You are known by the company you keep. It's disconcerting that the Vatican
is aligned with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. These states have the
highest divorce rate, highest number out-of-wedlock children, greatest poverty
[AL,LA,MS], highest rates of incarceration [LA, MS] and lowest educational
attainment [TX, MS].
Sadly, the samesex battle, the no-fault divorce, and laxing of moral standards
has destroyed the meaning of marriage. With huge numbers of young people never
having experienced a stable relationship, they see marriage as a disposable
sexual relationship and don't understand that its benefit to society is the
commitment to raise children for a stable future. As a result government
programs and scientific experiments are doing the parenting. Marriage was never
intended to be solely about a single sexual relationship--which is what
it's been reduced to--but to a future family, which now no longer factors
in. Most damaged by this transition are the children of our nation
as they are further estranged from their loving parents, taught lies by a social
system built upon the fear of offending political groups with money, and peers
with absentee parents attempting to purchase affection and try to make their
children a political cause. Then women, who think that being a single mother
brings a life of joy, but is a one-way ticket to poverty and the estrangement of
their children as soon as they're old enough to start rebelling.
@metamoracoug;By orientation I am not straight. I made a wise
decision years ago when I chose to not marry a woman and make my life with the
man that I love and who loves me. That, sir, is wise and prudent.Religion is absolutely a choice, and I'm asking you to keep your religion
out of my life. You're welcome to live it yourself but keep your religion
to yourself. As for good and bad choices, you make a bad choice every time you
choose to discriminate against your fellow Americans. Your
"inclination" would only be accurate if you were discussing your own
personal life. Marriage of GLBT couples is as good for society as is marriage
for straight couples.@Pack;Could you develop a loving
relationship with someone of your own sex? Why do you expect us to live in a
manner you cannot yourself?@SoCalChris;Bigotry is
apparent when you would prevent others from having what you have. Not that you
dislike it, but that you would prevent equality. That is the bigotry.
@ PackYou wrote:" it does not mean they can't
develop a loving relationship with someone of the opposite sex"If you are heterosexual, would you consider a loving relationship with
somebody of your own sex?
As always, the question re: this issue is whether you have the right, because of
your own beliefs, to deny the rights of others. If you believe that marriage is
"between one man and one woman," that's fine. But live with that
in your own life, don't try to make everyone else fit it.It's also fine if the Catholic Church wants to defend the
"traditional family" by presenting that as its *viewpoint.* But not by
trying to impose it on secular society.Opponents of same-sex
marriage argued pre-Nov. 6 that gay marriage was foisted on America by the
courts, without putting it to a popular vote.Now we have that
popular vote, in four separate states: Americans are increasingly in favor of
equal rights for gays, including marriage. It seems that in America, as well as
in an ever-increasing number of other countries, people are no longer buying the
Catholic Church's teaching that gays are "disordered."
@ SoCalChrisYou wrote" It's obvious this debate isn't
about tolerance anymore. It's all about insisting that society recognize
homosexuality as every bit as healthy and normal as heterosexuality"No and Yes.No, this debate is "only" about
tolerance.Yes, you are right : "It's all about insisting
that society recognize homosexuality as every bit as healthy and normal as
So I'm bigoted if I don't see homosexuality as perfectly fine and
dandy. Ok. By that definition I guess I'm bigoted against smokers as
well. Never knew I was such a bigot.I don't hate gay people.
I've had close friends and relatives who were gay and I've always
treated them all with respect. I don't agree with their lifestyle and find
it peculiar but I'm sure there are things which friends think are peculiar
about me. On a micro level so what.It's obvious this debate
isn't about tolerance anymore. It's all about insisting that society
recognize homosexuality as every bit as healthy and normal as heterosexuality.
Many people seem to be buying it, but I will continue to say the emperor has no
@Ranchhand, even if a person has an attraction for the same gender, it does not
mean they can't develop a loving relationship with someone of the opposite
sex, rather than as you say, remain alone forever. It is still very much a
I remember when those opposed to accept homosexuality as part of any society
through out history, would dispute the claim that 10% of society is or has some
homosexual feelings. They would dispute the number and claim that homosexuals
represent such a small number that it wouldn't be worthy to enact laws to
favor or protect such a small segment.Now, they go to the opposit
extreme. If Same Sex marriage is allowed somehow, traditional marriages will
stop. Heterosexual I assume will stop getting married and for course, what we
all know....the Human Race will vanish. The day of judgment is upon
us, because this nasty LGBT who used to be forced to love in hiding, not able to
have permanent relationships.Therefore, promiscuity and annonimity was the
result. This LGBT people now want to live normal lives, they want to
be accepted as normal people, they want to live monogamous lives, raise
children, make sure their beloved ones get all the 'same', no more no
less, benefits than any other human being. How dare they....The end is coming,
the end is coming!The God I follow teaches me to love everybody and
not to judge anyone.
Ranchhand & spring street: ah! the bigotry card! You know, by orientation, I
am not a monogamist. Everything about my physical being tells me that having
multiple partners is acceptable and good. But there is something else that
whispers the foolishness of such a lifestyle -- that my happiness and that of my
family is dependent on being in complete control of my desires. Ultimately, though, my objections to a gay lifestyle are not
"religious." We live in a society that is dependent on individuals
making wise choices. If a businessman chooses to cheat his customer, or a
politician accepts a bribe, or a father has an extramarital affair, or a drunk
drives home from the bar, or the gambler bets that monthly mortgage, all those
choices affect the rest of us. We deceive ourselves if we think otherwise. Each
choice we make for good or bad affects someone else. The success of our society
depends on individuals making more good choices than bad. At this point, many
are selling the gay lifestyle as good, but my inclination is that it falls in
the same boat as "no-fault" divorce.
@socalchris what ramifications? where is your proof of any harm
other then teaching children that we are equal? If the worst that happens is
bigotry has to be taught at home and church rather then the schools I can live
The bigotry of the majority of these comments is astounding. Truly
astounding.You all probably came home from your various churches
today and said "God bless our bigotry".Good luck on judgment
You're naive if you don't see that if same sex marriage becomes the
law of the land there will be far-reaching consequences. Legally it would mean
that homosexuality and heterosexuality are completely on par. There is no way
that kids could be taught anything other than that in school without facing
lawsuits. I don't want my kids to be part of that kind of social
experiment.There are many of us who have sincere compassion for gay
people and believe their wires got crossed through no fault of their own and
that there should be legal accommodations for gay couples who want to formalize
their union. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. But I will never go
along with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are purely a matter
of taste and that both are equally normal and healthy.
The church has been around for a long time, and is willing to risk its'
relevance in order to try to retain the authority it's had for thousands of
years based on 'god says so'. But that's not enough anymore.
@Pack;You're not just asking that we restrain our urges for ONE
PERSON only. You're asking that we remain alone forever. Those of us in
relationships do happen to restrain our urges to one person so, in effect,
we're just like you.@John C.C;Your "sky is
falling" scenario is all in your head.@VoR;The
Constitution does guarantee equal protection under the laws - even laws that
grant protections to couples (i.e., marriage). If you don't want same-sex
marriage, again, don't have one.
If civil unions (with Spouse 1 and Spouse 2) are inferior to marriage (groom and
bride), when gay marriage is legalized, what does the marriage certificate say
the day after? If it says Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 then it is civil union and the
effect of legalizing gay marriage has been to actually ban marriage. Same
gender unions have not been elevated, traditional marriage which fights
childhood poverty has been brought demoted, in fact, banned. How is that a
Where is the history in this article?
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As
the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of
world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what
he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology
department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions
that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in
which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of
homosexuality.When marriage loses its unique status, women and
children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships
or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as
the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a
The words of John Adams echo loudly in my mind, something about how our
Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is inadequate to
govern any other.Instead, we are saddled with a Federal Register that is
the size of a phone book each day as they attempt to govern us rather than let
us govern ourselves.And a Supreme Court forced to pass judgment on the
most inane of topics where common sense should prevail.Throw in the need
we seem to have to join some sort of protected class in order to get our perks
and we have the textbook definition of spiritual wickedness in high places.Evil has indeed become good.
The only recourse for those with a religious conviction about the Standard of
Jesus Christ is to be a better example and then to actually express that
conviction through the ballot box. Marraige is between a man and a woman. Any
member of the Mormon religion that expresses anything less than this has an
extreme misunderstanding of its doctrine. They are in actuality in open
rebellion against the very religion and person, ie. Jesus Christ,they claim
allegiance. Of course in this day and age, it is not surprising. Using the
cloak of Christianity to hide an obvious bias against God is only one method to
try and destroy His work!
Grover,State recognition is not a right. Michael Sandel, a Harvard
professor, well illustrates how the younger generations fail to accurately
address this.Which would you vote for? (SR=State Recognition)SR for traditional marriages onlySR extended to same-gender
couplesSR extended to all self-declared unions (self-marriage,
inter-species, etc)orThe state stays out of it all together.1) The existence of the last option absolutely 100% refutes the
possibility of SR being a right.2) "Equal protection of the
law" applies the same law, as written, to everyone. The written law does not
define marriage, leaving the states to decide this unless the U.S. constitution
is amended.3) "Equal" doesn't mean "redefine to
accept all possible definitions". If this were true the law would be purely
relative to every individual, destroying the function of law in the first place.
A doctrine of 100% legal tolerance is anarchy where no freedoms are
protected.---People may not like the U.S. constitution,
but its creators didn't seem to find the same rights in it as liberals do
today. Either amend or those of us who actually believe in this country will
defend our rights.
Pack: Sounds like you are as much for monogamy as you are against gay unions
being called marriage. If gays live monogamously with one partner, would that
change your mind? Heterosexuals have libertine members just as do homosexuals.
Give them all the rights of married people and then we can talk about what to
call it. For me what other people do is their business as long as they are
productive members of society and good neighbors. I take no special pleasure in
being called "married" rather than "paired" or
"committed". They should not ask me to embrace their lifestyle and I
have no need to ask them to behave as I would choose.
I agree Pack. But you've only scratched the service of this issue. 50
years ago our society embarked on another great social experiment -- no-fault
divorce -- that has had devastating and long-lasting effects on our society. If
we knew then what we know now about how easy divorce affected both adults and
children, would we be so eager to follow this incredibly inane course of action?
Now we are being asked to blindly accept another social experiment
without fully understanding all of the potential repercussions. Sorry, but it
doesn't work for me.
The first sign of trouble in modern society was disrespecting marriage and the
value of reserving intimate relations to within marriage only. I witnesses that
during the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960's. Soon thereafter came
the rejection of traditional gender roles. Attempting to legitimize same gender
relationships is only one more step down in an unsustainable, destructive cycle.
There are legitimate reasons for traditional families. We would only be
fooling ourselves by believing otherwise.
Even if a person has an attraction to the same gender, they have a choice as to
how to live with it. Most heterosexuals have been attracted to more than one
person of the opposite gender, but once again it is a choice on how they act on
those attractions. I am all for equal legal rights for all people, and that can
be accomplished with legislation without it being called marriage. Marriage is
between a man and a woman. This cannot be compared to a racial issue, because
race is not a choice, how to act out sexually is a choice.
Whatever the current condition of the political wind, the long-term direction is
fixed and inevitable. Gay people will not be looked on as "less than"
in the future, regardless of what the religious believe of them. Churches can
do what they want to protect their flocks and their ideologies. Individuals
will be protected from the religious beliefs of others in the end.
On no other dispute in recent history has public opinion swung so radically and
so quickly. Demographers say that on this one issue they see a rare age related
spread. The older the responder, the more strongly they oppose gay marriage. The
younger group see little problem with it whatsoever. There is a tipping point
at some time when the matter will have to be standardized for the nation since
we would have legal chaos if States did not recognize marriages performed in
other States. The Vatican historian could well be correct that
history is on the side of the church, but the reality is growing daily that the
majority of the population no longer supports their position. This appears to
soon be yet another matter of personal sexuality in which the church is losing
its ability to influence society not to mention its own members.