How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continued...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


100 posted 03-14-2004 12:07 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"That's great for religious law and docrtine. However, if the only justification is "Well, God Sez It's Wrong!" I don't see how we, as a nation that respects a separation of church and state, could approve a ban."

Good point Hush.
The very constituent beings of the holy trinity, a union held eternally in God, are all the same sex.  Where is the unsamesexness in that relationship?  If homosexuality is a sin therefore, that is threefold; not to mention suggestive of incest and polygamy.  

"If it is genetic then God made them that way and they would be more acceptable to the religious right... if it is a choice or an environmental occurence then you can expect the religious to continue condemning it as immoral..."

How do you prove homosexuality is ever completly a choice, nor completly not a choice?  
To tell you the truth, I don't think nature cultivates homosexuality as much as humans and their activities do.  I don't know if it is rude or wrong to think that, but I've always viewed homosexuality as something that humans have contrived of more than they have (in natural instinct) arrived at.  The fact that people mind homosexuality more I think is why there are more homosexuals, not because nature is growing more homosexual; the modern world has brings up homosexuality more from outright encounters and choices, more than from an natural and evolutionary sexuality.  That homosexuality is part of lifestyle at all though, and historical, must though show something very natural and evolutionary; but today the evolutionary and natural aspect seems to be faint amidst the "revolutionary" aspect.
In this way homosexuals today seem making a difference more from different experiences and a different choice,  so it is difficult to see those homosexuals that are more naturally disposed, out of natural stages and instincts.  And since the"sexual-centered aspect is in continual increase amidst all people, that makes it even more difficult to see where homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter) are more naturally inclined to do this or that, opposed to making a  choice to deviate on purpose.
But when it comes to marriage I don't care about what I think about "homosexuality" itself.  
I believe the individual, no matter what his or her background or sexuality, deserves to be treated equally as any lover who wishes to get married.
The success of a marriage doesn't depend upon sexuality, or sexual activity.  It depends on the honour it bears to love in the relationship, as in any relationship, as the relationship even did before that marriage was called "marriage"

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


101 posted 03-14-2004 12:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

In my opinion Denise you are mixing far too many issues together to be able to arrive at even an effective argument let alone conclusion.  

Let's separate a few of these out...

First one -- Rule of Law:

Who's life was threatened by a tax on tea?  The very foundations of this government are rooted in the consent of the governed -- that requires persons from time to time to disobey 'bad' law. In that instance the bad law was being taxed without any representation -- purely a civil matter -- purely civil disobedience to protest against it.

We are a nation of laws though -- and we have some very good ones.  Implicit in them is the foundational argument that all are created equal.  Explicit is that all are to have equal protection under the law.  Those who are protesting the marriage laws of California and New York by performing gay marriage are not -- in their mind -- disobeying the law -- they are rather enforcing the superior law of the Constitution.

Working in the system is paramount to a peaceful, successful republic -- but peaceful protest is not only paramount -- it is preeminent.  As citizens it is our responsibility to deny our consent to a government that is not responsive to our rights.  It took both Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon B Johnson to bring about the final right for everyone to vote in this country -- it was no more wrong for our forbears to throw tea in Boston Harbor, for African-Americans to march in Selma -- than for Rosie to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license.

Second one -- Slippery Slope Again:

The suggestion that there is depravity in the homosexual community should be cause for homosexuals to be denied the right to marry is no more convincing than the presence of depravity in heterosexuals to be denied the right to marry.

People are to be judged by the content of their character -- not the color of their skin -- not their brand of theology -- not their sexual orientation -- not their gender.  All are created equal -- there are life affirming ways to apply our sexuality -- there are destructive ways.  Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have the opportunity to rob banks or cure cancer.

Third one -- Children in Gay Homes:

The examples you cite are not indicative of the 'danger' of children being raised by homosexuals.  Children are equally in danger in heterosexual environments.   In Cherie's story she comes from such an environment.  Her personal failures in parenting are more an outgrowth of her own abuse than sexual orientation.

Sea --

Just want to clarify -- the licensure of marriage by the government has nothing to do with the solemnization of a marriage by a religious institution.

The Unitarian Church has solemnized gay marriages (without licensure) for years -- if gay marriage is permitted by the government no one from the FBI is going to stand over Jerry Falwell and force him to solemnize a gay marriage.

I draw distinction to two arguments that I'm making;

1. In the legal arena biology has nothing to do with gay marriage.  Adults who want to get married should be free to make that choice.

2. In the theological arena the biological foundations of homosexuality negate the underpinnings of religious bigotry as much as the discovery of actual cosmology negates the theory of a flat earth.

Thats all..

I appreciate the conversation and the opinions of the participants.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


102 posted 03-14-2004 10:30 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think I'm mixing lots of issues, L.R., I just think that there are many issues inherent in this topic that need to be addressed.

I think you may be misunderstanding me when I speak of civil disobedience. I'm not saying that peaceful protest is wrong, not at all. Marches, boycotts, demonstrations, petitions, lobbying, etc., all fall within the realm of citizens voicing their grievances. Actions fall outside that realm though when laws are broken in the process of voicing those grievances. In other words, I see a correct way to protest and an incorrect way. And I think people cross the line of our Constitutional right of dissent when they do so, and in so doing they weaken the system instead of making it better and stronger. We can deny our consent, voice our dissent about something without breaking the law to do it.

Nobody's life was at stake in the situation that led to the Boston Tea Party. And since it happened before the Constitution was written I really can't address it in that context, but I see that action as an act of civil disobedience against Great Britain, and I think that those who participated in it were wrong for doing so. Sure they sent a message to Great Britain that they were fed up with the taxes, but they also hurt the private businesses who sent the tea over and didn't get paid. And it was quite a large sum that was lost. And I think I remember reading that some of them were destroyed by the loss. So, in other words, I think they, like the tea, went overboard. Our forbears did some wonderful things, but they sometimes did do some thoughtless, selfish, and stupid things too, and I think the Boston Tea Party was one of those unfortunate incidences, that I, at least, can't find any justification for, and if I remember my history correctly, restitution was one of the thorny issues raised in the negotiations to end the Revolutionary War that Franklin had to deal with.

As for the slippery slope, I think we only have to look at what happened to the Scandinavian society to see how bad things can get. Gays demanded marriage, the laws were changed, and once that happened the institution of marriage lost its meaning and value in the eyes of society in general, even with the gay community. Now most people, straight and gay, just shack-up and don't even bother to get married.

And I don't see the slippery slope issue centered around denying rights to anyone. The danger I see is with changing the definition of marriage and with opening the doors for it to come to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean, especially to groups like NAMBLA. If it can mean anything, then really it will mean nothing, just as happened in Scandinavia.
  
And I can't agree that those who are breaking the law are serving the superior law of the Constitution. I know that is what they are using as a justification, but I personally don't agree with them. We don't serve the Constitution or society when we violate the law, we make a mockery of it by doing so, in my opinion. Everyone does have equal protection under the law. That does not mean however that everyone is entitled to claim the benefits of something for which they do not meet the conditions. Equal protection does not mean that we have carte blanche to assign to ourselves the benefits of something that has contingencies attached to it. Now whether someone feels those contingencies are fair or not is another matter, and they can certainly use their Constitutional right of protest, but no, I don't see that they have the right to break the law because they don't agree with it, and then use the Constitution as the justification.

No we shouldn't judge people, I agree, but we can judge behaviors as damaging to society in general and to children in particular. We can be accepting of people and loving of people without necessarily condoning everything that they do.

Yes, Cherie was a product of an abusive heterosexual environment, and according to her, her story was similar to lots of other lesbians that she had spoken with, which, in my mind gives greater weight to the theory that the gay lifestyle probably has more to do with environmental conditioning than with biology. Studies with identical twins leans to that probability as well. That Cherie suffered abuse in her childhood heterosexual environment does not negate the fact that her children did suffer emotional and psychological harm in the homosexual environment that they were raised in, and from the studies that I have read, the gay/lesbian environment is significantly more unstable, emotionally, psychologically and socially, statistically, than a traditional one, and these estimations come from women personally involved in that lifestyle as well.    

It is regretable that children have to suffer at all, in any type of home environment. And I think as a society we should make it a priority that they have as stable an environment as possible. That should be everyone's main concern, what is best for them, when evaluating lifestyle issues and other issues that can impact on their well-being.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


103 posted 03-15-2004 12:34 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

It is not out of dis-respect for you or your opinion Denise that I have not commented on your references concerning the Scandinavian same-sex marriage case.  It is rather because the material presented is far from objective.  You would no-doubt, similarly discount any material I presented from a biased gay-activist group.  

Furthermore it is not germane to the issue what does or does not occur in Scandinavia.  This is an issue of rights.  And law.  It is not a gay issue.  It is not a marriage issue.  It is not a children's issue.  It is an American issue about American's rights.

The issue for you seems to be one of what becomes of your opinion of the institution of marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry.  I submit to you that your opinion or that of other Christians of its sanctity is not likely to change.

quote:

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780, quoted from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 93.



If the religious meaning of marriage is dependent upon state action or in-action -- it has no meaning to begin with.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


104 posted 03-15-2004 05:50 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

i like your last statement there reb... then again, the so-called division between church and state has always made me shake my head.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


105 posted 03-15-2004 09:35 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Actually, I think Denise makes a lot of sense. I just think these are all good reasons to support gay marriage.

As far as Scandinavia goes, if you're referring to the same article I read (I didn't check), it does state that the welfare state there also contributed to the demise of marriage.

So, what makes more sense? People stop getting married because gay people can or they stop getting married because there's no economic benefit in doing so? In either case, it's probably a good idea not to tie the knot.

But what about recognizing those that do want the form and ritual?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


106 posted 03-15-2004 10:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

L.R., to my mind, it can only be made an issue of rights if one has the mindset that whatever one claims is theirs or claims should be theirs, is, just by virtue of their claiming it. Nobody is being denied the right to marry. Meet the conditions required by the law to enter into the marriage contract, or forego marriage, or if you don't agree with the conditions set forth in the law, then exercise your Constitutional right to work through the system in an attempt to change the law.

No, this isn't Scandinavia. But that doesn't mean that we can't look at a country that has dealt with this very same issue and perhaps learn something from the results of that country's decisions in this matter. That my news source was a Christian news source does not negate the statistics. I'm sure if anyone is interested they can go through secular sources to either confirm or deny the statistics. Now maybe a Christian, religious, or traditionalist mindset will see those statistics as a step backward for society and other mindsets may see those same statistics as a progressive step forward, but they are still both looking at the same thing, a general devaluation of marriage by a society.

The issue for me is not what becomes of my opinion of the instituition of marriage. That will never change, you're right. The religious meaning of marriage cannot be impacted one way or the other by state action or inaction even if external changes are forced upon it by the state. The issue for me is the possible impact on our society and on our children in the event that marriage is redefined. Our actions, individually and collectively, have results and as responsible members of society we have an obligation to examine the potential ramifications of our actions.

And I don't merely see this as a religious issue. It transcends that. I see it as a traditional values issue, values that are shared by more than just the 'religious', and I certainly don't see it as a separation of church and state issue by any stretch of the imagination. People get married all the time in civil ceremonies with no religious connotations whatsoever.


hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


107 posted 03-15-2004 10:44 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

LR addressed a lot of the things I was going to say, but to add a couple more...

I honestly don't see how changing marriage laws would affect NAMBLA in any way, shape, or form. It's not illegal for men to have sex with each other... now, lowering the age of consent for sex would definitely affect NAMBLA and allow their members to more easily prey on youth... but what on earth does the legal age of consent have to do with marriage?

Also... I don't see how one case study from a lesbian mother can apparently support the idea that lesbian households are bad to raise kids in. Lesbians don't have many male friends? Says who? My boyfriend and I just had dinner at our neighbor's place with her and her girlfriend, and there are plenty of pictures of male friends and family on her wall...  Maybe it's just that some lesbians have male friends, and some don't... just as some women, in general ahve more female friends than male or vice-versa.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


108 posted 03-16-2004 12:17 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad, I thought this was a telling statement from the article:

quote:
Today's gay activists in Scandinavia, having gotten everything they wanted, now admit that their case for homosexual marriage-particularly that allowing gays to marry will encourage a monogamous lifestyle-was only a tactical argument. The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."

They achieved that goal, but now there is little social approval for marriage.


And I'm sure socialism also played a role, no doubt. I guess to find out which had the greater impact, a comparison study would have to be done with a non-socialist country that also redefined marriage, if there is one, I don't know.

Hush, the legal age of consent comes into the picture in that one has to first be of the legal age of consent to marry. An adult can't legally marry someone when they are considered a minor in the eyes of the law, and I could certainly see members of NAMBLA using a redefinition of marriage to further abuse and take advantage of children.

Also, the link contained much more than one case study of one lesbian's experience. It also contained excerpts from the writings of lesbians who had conducted research and had described the lifestyle as frought with challenges, especially when that lifestyle incorporates children into the equation, that it is a significantly more unstable environment due in part to the high rate of promiscuity and the significantly lower regard for long term commitment to a partner that is evidenced in the homosexual community as opposed to what is generally found in the heterosexual community. Sure, exceptions can be found, but the statistics indicate that long term commited and monogomous relationships in the gay/lesbian community are rare, which tends to make it a highly unstable evironment, and particularly so when children come into the picture.

I don't know the percentages of lesbians who have or don't have male friends available as a masculine influence for their children, but whether they do or not, that doesn't speak to the other 'stressors' found in the lifestyle that adversely affect the children.    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


109 posted 03-16-2004 05:11 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"Sure, exceptions can be found, but the statistics indicate that long term commited and monogomous relationships in the gay/lesbian community are rare, which tends to make it a highly unstable evironment, and particularly so when children come into the picture."

But how may treating them as marriage-unworthy help them become more stable?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


110 posted 03-16-2004 09:30 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ess, I don't think in and of itself "marriage" or "non-marriage" would have a stabilizing influence on a lifestyle that is characterized as highly unstable even in research done by its own community members. The very lifestyle tends toward relational instability. It isn't just about same gender preference. That's just one aspect, even if it is the primary aspect. It is also a highly promiscuous lifestyle, according to the statistics.

Marriage does not make a person monogomous. There are people who are not married who are monogomous. There are people who are married who are not. A person either sees monogomy as an important component in a relationship or they don't. And I think until a person does see it as important they won't be monogomous and a vital ingredient for a healthy and successful relationship that is the basis for a stable family environment will be lacking.

Children are not psychologically and emotionally benefited in an environment where there are "new" mommies and daddies coming in and out of their lives. Children need a sense of anchoring, a sense of permanence, especially as that relates to their parents or their parental figures. Their sense of self is vitally linked to their parents, which is why divorce is so devasting to them emotionally, even if the divorce really is for the best in some circumstances. The children still suffer a sense of loss when it happens.

I'm not saying that there are no monogomous long term homosexual relationships anymore than I am saying that there are no promiscuous heterosexual relationships. I'm just saying that, statistically, homosexual relationships have a much higher promiscuity and infidelity rate than do heterosexual relationships, and that behavioral characteristic of the lifestyle is probably the main contributing factor to its instability. And if and until that aspect of it is dealt with, it will continue to be a highly unstable lifestyle, in my view.

And back to Scandinavia again, when marriage was finally redefined and made available to the gay community, very few took advantage of it. And the reason? Because it was never about "rights" or "marriage" or a pathway to "fidelity" at all. Just as I had suspected about our own current situation in the U.S., it was about societal acceptance of their lifestyle, period. And they won. And the overall effect on that society has been to cause the surrounding heterosexual community to adopt the same low regard for marriage, fidelity and long term commited relationships as they have, (reminiscent, I think, of the "free-love", "if it feels good do it" sexual revolution of the sixties that had done so much damage to people emotionally and relationally, the effects of which can still be seen today). And in my opinion, the children will be the ones to suffer the most because of it. And that's the real tragedy of it all.

quote:
The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."

They achieved that goal, but now there is little social approval for marriage.


I think the stability of the family, which lends itself to well-adjusted children, who will then have a better chance at being well-adjusted adult members of society, is the very reason that we have the marital laws (including any of its benefits or "rights") that we do. But I think what some people tend to forget is that with rights there are also responsibilities that go along with those rights. I'd personally like to see more of a focus on our responsibilities to our children, to each other, and to the future of our society than on rights.    
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


111 posted 03-16-2004 11:24 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Denise, what you're describing isn't homosexuality. Heck, I can't even remember the last time a man cheated on me?

What you're describing is simply a society where half of all marriages end in divorce and far more than half face infidelity issues at some point. Often many some points. What you seem to be suggesting, it seems to me, is that marriage is outmoded. Because if it won't work for homosexuals for the reasons you've cited, it sure ain't working for heterosexuals any better.

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


112 posted 03-17-2004 02:55 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Denise... I think your points are valid and definitely worth looking at... but I have to wonder why the focus on kids. After all, gay couples are having/raising children now, with or without public approval. I have to wonder- what is your stance on gays with children? It seems to be your focus, rather than marriage. And if the focus is on children's welfare, it almost seems like it deserves another thread since there are a lot of things that affect it besides whether you have 2 moms or 2 dads.

I also think your instability argument has the same slippery slope problem you mentioned about redefining marriage... you say gay/lesbian households are unstable... should people have to have a certain income to get married and have children? A poverty-stricken household would surely be an unstable one, as well as physically damaging without clean facilities and good food to eat.

Take that a step further. Since, statistically, black people are far likelier to be poor than white people... maybe we shouldn't let black people get married because their families are statistically less stable?

Maybe celebrities shouldn't be allowed to have kids... hell, maybe the President shouldn't have kids... growing up in the scrutiny of the public eye probably causes a very unstable (or at least nerve-racking) environment for kids to grow up in.

The list could go on and on until it would be easier to list who could get married and raise a family... I just don't think it holds water as a good argument against gay marriage.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


113 posted 03-17-2004 09:53 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, granted, the regard for commitment and fidelity isn't what it used to be in the heterosexual community (perhaps due in part to the influences of the sexual revolution?) but the statistics seem to indicate that it is still a far greater problem in the homosexual community.

Hush, children are my focus I guess because, besides their being so darned cute, they seem to bear the brunt of the bad decisions that their parents make, and we've all made them, and we could all do better. I'm not advocating for the forbidding of anyone to have children. I just think that we need to focus more in today's society on fostering values that provide as much stability for our children as we can. And I personally don't see that redefining marriage is ultimately in their best interest, especially if it has the same eroding effect on marriage, monogomy and commitment across the entire society as it has had in Scandinavia.

But I guess with like many issues it all comes down to one's worldview whether or not people consider marriage, monogomy and commitment important values for children or for society.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


114 posted 03-18-2004 03:32 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
… but the statistics seem to indicate that it is still a far greater problem in the homosexual community.

So, I presume if statistics should indicate that single parents have more problems than do two parents, you would be in favor of withholding the same exact rights from them? Mothers would be unable to dictate medical treatment for their daughters, unable to obtain insurance for the sons, and -- heaven forbid it should ever be necessary -- unable to even bury their children in the event of tragedy.

Being allowed to care for the ones you love, at their behest, isn't a privilege that can or should be revoked by man.

quote:
But I guess with like many issues it all comes down to one's worldview whether or not people consider marriage, monogomy and commitment important values for children or for society.

LOL. Which suggests, of course, that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't care about marriage, monogamy, commitment, children or society. Ironically, this argument is no weaker than any of your others. You are offering the same distorted justifications and rationalizations that we grew up with in the Fifties and Sixties, Denise.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


115 posted 03-18-2004 08:04 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
So, I presume if statistics should indicate that single parents have more problems than do two parents, you would be in favor of withholding the same exact rights from them? Mothers would be unable to dictate medical treatment for their daughters, unable to obtain insurance for the sons, and -- heaven forbid it should ever be necessary -- unable to even bury their children in the event of tragedy.

Being allowed to care for the ones you love, at their behest, isn't a privilege that can or should be revoked by man.


I guess I don't understand what parents are being denied any of these rights, Ron. Do homosexual parents not have these rights in the course of the caretaking of their own children? If there are naturally born children in a homosexual family, at least the natural mother would have those rights, under the law wouldn't she? And if she wished to extend those rights to her partner, that could be taken care of legally as well, just as I could be given custodial rights over my grandchildren if my children wanted or needed me to have them for some reason. And if the children are adopted by a homosexual couple, that issue is already taken care of by virtue of the adoption. And I've never even intimated that these things should be witheld or revoked from anybody. I just don't see that redefining marriage is necessary to either accomplish or protect these things. And if you are referring to the partners themselves in regard to having those legal rights, there are legal means already available whereby they can procure them.

quote:
LOL. Which suggests, of course, that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't care about marriage, monogamy, commitment, children or society. Ironically, this argument is no weaker than any of your others. You are offering the same distorted justifications and rationalizations that we grew up with in the Fifties and Sixties, Denise.


Well, no, Ron, that's not what I said or even suggested. It simply suggests that those who don't view things the way that I do don't view marriage, monogomy and commitment as importantly, in the same light, as I view them in relation to the well-being of children and society, that's all.

And if you believe that my believing that children are best nurtured in environments that honor traditional values, that those environments generally have a better track record of providing for the emotional and psychological health and well-being of chldren, is distorted thinking, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


116 posted 03-18-2004 09:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I guess I don't understand what parents are being denied any of these rights, Ron.

They're not, Denise. But all of your logic and arguments dictate that they should. Everything you've said about homosexual relationships applies to single parents. Or would you argue now that divorce is part of your traditional value system?

If your values are to define our society, and only the best environments for children are acceptable, we'll need to redefine a whole lot more than just marriage.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


117 posted 03-20-2004 11:59 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm sure that my ability to communicate could use improvement, Ron, and I'm not a debater, no doubt about that, but I'm not arguing that parents, single, divorced, or gay, should not have legal rights over their children or that they should be denied their parenting rights because their home situations may not be the best that they could be, according to my standards or anybody else's standards. I don't see the redefinition of marriage as necessary for the protection of these parental rights, but I do see a redefinition of the traditional concept of marriage, though, as potentially detrimental to children and to society, of its further aggravating and increasing the difficulties that we are already experiencing.

I don't see that it follows that we as a society should not voice our concern over something that very well may contribute to an even further decline in the regard for marriage and traditional values with the very possible resultant increase in emotional and psychological distress to even more children and the further consequences that it would have on society simply because situations may already exist in society that are not what might be considered best for children and society.

And If we redefine marriage to include one non-traditional lifestyle, how could we possibly justify not legally allowing other non-traditional lifestyles? Should participants in polygomous relationships, for instance, be given the stamp of approval by the law? I don't think so, but what basis would exist for not legally sanctioning their chosen lifestyle if we start redefining the traditional concept of marriage? What if someone wants a husband and a wife, or two or three husbands and 10 wives? Should society legally allow that if they profess a love for these people, really do love these people that they wish to marry, and couldn't they also claim that they were being denied equal protection under the law? Is it such a stretch of the imagination that if we can change the gender designations in the definiton of marriage that we could also change the quantity of participants allowed in the definiton?

I personally believe that we need to keep the traditional marital laws as we have them to keep societal chaos to a minimum.

And if this is all convoluted logic, then I guess I'm just convoluted, because it makes perfect sense to me, and I don't know how to better express myself than I already have.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


118 posted 03-20-2004 03:10 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here are some telling statements from those involved in the gay rights movement as to its bottom-line agenda which can be found at the Traditional Values Coalition website at the link below.

quote:
In their own words: Homosexual activists reveal their real agenda.

Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal lives just like heterosexual married couples.

The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."

They are finally admitting what the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) has been saying for years: Their ultimate goal is to abolish all prohibitions against sex with multiple partners.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING? ...


Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).


Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)


Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…"


http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1150

Surely their real agenda can be seen in their own words. What do you think the ramifications of such a societal reordering might be? Do you think it would be beneficial, harmful or neutral to society in general, and why?

And I have to ask again, what about the school program with the participatory skits of pantomimed homosexual acts and the handling and passing about of sex toys in an elementary school, as well as a participatory cross-dressing program in an elementary school? Why such graphic "in-your-face" sexually oriented programs for impressionable young children? What type of a mindset could possibly conceive that this is "OK"?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


119 posted 03-20-2004 06:25 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Denise, Denise, Denise. You really need to quit listening to comic book bigotry.

I know absolutely nothing about your Traditional Values Coalition except what you've presented here, but I certainly can recognize their lies. As someone who lived through it already, I should think you would, too. Roll back the clock a few decades and they would be wearing white sheets, burning crosses, and using everyone's fear of Black Panther radicals to fuel their unreasoning hate. We can't give "them" a taste of "that," else they'll surely destroy everything we hold dear!

Those who would judge whole groups of people based solely on the basis of individuals will inevitably find themselves judged just as harshly. Should we pronounce sentence on religion by considering the likes of Jim Jones and James Bakker? Is motherhood to be represented by Andrea Yates? Are all priests just like John Geoghan? The bell curve, unlike too many others, doesn't discriminate. Want to bet the people who make up your Coalition don't have a few skeletons we could rattle?

Forget the fringes, Denise. Set aside unjustified fears. People are people. Treat them with some measure of respect and tolerance and most of them will actually act like people, too, because at the end of the day, every single one of us wants pretty much the same things.

(I'm sorely tempted to start a new thread on why so-called traditional values are a very sick and twisted joke, but would prefer to not ruin my weekend. Maybe next week we can talk about the role women and children play when tradition holds reign in society?)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


120 posted 03-20-2004 08:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel



Have a nice weekend then Ron... I won't even touch it.

You too Denise...
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


121 posted 03-21-2004 10:05 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, Ron, I lived through the era of the scourge of the Black Panthers and the havoc and lawlessness that was wrought on my city that they instigated, particularly 1968 and 1969, a very good example of what a lack of respect for the rule of law can lead to, what can happen when people become a law unto themselves: riots, terror, burning buildings, looting, vandalism, and yes, even murder that came dangerously close to home.

In 1969, my father, a Captain in the Philadelphia Police Department at the time, was five minutes away from arriving at his station, Cobbs Creek, when his Sergeant, Frank Von Colin was shot dead in cold blood by a Black Panther who wanted to make a "political" statement by "killing a white racist pig", and then smeared "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" on the station wall in Frank's blood. My father was the one who discovered the grizzly bloody scene. If he had left for work five minutes earlier, he would have been killed too, but Sergeant Von Colin was the only one "in-station" at the time (and he was not a racist, but little details like that don't matter.) I don't think it is correct to lump all groups or organizations that would speak out against such violent and lawless groups as the Black Panthers together with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, I think it is a very unfair and false characterization.

TVC is a grassroots organization that speaks to a wide spectrum of political and societal issues from a Christian and Traditionalist viewpoint, but mostly Christian, with a view of morality based on Biblical principles. They encourage participation, legally, through the political process, of informing your government representatives of your stand on certain issues that are of concern to you, locally and on Capitol Hill. I have found nothing about them that can be construed as hateful of persons, unless someone considers not being accepting of any and all behaviors of people as synonomous with hatred of people. If you wish to characterize that as comic book bigotry, that's your perogative, I guess. I don't see it that way at all. But yeah, we all do have skeletons in our closets, everyone of us. Does that mean that we can't speak out and work through the system to make our voices heard on things that we think are important issues relating to the well-being of our children and society?

I'm not talking about the fringes, nor individuals. I'm talking about the stated goals of the Gay Rights Movement itself, the political activists who are attempting to redefine society's concept of what marriage should be, through any means necessary, whether through breaking the law, or using their money and influence with their advocates in the judiciary, whatever it takes, to force their will on the majority, to remake society in their own image.

If you really knew me, Ron, you wouldn't tell me to lay aside my unjustified fears and to treat people with some measure of respect and tolerance.  Do I have convictions that I think are worth voicing? Yes, but I'm not fearful, unjustified or otherwise. Do I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle? Yes, but I'm not a homophobe. And other than exercising my civic voice through legal means to my government representatives, I don't voice my opinions unless I am asked for them, as Hush did in starting this thread. And I do treat people with the utmost of respect and tolerance. But tolerance does not necessarily mean my acceptance of any and all behaviors that I don't agree with. But I won't give someone my opinion of their lifestyle unless they specifically ask me for it, which none of my homosexual friends ever have. And despite the fact that they know that I am a Christian and I know that they are homosexual, we get along famously.

Traditional values cannot be discounted as a sick and twisted joke merely because some bad has been done by those who have labeled themselves traditionalists. Every issue has to be taken on its own merits, in my opinion.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


122 posted 03-21-2004 01:15 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Is that Tim Lehey's organization Denise?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


123 posted 03-21-2004 05:04 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Traditional values cannot be discounted as a sick and twisted joke merely because some bad has been done by those who have labeled themselves traditionalists.

And yet your arguments, Denise, are only valid if you're willing to do essentially the same thing to others.

Forget the rhetoric, the finger-pointing, and the what-ifs.

Why should I need your permission to marry?

What harm does it do to you or anyone else to legally recognize the promises two people make to each other?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


124 posted 03-21-2004 07:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No, L.R., not that I am aware.

Ron, I don't think that evaluating behaviors and making a determination that they may or may not be in the best interest of society is synonomous with finger pointing or calling someone's values a sick and twisted joke. Our body of law came into existence through such evaluations, by somebody, at some point in time. Should we throw out all law that relates to human behaviors because even having such laws could be considered finger pointing by somebody? Of course not. But we can all lend our voices to our lawmakers and participate in the political process made available to us to discuss whether any laws should be revised or updated or not.

No, of course you don't need my permission to marry, nobody does. You only need the State's permission.

And to your last question, I've already given my opinion on the dangers that I see that are possible in redefining the marriage contract and the societal chaos that it could bring and why I don't think it would be in society's best interest for the law to be changed. You and others don't see it the same as I do, and that's fine. We're all entitled to our own opinions on any and every issue under the sun and to voice those opinions and still show respect and tolerance for others in the process.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors