the truthHolladay, UTTo compare homsexuality to race,is an insult to
blacks and other minorities.=========================="I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of
lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice,"
she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said,
'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I
appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make
room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people,"
Coretta Scott King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998. The Rev.
Sharpton wrote, “I believe in equal human rights, before the law, for all
human beings, and race, gender, disability, class or sexual orientation should
not be a factor under the law. "
@patriot --"You MUST prove homsexuality is congenital, and that
has NEVER been shown."That isn't quite true. For instance,
women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are known to have a very high rate of
lesbianism.Also, several other biological linkages are known. For
just a few examples:1. there is a proven genetic linkage with
homosexual behaviors in at least one non-human species. 2. in humans,
there has been shown to be a higher percentage of homosexuality in the relations
of homosexual men than in a non-related population, which appears to be
inherited through the maternal line (see research by Hamer for details).3.
there are physical differences in the brains of homosexual men compared to
homosexual men, especially in the hypothalamus. 4. the neural structure of
the brains of homosexual men actually resembles women's brains rather than
heterosexual men's brains.And these are just a few examples.
So, you see, there's actually quite a lot of biology that can distinguish
gay from straight.
@truthWhy "MUST" we prove it is "congenital"? The
comparison stands on the ground that a group of people are being denied access
the right to make the choice to marry based on charctrisics about them that have
no baring on their fitness to do so.
@ Tators: I am Christian, have been my entire life, and I support gay marriage.
You cite the Bible as "plainly showing the immorality of
homosexual". If my counting is correct, there are six passages in the entire
Bible that could possibly be meant towards homosexuals. And, hundreds of
"call outs" to heterosexuals to watch their minds, their actions, the
ways they treat their spouses, etc. Seems the Bible had much more
"plainness" aimed at heterosexuals than homosexuals. Six to over four
hundred? And, homosexuals are evil? I think not.
To compare homsexuality to race,is an insult to blacks and other
minorities.You MUST prove homsexuality is congenital, and that has
NEVER been shown.
if you allow gays to marry then by the same argument you cannot stop polygamy
either. A man can then marry 50 women and we all know the ugliness that results
from that.... Actually - a man should be able to marry 50 other men too!! Why
not - the more the merrier? There is no number restriction here - love is all
that matters right?? Our society will soon be 'unlivable' and normal
families with mom and dad and kids will have to restrict themselves to either
home schooling or private schools because the public institutions are going to
be nothing but moral sewers.
Forty States - hold to your stayAnd time will tell, you will have your
wayFor right is right and wrong is wrongSo carry on - keep in the
strongAnd with God's help there soon will be,No longer there -
Lane Myer,There is virtually no legal difference between a black
person and a white person and there shouldn't be. Thankfully there are
still legally recognized differences between men and women. I pray it stays
that way.All of those things you cite - inheritance, tax benefits,
etc, can (and should in my opinion) be addressed with civil unions. That's
not what this debate is about. It's about saying there is NO difference
between traditional marriage and same sex unions. There are plenty of
differences between men and women, mothers and fathers, etc and the law should
continue to recognize that.
Pack,The comparison is happening today in the Supreme court. They
did not question the comparison to interracial marriage and Loving v. Virginia.
Read todays transcript. There are plenty of simularities.Are gays
citizens with all the rights and privileges that you enjoy? Do you think they
should be treated as less than equal?SoCalChris,Wrong,
gays want to DO many things that they are not allowed right now. They want to
be able to have their spouse inherit their property without a large tax bill.
They want to file jointly on their tax returns. They want their spouse to be
able to be their social security beneficiary. There are over 1100 benefits that
they cannot receive on the federal level that they want to be able to enjoy,
just like the rest of the citizens in this great country. If you
think this is just about some militant gays trying to force you to recognize
them, you would be totally wrong and have not been paying attention. Most gays
do not care if you like them or respect them. They want to be treated equally
under the law, as promised in our constitution.
Claiming same gender marriage is no different than interracial marriage is
impossible, since they can't be compared to each other. They are
completely different issues.
Same sex marriage proponents are not demanding a right to DO anything.
They're demanding that their relationships be VIEWED by society the way
they want. SSM is NOT the same thing as traditional marriage, and
calling it the same thing will only lead to confusion and a huge legal can of
worms. Our kids will be part of a social experiment that won't turn out
well, just as most leftist experiments have turned out to be disasters. Civil unions are a reasonable and appropriate accommodation for gay
couples. But the militant gay agenda is sadly more about destroying
Judeo-Christian values than about gaining any new rights. Have all
the tax, insurance, legal benefits you want that exist in marriage by way of
civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., but don't confuse our kids and
don't open a huge legal can of worms by redefining marriage.
To Lane Myer and Vince Here:First of all, Lane Myer, I never said
that the Bible stated to "hate the sin, but love the sinner". But it
seems pretty obvious when throughout the entire Bible sin is always condemned,
while Christ also plainly states that we should love everyone, and he
didn't make exception. The only way to accomplish both is to love the
sinner and hate the sin.Vince Here asks how that can be done.
It's easy. You must not have children of your own yet. Every parent hates
some of the actions (sins) of their children. At the same time, we never stop
loving our children, regardless of how much we may disagree with some of their
actions. I imagine God feels much the same way toward us when he sees us
faltering so often. You can make all the rationalizations and
self-justifications you want, but it will never change what is inherently wrong
into something right, nor anything right into something wrong. It's been
tried throughout history and always with negative results. It won't be any
different now. Hopefully, we won't have to learn the hard way... again.
I have five children. Four are adopted; two of these were given up at birth by a
woman who conceived then in an extramarital relationship; the other two were
removed from their heterosexual birth homes because of abuse and neglect so bad
it is almost incomprehensible. Can we FINALLY put this issue behind
us and realize that it is the QUALITY of the parenting, not the sexual
orientation of the parents, that determines success or failure with
child-raising?! There is something good to be said for a modern world that
understands the difference.
Lane Myer -- "love the sinnner, hate the sin" -- Do you have children?
If so, you understand this statement. I love my children without hesitation.
Sometimes they do things that are not right. I don't like it that they do
them, but that doesn't change my feelings for them. No matter what, I love
my children. But that doesn't mean I always like the decisions they make.
Maybe that helps?
What's missing from this article is some of the quotes from the justices
that don't paint a pretty picture for prop 8. The conservative justices
were focused on "standing" because California didn't even bother to
defend the lawsuit brought against the state after prop 8 was passed. If we
know anything about the SCOTUS, they love to throw cases out on standing alone.
Kennedy seemed to have concerns about the legitimacy of denying rights to gay
What a laughable argument--as if racial marriage has anything to do with
government-defined morality, as desired by all same sex marriage proponents. Ask yourself a few questions. Should the government ban all blood
transfusions in support of the moral beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses?
Should the government give tax money to Latter Day Saints to support their
missionary work? Why not? I’ll tell you why not. Because the
government should NEVER be in the business of choosing sides on morality issues
or personal beliefs. The government should never snub the beliefs of one segment
of its people in favor of the moral beliefs of another.It would be
nice if gay marriage was just an act of tolerance and an extension rights to
people. But tolerance is not what is being sought. Tolerance would be to allow
gay marriage to occur without penalty. Legalizing gay marriage, on the other
hand, is supporting the moral beliefs of gay couples over the moral beliefs of
others. Every tax credit penny paid out to a married gay couple is a clear
message that homosexual behavior is good government-approved behavior.
The worst conservatives were against interracial marriages as well.Gay
marriage will happen at some point and in another generation nobody will care.
It's not going to ruin man-woman marriage any more than polygamy and
GiuseppeGHeterosexual communities have traditionally endorsed plural
marriages, marriages where the age has been lowered, marriages within families
(i.e. second cousins, etc. - in fact, several states still allow for
second-cousins to marry).
"We can still love the sinner, but hate the sin."Please,
Tators, tell me how you do that. Are you in touch with gays and helping them to
get rid of their "sins?" Or is showing love making them live the way
that you believe by passing laws that will not affect you or your family, but
definately affect these gay couples? How exactly do you show your love. Everytime I hear someone say that they can love the sinner, I have yet
to hear exactly how to do that. I think most just think that if they are not
being mean it means they are being loving. It doesn't in my book. You
really need to feel love for the most flamboyant gay - and not repulsion - to
live that law. Pretty hard to do. Especially since one would then want that
person that they feel this love for to have all the rights and privileges that
every American citizen enjoys, per our constitution.How do you do
Tators,What Bible verse are you quoting from, exactly, when you say,
"love the sinner, hate the sin?"About the argument of
"every child deserves a father and a mother."The wording of
Prop 8 is not about "having every child have a father and a mother."
Where are you getting the background to make that argument?Well, it
comes from the way opponents of equality are fabricating the argument to suit
into something that it is not. By lumping the fatherloss or motherless argument
into the debate they miss the target and instead try to pin the argument into
some vague notion of traditional values. Moreover, if traditional values were
at stake, an amendment to guarantee that every child have a father and a mother
would have been introduced decades ago, before children growing up today, half
of them, in a household where their parents are divorced.At that,
thousands of children in foster care go unadopted and yet, they argue "every
child deserves a mother and a father." So foster care is better? With LGBT families, just for the record, every child is planned and wanted.
GiuseppeGPolygamy has traditionally been abusive to women and
children, If it was between consenting adults, I have no problem with it.
There are other laws that would have to be adjusted (ss benefits, inheritance,
etc.) but not impossible.Age limitations need not change. A child
cannot consent to a contract (that is what marriage is, btw), but their parents
can. It should remain the same with their parents guiding them.Family relations has potential harm with the children of the relationship
ending up with birth defects, etc. Look at the inbreeding in the polygamous
communities to see what happens when families are too close. Laws
are put in place to protect. If you are going to limit someones freedom to do
as they please, there better be a reason (harm) that you can show. Can you show me the harm caused by allow gay couples to wed?
What church mistakenly got involved in this political mess?
This article states that more people in America are now "supporting" gay
marriage. It would be more accurate to state that more people are tolerating
it... not supporting it. And even then, the wording of any survey can effect the
response received. As it is, the majority of America is still made
up of believing Christians. The Bible states very plainly that homosexuality is
immoral, an abomination and against nature (see Leviticus 20:13, Roman 1:26-27).
It also stated that in later times (as in now), people would often call bad
good, and good bad. That seems to be exactly what is happening now. Homosexual advocates like to say that the Bible says we should love everyone.
However, that doesn't mean we should love and condone their conduct...
especially when it goes against what God has so plainly stated. We can still
love the sinner, but hate the sin.Current advocators think they are
so full of wisdom in trying to get society to change and accept their liberal
ideas instead of traditional morality of every major religion on earth.
Concerning that, the Bible also addresses that in stating that "The wisdom
of man is foolishness unto God."
@ PatriotYou wrote: "liberals are all about choice so long as your
choice agrees with their choice... otherwise they use their activist judges to
overturn the voice of the people..." Judges Scalia and Thomas
come to mind.
@patriot --" so much for democracy."You seem to
be forgetting that this country is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. That means that
popular opinion is tempered by constitutional law. And that's exactly what
the Supreme Court is there for -- to make sure that mob rule doesn't run
roughshod over the rights of the citizens.
Hmmmm....so the question I have for supporters of gay marriage is if you believe
love is love and marriage shouldn't be constrained to what has been the
traditional definition of marriage in the U.S. (1 man, 1 woman), how do you feel
about other such relationships and barriers? Polygamy, Age limitations, familial
relationships, etc. Are you okay with breaking down those types of barriers as
well or are the barriers around those types of relationships different to you?
And if so, why?
@Tekakaromatagi --"Every child has the right to a father and a
mother."Are you going to ban divorce? Are you going to ban women
having babies out of wedlock? Otherwise, your statement has no bearing on this
case.@Chris B --"You still had those, after they
divorced."If you're going to look at it from the biological
perspective -- as opposed to the perspective of family stability -- then EVERY
child has a father and mother, whether they are raised by a gay couple or a
straight one.Gay marriages **encourage** family stability. Stability
and love are the most important components for successfully raising children.
Therefore, people who are concerned about children should be fighting FOR gay
marriages, not against them.
@patriotSo the majority should run roughshod over the minority no
matter what? The minority has no rights so long as they remain the minority?
liberals are all about choice so long as your choice agrees with their choice...
otherwise they use their activist judges to overturn the voice of the people...
so much for democracy.
@alt134,"So my sister and I should've been taekn away from
our parents because they divorced"No.You still had a
father and a mother right?I know you were attempting to trap
Tekakaromatagi in his words, but you failed.He says every kid should
have the right to a father and a mother.You still had those, after
@TekakaromatagiSo my sister and I should've been taken away from our
parents because they divorced? We live in a state where a gay individual (or any
individual) can adopt children if they're single but not a gay couple? Sure
doesn't seem to put a lot of value on children needing a father and mother
if that's how things are. Plus... you all repeatedly say that
two men or two women alone cannot physically make a child. So the point about
children is completely irrelevent. You should be opposing gay adoption, not gay
marriage if that's your concern (though of course I already noted how our
adoption laws make that idea ridiculous as well).
And Tekakaromatagi, the falseness of that assertion is that keeping marriage
benefits away from gay and lesbians does nothing to further that goal.
Procreation isn't hindered by lack of marriage. Children deserve to be
raised in families where they have the protection and their parents the rights,
responsibilities, and benefits of marriage.
@ Tekakaromatagi"Every child has the right to a father and a
mother."Every child is conceived by the intervention of a male
and a female. Yet, I can assure you that gays are not kidnapping children.Most LGBT parents become parents of children who were conceived but have
"no parents". May be because the conceivers, were dead, not able or not
willing to take care of the children. LGBT people some time conceive
babies with the help of surrogate. Today I read an article in the
Washington Post. This lesbian mother who has teen children made the observation,
that her children really don't care about their parents being gay. They
just fume that gay parents are as uncool as straight parents, demanding
homeworks done on time, chores, and other bothersome things that parents demand.
My dear Tekakamoratagi, perhaps you could lead a research and
qwuestion a large number of children being raised by LGBT. You may ask them
about their feelings about their parents.You could also be cruel and
ask them, what would be of them if they were not had been adopted by their
parents. No! forget that! You may continue living in your bubble
This subject defines the media's obsession.
Every child has the right to a father and a mother.