Mr. Carrier,

Your offer to donate $1,000 to Primary Children's Medical Center is noble. Why wait to do good when there is a need today? By showing your concern for the children whose parents lack the means to fully cover the cost of medical bills, your generosity today might set an example that others would follow.

Tying that offer to the condition that active homosexuals "marry" each other won't help one child between now and 2020.

You wrote: "For the record, I have moral standards and don't believe that I am contributing to the downfall of society".

A man of high moral standards who wouldn't contribute to the downfall of society might instead be able to lift society. Why wait for twelve years to do good when good can be done today?

If I had an extra dime (literally), I would gladly add to your donation so that a little extra good could be done.

did you say 1 pm at the state capitol on July 1st in 2020. I have it in my calendar. Don't be late!

You will be smiling in November when voters reject banning gay marriage in California. The blessing in this is many people sitting on the fence will realize you can't favor gay marriage and be a member of the LDS Church too.

I do have to point out something very symple. You clame to be a moral man but you support an inmoral act. Either you stand for what is right or you don't. There isn't middle ground. And If you want a better Amarica for you grandchildren then you wouldn't support something that distorts and distroys family values. Do a little reserch into the many problems in Mass. since they leagelized it.
Ignorince isn't a virtue.

Roger,

You say that Gay "Marriage" will become law in the future. What you say is logical and may very well happen. But, that doesn't mean it is right or moral and no amount of your claiming it is will EVER make it true.

Truth and morality are not constructed or established by a vote. Truth and morality are eternal principles that are established by GOD.

If we, as a society, accept homosexual practices as perfectly right and moral, there is not much time left for us.

GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

Okay, so what are the specific conditions that have to be met in order for you to donate the $1000?

If by 2020, the U.S. makes it a hate crime to speak against gays or the gay lifestyle, even in one's church (Canada, Sweden and Brazil are among three countries attempting to do just that) will you donate the $1000 then?

If age-of-consent laws are lowered or even eliminated, as some are quietly attempting to do, will you donate the $1000 then?

When religious hating social workers attempt a sex abuse witch hunt, similar to ones in the 1980's in states like Illinois and Massachusetts, with the intent of taking children out of the homes of LDS, Catholic and Baptist families and putting them into the homes of gays and lesbians, will you donate the $1000 then?

Or, will you donate the thousand dollars if, and only if, you've become a gay man, knowing full well that will never happen?

So then the question becomes can larger society exist beyond your narrow, cherry picked version of what GOD wants? Since neither of us has a shred of evidence greater than the other, and religious freedom is supposed to work in this country, I want an equal say in the matter. Family values.... Tell me another one.

Roger,

At 62 years old, you well could be dead in another 11 years. Can we still get the money if you're six feet under?

The assertions by John C to the contrary, the sky hasn't fallen in Massachusetts.

Can a moral man support another's RIGHT to commit a perceived immoral act and still remain a moral man?

In a society where everyone is guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, can't I defend someone's RIGHT to do something I personally find offensive?

People who support abortion rights, homosexual rights, etc. don't necessarily support those acts.

Some people support the right for businesses to operate on Sunday or the right for individuals to use tobacco and alcohol even though they personally believe those acts to be sinful. Are they immoral for supporting these rights of others?

I am only going to say this once then go away because I know from past experience it will fall on deaf ears but I have to say it for my sanity just so I now that the myopic thinking on these boards does not go unchallenged all day. First, just because someone does not have the same very narrow and self serving “Moral values” you do does not mean they do not have “values.” Secondly, the scientific research does not support claims that gay marriage will lead to the ruin of society, I would reference you to the American Pediatric Society and the American Psychological Association’s website with the position papers and links to the research that has been done by creditable universities and scientific organizations without an ax to grind. Before you get to upset I do not really expect you will do this and will blast me with more groundless claims so feel free I have said my piece and will go away now.

Next to be legal: Plural marriage! Yall better cut this alternative mariage business off at the pass unless you want to be sharing your husbands!

Are you really that dense that you think yours is the only morality? Homosexuality is NOT immoral. Denying others rights that you claim for yourself is. And cats, which god wont be mocked? Yours or the thousands (or millions) of other gods?

John C;

Please learn to spell - your post is inane and incorrect. Here we go: iNmoral (immoral), AmArica (America), dIstroys (destroys), reserch (reseArch), leagelized (legalized), ignorince (ignorance).

Ignorance isn't a virture, if you could spell it, perhaps I'd believe you weren't ignorant.

Cats:

Here's another truth (ordained of God, as you say) --- Homosexuality occurs in EVERY species in nature --- that is the TRUTH, it must be ordained of God. Therefore, Homosexuality is NATURAL.

As someone that actually lives in Massachusetts I have just one question, what in the heck are you talking about John C? I am not sure what alternative reality you live in but you need to take the aluminum hat of and stop listening to the voices in your head.

You claim that "GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!"

But according to scripture, God has said I should slaughter my neighbor and his entire family if they worship a different god than me, that I should kill my own child if she speaks disrespectfully to me, that I should kill the guy next door for working on the Sabbath and that it is an abomination to eat shellfish.

How can we possibly justify ideas like this in today's modern society. How can we NOT mock such old, archaic and inhumane ideas? It's time for all of us to step into the 21st century and stop living from ancient texts. Some laws deserve to be changed, whether God likes it or not.

Roger, I hope you are wrong.

I am sure there were those who felt the same way about abortion in 1960. When it was legalized in the 1970s, it did not stop the controversy or the divisiveness surrounding that practice; nor would the legalization of gay marriage stop the divisiveness nor controversy surrounding that.

Then, in another 20 years or so, with the gender restrictions off of marriage, the number restrictions will fall, too. First it will be polygamy and polyandry, then any arrangement between consenting adults (2 men, 3 women) then the requirements that only adults be involved will be dropped, then finally, the species restrictions will be gone, too.

Ridiculous and extreme you say? Maybe, but Roger's comments about gay marraige would have appeared just as ridiculous and extreme 50 years ago. Once we start down the slippery slope, how can say where it will end up in 50-100 years?

If you're worried about sharing your husband with other wives, I'd say YOU might have a big problem in your marriage.

To Daily Reality Check: The Positions of The American Pediatric Society and the American Psychological Association are based SOLEY on politically correct votes that were taken of their members. These positions are not based on ANY SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

Scientific studies conducted in Holland (The most gay-affirming society in the world) have concluded that the gay lifestyle is destructive, leading to many forms of emotional/mental illness and a much higher rate of suicide among practicing individuals.

That's what science says.

The universe, all those billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and billion-trillions of planets, is the creation of and run by an an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent deity who allows wars, famine, disease, tsunamis, fires and earthquakes kill millions of innocent people but who cares deeply about your sex life.

I love these threads, it always brings out the most entertaining people! Seriously, thank you to all the fanatics and doomsdayers, you truly brighten my day.

So, all of you, let's just get your arguments out of the way right now:

1) Gay marriage will be the downfall of all society! Don't ask us how, because our lack of ability to reason for ourselves prevents us from really knowing how.

2) Gay people will use this as a tool to recruit people! I get letters, e-mails, phone calls, and pamphlets on the street all encouraging me to join the Gay People Against Everyone group all the time! Oh, wait...no I don't.

3) It's immoral and evil! These people will burn in Hell. But it's not good enough to believe that, so we do our best to burn them here, too.

Does that about cover it?

Every decision, no matter how private, sends ripples through society. Indeed no man is an island. Every slope is slippery in one direction or another. Every single decision becomes a part of the great fabric shaping society, for better or for worse. Whether consenting or not, deviation from traditional sexual mores impacts everyone as is everyone's business.

Community values will not travel to a Utopian destination and then rest. They will travel, without ceasing, in one direction or another. How far in the direction of new definitions of marriage will we travel before the pendulum swings?

John C. | 3:41 a.m. July 23, 2008
"Do a little reserch into the many problems in Mass. since they leagelized it."

May I ask you where to look for these problems. I have googled "gay marriage in MA problems" but nothing substantial came up. Would you list these problems and where you got you info. Thanks.

Gay marriage will one day be legal. Opinion polls show how popular sentiment has changed on this issue. The younger generations are supportive of gay marriage.

As recently as 20 years ago, no one would have seriously predicted that gay marriage would be the issue that it is today.

If you are under age 40 and are interested in a political career later in life, then you should publicly support gay marriage.

The argument that "God Will Not Be Mocked" baffles me.

That statement is meant to apply to certain covenants that you have made with God, and that breaking them will "mock" God. I'm sure the people on here saying that phrase know what I am referring to.

The vast majority of people on this planet have not made those covenants, so saying that "God Will Not Be Mocked" is holding a standard to them that they have not aligned themselves with.

Sinning is not "mocking" God. Making a promise to God then breaking it is "mocking" God. There is a huge difference.

There is one thing that you missed:

Wickedness never was happiness! So we will do everything in our power to make you as unhappy as we can. It is what God would want.

"Whether consenting or not, deviation from traditional sexual mores impacts everyone as is everyone's business"

This is about gays marrying, not trying to prevent gays from having sex. This will not increase or decrease the amount of gays or the sex they have. It is about giving the gay couples who take advantage of this privileges and rights that every married American has.

PLEASE understand this.

@daily reality check:
The American Pediatric Society also state in their journal that sexual relations between children and results are not necessarily a bad thing. It could be construed that the APS does not oppose pediphilia. Of all the organizations that should outright reject sexual abuse of children, it ought to be the American Pediatric Society, so referencing them as a reliable source doesn't mean you are right. No matter how many people combine to justify an immoral position, it will not make it right.

Since you obviously understand the reference you cite, one must assume you are either a participant or an apostate. Your equivocation on the point suggests the latter. Do you really intend to be counted on that side of the line? In this ongoing debate, the lines will one day be drawn and each will have to declare on which side they will be counted. From the many postings here, it is clear that the wheat and the chaff are being winnowed. To each is given the right to choose, but with the choice come the attendant consequences which cannot be cheated.

Quoting frequent poster jackhp, "we should (and do) legislate morality." I couldn't agree more. But what morality do we legislate? We cannot enforce a particular religion, per the Constitution (which most readers of this thread probably hold to be a God-inspired document). Is there a non-denominational moral/legal case to be made against granting rights and privelages of marriage (i.e. tax breaks, hospital visitation, adoption, among others) to same-gender couples?

Cats, If you are not willing to follow the links to the research there is nothing “daily reality check” or anyone else can do to help you learn the research on the other side of the debate. Ignorance of the research does not make it go way. As far as your claim since you did not provide any references I had to do my own search, the only references I can find come from the heritage foundation (talk about biased agenda driven voting) Anyway If you actually read their post it does not actually reference any research on Gay marriage in the Netherlands, instead they attempt to make a link between homosexual marriage and research done on changes in heterosexual marriages that the original research does not claim or support. This is called trying to support an opinion based on arbitrary connections not research. If you have an actual link I can follow to actual research on Gay marriage I am all ears. The people on this post seem to have a real difficult time with the distinction between research and opinion. If it is your opinion then simply state that and be done with it.

@ Ediddy...
All that you say may be true...but that doesn't make you the judge and punisher of all acts that you deem immoral. Also, I'm LDS and support gays' right to marry. Religion has nothing to do with it. The fact that this is supposed to be America does.

Please provide the source for that claim. I'm certain many of us here, including those involved in Pediatrics, would like to see it.

Studies show that married people are slightly happier, healthier, and wealthier than single people; and this is true for gay people as well. So maybe gay marriage would be good for America.

Homosexuality is wrong and immoral. Society and the law may eventually tolerate/encourage this perversion (many ancient societies did). However, that will not make it right. It's pretty obvious that the people in Sodom didn't think their behavior was a big deal. After all, they had apparently been caring on this way for some time with little to no ill effect. Well, God had other ideas and things changed. It could happen to us.

Cats, Cats, Cats.

Do you really think that gays living in a committed, married, relationship in Holland are more prone to suicide? Think again. Like straights, married gays are happier as a pair than as individuals.

Gay suicides are most often caused by the sense of isolation and rejection that gays feel from the rest of society. Just imagine yourself trying to fit yourself into a mold that is the wrong size/shape. Why don't you place yourself in our shoes for a change and try living alone for 20 or 30 years. THEN come back and tell us that we should be GLAD of our isolation.

Don't tell me that "its my choice" because, truthfully, the ONLY choice in this matter was the choice to FINALLY free myself of the bondage of religion and accept myself for who/what I am.

Eddidy, I can find no such statement by the American Pediatric Society; care to share your source? Or is this the baseless claims part that “daily reality check” made reference too? I also noticed you choose to ignore the American psychological Association reference.

I'M SORRY THAT THE TRUTH OFFENDS YOU. I am only telling you what the studies have shown. Also, the part about animals being gay is not correct. When given the chance, these animals go back to being with the opposite sex.

No credible study has ever concluded that anyone is BORN gay. The one usually cited came to the conclusion that "gayness" is determined by a combination of a number of factors, one of which MAY BE genetic and another of which is CHOICE. It never concluded that anyone is born gay.

I know that this is not what gays want to hear. It is always so much easier to claim that you can't help yourself and you have no choice because you were born that way.

The studies conclude that the increase in emotional/mental problems and increased suicide is not due to any external factors (such as lack of acceptance). These problems are caused by their homosexual behavior. I am only telling you what the scientific studies have concluded. Again, this is not politically correct, but it is the truth.

Homosexualty is a very unhealthy lifestyle and aiding and abetting people in it is not helping them.

John C. | 3:41 a.m. July 23, 2008
"Do a little reserch into the many problems in Mass. since they leagelized it."

May I ask you where to look for these problems. I have googled "gay marriage in MA problems" but nothing substantial came up. Would you list these problems and where you got you info. Thanks.

I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE MAKE STATEMENTS, AND WHEN ASKED FOR REFERENCES, DISAPPEAR. If you make a statement of fact, be ready to back it up with references. If it is just your opinion, state that it is. It is the only way to have a logical exchange of ideas.

Cats. Closed minds will never open. You refuse to accept any study that shows what you believe is wrong. You can say the same about me. I however, can refute from personal experience your claims.

You say that the problems stem from 'homosexual behavior'. I was CELIBATE until 32 years of age and an emotional wreck from trying to live the acceptable lifestyle.

Once I accepted myself, my whole life turned around and I have never been happier, nor more emotionally stable.

Keep on telling yourself that you are on the right side though. Keep on telling yourself.

"Also, the part about animals being gay is not correct. When given the chance, these animals go back to being with the opposite sex."

"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks." National Geographic News, July 23, 2004

Please check before stating something as fact.

The reference was to a quote aired by Laura Schlesinger in which she took exception to the position. I may have the organization wrong. I am certain I can source the comment and will post it as soon as I can reverify it. My point was that citing a reference from a particular source doesn't justify a particular behavior. Studies are referenced here everyday which support a particular point of view. I mean no disrespect to pediatrics in general, but Schlesinger's opposition to the journals inference created a great deal of animosity toward her from her coleagues for being narrow minded. Considering the tempest the argument cratesd, I am certain I can find the source.

Interesting point, but if you are going to use the argument "It never concluded that anyone is born gay." then you naturally have to say "It never concluded that anyone is not born gay."

Cambridge,
Thank you for quoting me and then taking that quote completely out of context. You conveniently left out the part about not legislating any particular religious moral tenets.

The question isn't whether there is a "non-denominational" moral case to be made to deny marriage to gay people. The question is whether there is a valid non-RELIGIOUS moral case to be made. Any "morality" that we legislate must transcend the irrationality of religion.

"No credible study has ever concluded that anyone is BORN gay."

Baloney. Scientific literature is filled with research showing that their are differences in brain function and neurochemistry among gays and straights. The June 2008 issue of Scientific American being one of the most recent. A 2003 study by researchers at the University of Chicago concluded that there are "hard-wired" differences in the brains of gays vs. straights.

Put another way, Cats, when did you _decide_ to be straight, or right-handed?

I'm curious, however, about your "studies" that conclude that higher suicide rates among young gay people is not related to the judgment and rejection they receive from folks like you. Please detail these studies. Were they objective, valid and replicable? Were they published in peer-reviewed professional journals?

The truth will set you free, but first it's going to really piss you off.

Cats restating your position doe not make it fact or based in research. Lets try this one more time can you reference any creditable research that supports your claims?

Cats. P.S.

The truth is never offensive. Not to me; and I doubt it offends most thinking individuals. You're the one taking exception to the truth.

However, I will admit an error. I should have stated that 'Bisexuality' is the prevalent behavior in nature. And, yes, many animals/creatures will go back to the opposite sex, that doesn't stop them from going the other way when the opportunity presents though.

My real gripe is when you begin throwing out all those BELIEFS and OPINIONS as TRUTH and FACT. Sorry, but the Bible is NOT FACT. We may WISH it were, but it isn't. It may be history (some of it, anyway) but FACT it is not.

The Holland studies have been discussed before on these blogs and unfortunately they are not very credible resources. They have very narrow samples and the participants are not a true cross section of the gay community.

The studies started out broader, but I can only assume when the study operators discovered that the facts did not support the outcome they wanted they had to cut it back to only those individuals that would support their desired outcome.

I don't take behavioral guidance from flamingos, ostriches, or chinstrap penguins. Nor do I think the animal kingdom offers any useful insights for jurisprudence. Unless, of course, you support anarchy.

Some male animals eat their young. It's very natural. We are not animals. Reference to animals by either side of this argument is off point.

To those who asked:
My reference to the American Pediatric Society was incorrect. The reference should have been to the American acadamy of Pediatrics, an artical by Nancy Faulkner PHD on "adult-child" sex, wherein the question os asked, is the victim at fault for fostering the relationship? The suggestion is that such relationships are not always wrong.
My citing of the APS or the challenge to any reference was not to justify or nor justify a behavior, but to make the case that referencing any number of sources, does not make a situation or a behavior right. And I stand by my original comments.