be determined by states and not by the federal government. Of course, there are areas where the legislative and executive branches of the federal government have to deal with that issue, but by-and-large it is an issue for states to work out for themselves. Whether the laws put in effect by each state are in concord with its electorate (and whether they should be), is the responsibility of those states' governments.

That's my piece, anywho. I'm not a law student, the gf is.


(Edit: Roe v. Wade overturned a Texas statute and determined that abortion was federally protected; precedents since then have either expanded or limited the situations in which it is protected, and what determinations are to be left to the state. Sorry.)
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 10:45 am
Quote:

This is precisely how constitutional law is developed -- from precedent setting decisions interpreting that constitution. When a suit is brought on constitutional grounds, it is the court's charge to interpret that document. It's been going on for as long as our country has been around. (In England, btw, there is no constitution, just a tradition of "common law" -- that is, judicial precedent.)


I didn't say it wasn't how constitutional law is developed - so there is no disagreement. However, most laws define "what is a civil right", etc. This started as a civil rights case and ended with the courts redifining marriage (technically a sacrament) instead of allowing civil union (technically the state's recognition of civil rights of partners in civil unions). It also remains that there aren't a lot of other states where this would be possible, because marriage is more precisely defined.


Quote:
No, the court may hear a similar case on the same grounds in the future, and find differently.


This isn't really a case of the same or different. After all this I really don't suspect that the Mass court will say - "Oh, 10 years ago we said all gay marriage is marriage. We changed our minds!" not case by case here - it's a redefinition of a term. They may, however, choose to keep that definition instead of broadening it again - because next on the docket will be polygamy and the abolishment of bigamy as a crime. I don't know what the ruling will be but there's no denying that the door is now wide open for these.

Quote:
No, the federal courts can also refuse to hear the case on the grounds that it doesn't fall under the provenance of federal law.


The Federal Courts hand is forced. In order for gay marriage to be recognized outside of the state they will be forced to rule on a federal level. If they do not, either every person that is gay and gets married will sue the state they are in or the same process of legislation from the bench in every state in the country. Let the lawsuits begin.....

Quote:
This is simply not the case. Abortion laws, to pick up another hot-button issue, vary from state to state, precisely because the federal government determined that said laws should be determined by states and not by the federal government. Of course, there are areas where the legislative and executive branches of the federal government have to deal with that issue, but by-and-large it is an issue for states to work out for themselves. Whether the laws put in effect by each state are in concord with its electorate (and whether they should be), is the responsibility of those states' governments.


Except abortion laws don't determine the legal rights of people in a civil union. And this is a case in which the federal government will need to make a blanket decision, as we mentioned befoe, and teh states won't recognize it and it will go through the state courts again, as we mentioned before. round and round the mulberry bush... Wink



I understand what you're saying and I don't think we disagree too much on process - the courts being what they are. I'm just not sure that people take into account that the courts aren't just determining that gay marriage is ok, or what a marriage is "in the eyes of God" and all that. I just feel that the i's aren't dotted and the t's aren't crossed - especially in respect to the tidal wave of court cases that will now be created and, more importantly, the effect that this may have on standing civil unions.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 02:29 pm
We're back to the rights of each individual church are being infringed on also -- they should make the decision whether to perform a ceremony or not. The civil union is exactly what heterosexuals do when they are married before a judge. This is a case of swolen semantics.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 02:31 pm
Ya want to also change Mirriam Webster?

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
0 Replies
 
Jakart
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 06:57 pm
The reason why people wish to protect the sanctity of marriage is because of its foundings. It was founded as a religious ceremony. As our nation's heritage is emmersed under strict christian principles.

As was stated, christians do not hate the sinner, they hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin as 1 Corinthians chapter 6 declares. "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral... nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God." The moral downfall of a nation is evidant and we should strive to be a righteous people. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." -Proverbs 14:34
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 07:02 pm
Jakart wrote:
The reason why people wish to protect the sanctity of marriage is because of its foundings. It was founded as a religious ceremony.

Actually, marriage most likely originated as a civil contract to combine resources of family groups.

Quote:
As our nation's heritage is emmersed under strict christian principles.

the deism of the so called "founding fathers" was far diferent from the silly beliefs of teh fundamentalists who have made this an issue.

Quote:
As was stated, christians do not hate the sinner, they hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin as 1 Corinthians chapter 6 declares. "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral... nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God." The moral downfall of a nation is evidant and we should strive to be a righteous people. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." -Proverbs 14:34

As I mentioned to another poster, references to the bible only convince those who hold similar beliefs to those you hold. Give me something concrete.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 10:23 pm
Quote:
The reason why people wish to protect the sanctity of marriage is because of its foundings. It was founded as a religious ceremony.

No, it wasn't. For goodness sakes, if you are going to make a claim that something is true, don't you think you have some responsibility to make sure you aren't just parroting some falsehood you were told by someone else too lazy to do a bit of study. I'm afraid the rest of your post is of the same nature. http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 10:28 pm
blatham, My sister is a christian, so I asked her several years ago why christians hate homosexuals. She said they "love" homosexuals, only they don't approve of the "sin."
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2004 10:48 pm
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a Jerry Falwell mantra, repeated endlessly by Jerry about Larry Flynt. It's easy and pat and requires no further thought or introspection. Larry Flynt's response to Falwell was to advise all the "born agains" that "if you take your Lythium, you'll get better."

Soz,

Thanks for that link. As you say, it's not the research, but it's an interesting site.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 08:06 am
ci

I despise this crowd as deeply as I despise the Taliban. Most egregious and despicable is not what they believe, but rather, how they have come to believe it.

One can come into possession of an idea as a consequence, say, of the culture one is raised within. We are all subject to such socialized values and theories. But there is a personality type which is so needful of authoritative direction, and so frightened of thinking for themselves or of being outside of the lockstep march of their group, that they relinquish their intellectual autonomy and provide fodder for the really ugly things that happen in the world. These are the fellows and ladies who lynched blacks, or who pilot a plane into a building, or who stone women to death, or who take baseball bats to gay men.

They are pretty easy to spot. They don't much like learning or education, because alternate ideas risk upsetting their simple formulas. Their rhetoric is filled with cliches, which saves them all the trouble of real independent study, and which allows them to terminate their worrisome or conflicting thoughts. They divide the world into us/them, and they have a special affinity for putting the 'evil' label on other members of their communities.

The post at the top of this page is a paradigm example.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 08:18 am
Well, A2K is really a very educative site!

I've learnt that the earth is about 6,000 years old, that marriage had a religious founding, that the USA's heritage is emmersed under strict christian principles, that Iraq has WMD's, which certainly will be found ...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 08:54 am
walter

I'm pleased that you have come to recognize that the fundamental purpose of North American culture is to inform the remainder of the world how to live.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 08:54 am
...particularly, Europe.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 09:23 am
I'm pleased that you are pleased, blatham (I have always been an apple-polisher, especially at school and university towards my teachers Laughing )

:wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay Marriage
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 02:45:32