« Flying high, part II: The Electric Bugaloo | Main | For a Minute There, I Almost Felt Guilty »

Same Sex Marriages Cheapens the Institution?

Couldn't be


Comments (34)

Opposite-sex marriage cheap... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Opposite-sex marriage cheapens the institution?

Nah

Couldn't be

Never happen

No way

From the article:"Ha... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

From the article:
"Having convinced a majority of Canadian MP's that the 'ability to procreate' isn't a defining characteristic of 'marriage', tell me - -what's so damned special about 'love'?"

Does this mean a man with a vasectomy or woman with a hysterectomy shouldn't be able to get married, since they lack that all important characteristic? Look out Jay Tea; they're coming for you next.

Many years ago, Austin, TX ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Many years ago, Austin, TX went through a big push to afford people in "domestic partnerships" with a person that worked on the city's payroll to have the same benefits as married couples. All that was required was for the two people to file a document at the courthouse stating tht they were "partners" and it was official.

My initial thought was that there was nothing to stop any two people from claiming a "partnership" for the purpose of getting one of them added to the other's taxpayer-funded health insurance plan. This would not ahve applied just to gay couples but to straight couples as well.

Initially, the city council voted in favor of doing it. A citizens-led initiative brought it to a vote where it was soundly defeated.

The only way to write a law... (Below threshold)
Jake:

The only way to write a law allowing same sex marriage is to allow anyone to marry anyone else.

This is a solution to anyone worried about estate tax. The tax law allows transfer of estates to spouses tax-free.

A widow can marry her sons and daughters and thereby transfer her estate tax-free from generation to generation.

Sure mantis, the boat is si... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Sure mantis, the boat is sinking so you argue for more water.

Unfortunately for humanity,... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Unfortunately for humanity, just look at the decrepitude that results in failed reasoning when people go through life without religious context to religious relationships. Take away the principles, and you just have bodily functions.

I think it's clear where the homosexual population is focused -- no perception of the relationship of marriage as a sacrament defined by God in a religious context. First there were quickie marriages and divorces, then marriages of convenience, now marriages between whomever because of whatever.

I realize no one is compelled to elevate their consciousness to respect a higher order of reason, thinking and feeling, but marriage is a religious contextual plan, organized for human good. For most people even still today.

Accommodating the many possibilities of gender tweaks and context modification does not serve humanity well but, oh, does it ever service compulsion and impulse. Insects are motivated similarly, just for reference.

S"marriage is a re... (Below threshold)
Jake:

S

"marriage is a religious contextual plan, organized for human good".

True. But I would go further than that.

The marriage ethic was defined to be between a man and his wife 20,000 years ago. It was considered necessary for the propagation of humans and the nurturing and training of children to survive in the world. Later it was codified into religious and civil law because it was so important.

Will one of you lawyers tel... (Below threshold)
JAT0:

Will one of you lawyers tell me if this has opened loop holes in properity, estates, health care, and other comapany and government benefits. What's to stop someone from continuing to reap the benefits of marriage by continuously marrying?

Forget all the right or wrong reasons for same sex marriage, but it seems these two guys have found a pretty neat loop hole in the system.

*sigh*Like abusive... (Below threshold)
JimK:

*sigh*

Like abusive mariages don't cheapen the institution.

LIke staying married "for the sake of the children" doesn;t cheapen the institution.

Like the skyrocketing divorce rate doesn't cheapen the institution.

Like clown, klingon and star wars weddings don't cheapen the institution.

Call me when people REALLY care about cheapening the institution. If that was REALLY the issue, you'd have been railing against all the things that "cheapen" marriage since you first began posting at Wizbang. But alas, it's only the gays that will cheapen it. Funny how that works.

When marriage is no longer ... (Below threshold)

When marriage is no longer defined as a union between one member of each sex, why should it be limited to two partners? Where's the logic?

The logic now is that there are two sexes, therefore two partners.

Sorry JimK, Your l... (Below threshold)
JEW:

Sorry JimK,

Your logic doesn’t work. Just because one, or several things cheapen marriage does not make a good argument to add one more. As you noted many things cheapen marriage and we need to continually fight these things and elevate, not tear down the institution. And as for your statement:

Like staying married "for the sake of the children" doesn’t cheapen the institution.

I believe staying married for the sake of the children to be a good thing. I’ve worked with a lot of youth and cannot tell you how devastating divorce is for them. Their drug use is up, drop out rate is up and, anger is up just to mention a few. If adults really loved their kids they would find a way to get along. But alas I think that is too much to ask for in this “it’s all about ME” society!

JimKIndividuals wh... (Below threshold)

JimK

Individuals who fail the institution don't devalue it, only themselves.

What the two straight guys did was show the inadequacy and just plain boneheadedness of the "I have a right to marry whomever I love!" shtick.

Love relationships...or just a couple of schtup-buddies, are PRIVATE relationships. Marriage is a PUBLICLY defined institution.

Societies have little or no right to interfere in private relationships that have no demonstratable harm (consenting adults of any number and gender). Societies have a concurrent right to define and promote those public institutions that fall under the 'general welfare' value of government. There is no RIGHT to 'free' education, but we have instituted/promoted/even funded universal education through the public institution of government schools. Private schools and home schooling are tolerated but not promoted.

If same-sex couples want to be included in the institution of marriage they have to drop the "love" argument and start convincing their neighbors of the worth of allowing their participation.

IE, exactly where voucher advocates are at.

Marriage is conferred by so... (Below threshold)
John:

Marriage is conferred by society on to a couple. It tells others that these two are taken and don't interfere. It tells parents & relatives to concede the old boundaries around their family to the new boundaries forming around a new family.

All this special priviledge is conferred for one reason. To create an environment to raise children. Yes some people can't or don't have children. Back when marriage was invented. People who couldn't have children were pitied. Even a few decades ago people who chose not to have children pretend they were 'too busy' or they couldn't. Hell, what traditionally suppose to happen on the wedding night? And back when marriage was invented, what did that usually lead to?

We've mistaken the cerimony which focuses on the couple (primarily the wife) and have forgotten was the other 365 days * 50 years is suppose to be about. Family.

And make no mistake. Marriage has always been conferred by society. It has always involve officiators. They have been Priests, Judges, and even Ship's Captains. They are all high ranking members of our society. In many cases it gives people at large an opportunity to stop it, "speak now or forever...'.

Marriage has been abused. It doesn't need to be abused any further. Gay marriage disregards the two basic tennants of marriage, family & society. I can claim the latter because gay marriage has almost always (if not always) been voted down when given a chance.

Gay marriage further's the perception that marriage is fancy declaration of a couple going 'steady'. That's not what it has traditionally been about.

Uh, same-sex couples *can* ... (Below threshold)
Nicholas:

Uh, same-sex couples *can* have children. They can adopt. They can find a surrogate mother. They can find a sperm donor. They can raise them just fine.

In my experience, *serious* same-sex couples have at least as good a relationship as man/woman couples and probably on average better.

As has been pointed out many times, regular marriage can be abused just fine. It's not like allowing same-sex marriages will make it much worse.

There could be some kind of rules, like you have to wait a year between divorce and re-marrying to curb some of the potential abuses. Don't tell me man/woman couples don't marry for financial reasons, it's simply not true.

How about publishing photos of every couple married, nationally? That should stop anyone who isn't serious about it (unless they're fairly odd).

And what's with these people who seem to think that people choose to be gay? That being straight isn't due to some kind of "impulse"? Come on, are you that naive?

How comical when simple blo... (Below threshold)
McCain:

How comical when simple bloggers confuse religious marriage with civil marriage.

A few points here.... (Below threshold)
Hulabaloo:

A few points here.

1)
Jake did you make this up?

"The marriage ethic was defined to be between a man and his wife 20,000 years ago. It was considered necessary for the propagation of humans and the nurturing and training of children to survive in the world. Later it was codified into religious and civil law because it was so important."

I think you did, didn't you? Or are you really telling me there is a 20,000 year old document somewhere that outlines plans for the "propagation of humans", touches on the "training of children" and that defines marriage "to be between a man and his wife," that I don't know about?

Also I inferred that you mean marriage should be between one man and one woman. I think you'd be a bit off there though, if you think that's what was going on with marriages even a few thousand years ago.

2)
A question. Doesn't marriage have to be consummated to make it legally binding? Does the same go with same-sex marriage?

3)
I think the tax-break meme is ridiculous. This is a non-starter, we all know about sham marriages for immigration purposes etc. and that although it udoubtedly occurs, and steps are taken to avoid it, it really isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

4)
Another question, though aimed only at the anti-gay marriage peeps this time. Please, in simple clear terms detail the direct, tangible threat that a gay marriage poses to you/your marriage. I really, honestly, have never understood what people mean by that.

Excerpt from <a href="http:... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Excerpt from The 1972 Gay Rights Platform

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

And the line just before that:

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

And just in case anyone thinks that this is an old, abandoned platform, it was reinforced by the 1993 GLBT March on Washington platform:

3. We demand legislation to prevent discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered people in the areas of family diversity, custody, adoption and foster care and that the definition of family includes the full diversity of all family structures.

The recognition and legal protection of whole range of family structures.
[snip]
Recognition of domestic partnerships.
Legalization of same sex marriages.

1. We demand passage of a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender civil rights bill and an end to discrimination by state and federal governments including the military; repeal of all sodomy laws and others laws that criminalize private sexual expression between consenting adults.
[snip]
Repeal of laws prohibiting sodomy, cross-gender expression (dress codes) or
non-coercive sexual behavior between consenting adults.

[snip]
Passage and implementation of graduated age-of-consent laws.


As soon as every single major gay support organization denounces the age-of-consent and "diversely structured" (more like non-structured) marriage provisions in these two platforms, I might agree with them on gay marriage.

That day will never come, because the gay marriage movement has nothing to do with love. If it did, then there would be no need to push such a thing through judicial channels; gays would live together in big enough numbers to passively convince the rest of society to vote it in through legislative means. You know, democracy in action.

Marriage is about love and ... (Below threshold)
Adam and Steve:

Marriage is about love and commitment. It's about cherishing your spouse and looking after them for better or for worse in sickness and in health. It is not about putting a sheet over your wife with a hole in it and only "making whoopee" for the purposes of procreating -- as the Bible demands.

And let's keep in mind that this is about two heterosexuals who want to get married. There are no homosexuals involved in this sham marriage. Heterosexuals made a mockery of marriage before gays were allowed to marry and they continue to do so.

Is it the fault of homosexuals that heterosexuals continue to demean the sanctity of marriage? Try thinking this one through on your own and don't look up the answer at the back of the Bible. God gave you a brain and a heart. Start using them for a change and stop blaming others for your own shortcomings.

Adam and Steve wrote:</b... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Adam and Steve wrote:
It is not about putting a sheet over your wife with a hole in it and only "making whoopee" for the purposes of procreating -- as the Bible demands.

Ah, the usual theophobic ignorance on display. Give the book, chapter, and verse where you've read this.
Here's another good one: we Jews put the blood of little goyim children into our Purim pastries. Oh, and how about the one where we have horns on our heads put there by the Devil, which is why we need to cover our heads with scarves and hats?

Just quote something from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and be done with it already.

Hulabaloo wrote:<br ... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Hulabaloo wrote:
4) Another question, though aimed only at the anti-gay marriage peeps this time. Please, in simple clear terms detail the direct, tangible threat that a gay marriage poses to you/your marriage. I really, honestly, have never understood what people mean by that.

This question is based upon the false premise that for something to be wrong, it must affect you directly.

Your question was the same argument used to introduce no-fault divorce, which has proven very detrimental to the institution of marriage and the family structure. Proponents hammered opponents by asking "so what if some couples want to get divorced, that doesn't affect your marriage." The reply was then as it is now: no, it doesn't necessarily affect a particular marriage if both partners completely ignore the new provision. But if it must be ignored to keep marriage strong, then obviously the converse is true too - marriage is weakened by its existence.

So something can be wrong, even if it doesn't affect you directly.

Do you support incestuous marriages? If not, why not? You could apply your question to that same issue - if it's not harming your marriage, why not allow it? Incestuous couples love each other, and who are you to deny them to express their love in the deepest fashion possible in our society - marriage?

Sue, nobody mentioned Jews,... (Below threshold)
Adam and Steve:

Sue, nobody mentioned Jews, children's blood or horns on your head. You're a touchy one, aren't you? Problematic childhood?

The issue at hand is the marriage of two heterosexual men. Are you for it, against it or do you even care? Given that some 50% of heterosexuals can't marry responsibly, should they then be denied access to marriage?

I'm talking here of civil marriage, not some fantasy, la-la-land interpretation of marriage. I'm talking about the kind of marriage associated with a marriage license. So, please, focus on the discussion and don't give me any more arguments relating to the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.

Sue said: This qu... (Below threshold)
Adam and Steve:

Sue said: This question is based upon the false premise that for something to be wrong, it must affect you directly.

Sue, Hulabaloo never asked what you thought about marriage equality for homosexuals. He wasn't interested in your biased opinion. Besides, it's common knowledge that religious fundamentalists and social conservatives don't approve of same-sex marriage.

The question that was asked was: Please, in simple clear terms detail the direct, tangible threat that a gay marriage poses to you/your marriage?

Clearly, my marriage to my husband has no effect on your marriage. The failed marriages of some 50% of heterosexuals have no effect on your marriage. Even the centuries long heterosexual traditions of polygamy and incestuous marriage have no effect on your marriage.

You are responsible for your own marriage and you cannot blame others for your marital woes. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions.

Personally, I'm confident in the love my husband and I have for each other. We will overcome our challenges as they arise. I don't believe that the sham marriage of two heterosexual men will undermine the sanctity of my traditional gay marriage.

Adam and Steve wrote:</b... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Adam and Steve wrote:
I don't believe that the sham marriage of two heterosexual men will undermine the sanctity of my traditional gay marriage.

Of course you don't, because you don't know the definition of the word "sanctity."

So you have no problems with incestuous marriage then? How about a marriage like Mohammed had, between an adult man and a nine year old girl? Is that okay with you? Neither of these harm the "sanctity" of your marriage.

If you don't have a problem with these examples, you have a consistent worldview at least.

If you do, then you have not totally divested yourself of those nasty, backward religious beliefs you so heartily and hastily ridicule.

One part I do agree with you on: when government gets involved in anything (in this case making marriage a civil institution,) it screws it all to hell. That's why we have all of the woeful heterosexual abuses of marriage listed by other posters above. Weak, selfish behavior leads to weak, short, and painful relationships.

Problematic childhood?

Tell us about your father.

Sue writes: Of co... (Below threshold)
Adam and Steve:

Sue writes: Of course you don't, because you don't know the definition of the word "sanctity."

Sue, given your intolerance and religious bias you are in no position to judge the sanctity of anyone else's marriage.

Sue writes: So you have no problems with incestuous marriage then?

I have a big problem with incestuous marriage which has been so common throughout the history of heterosexual marriage.

Do you have a problem with literacy and reading what people actually write?

Sue writes: How about a marriage like Mohammed had, between an adult man and a nine year old girl? Is that okay with you? Neither of these harm the "sanctity" of your marriage.

Mohammed's marriage to a nine year old has no effect on my marriage. It is sad, though, that this type of heterosexual marriage is condoned by his religion and will be sanctified by an imam or mullah in a mosque.

Sue writes: One part I do agree with you on: when government gets involved in anything (in this case making marriage a civil institution,) it screws it all to hell. That's why we have all of the woeful heterosexual abuses of marriage listed by other posters above. Weak, selfish behavior leads to weak, short, and painful relationships.

What if you had a husband that abused you daily? Would you commit a sin and divorce him? Or would you swallow it so as to preserve the "sanctity" of your marriage?

First it was the homosexuals that you blamed for harming the so-called sanctity of your marriage, then it was incestuous relationships, then it was Mohammed and his child bride, and now it's the government. Do you yourself bear no responsibility for the sanctity of your own marriage?

Adam and Steve wrote:</b... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Adam and Steve wrote:
Do you yourself bear no responsibility for the sanctity of your own marriage?

No, I don't. I do bear half of the responsibility for the strength and completeness of my marriage, but not its sanctity.

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what that word means.
If you do not believe that anything is holy, then you do not believe in the sanctity of anything.

I have a big problem with incestuous marriage which has been so common throughout the history of heterosexual marriage.

No it hasn't, especially since Greco-Roman times. Not only do you not know the Bible, you don't know common Western history either.

Explain your problem with incestuous marriage.

It obviously can't be based on religious grounds, since you're too smart to be religious. Or are you? Maybe you haven't been smart enough to shed all vestiges of backward, antiquated, and dogmatic modes of thought.

It can't be based on the grounds of affecting your marriage, since you're using that criteria to hound me about my position on marriage. If it were your basis, you'd be mighty hypocritical.

So what is your problem with it? Because some small portion of heterosexuals did it back in antiquity? Do you harbor that much hatred of other sexual orientations?

Mohammed's marriage to a nine year old has no effect on my marriage. It is sad, though, that this type of heterosexual marriage is condoned by his religion and will be sanctified by an imam or mullah in a mosque.

Why is it sad? Do you not approve of this type of marriage? What's wrong with it?

I'll admit I don't know if that sort of marriage is common in the Middle East. It wouldn't matter anyway, since we are not talking about laws there, we're talking about laws here. As far as I know, it is illegal in all 50 states of the U.S. to marry a nine year old child, no matter what your religion is. So much for separation of church and state, yes?

As soon as your marriage is legal in all 50 states, then that will open the door for the incestuous, polygamous, and pedophilic kinds as well. And if you don't want those, then tough - you will have already eroded any base upon which to outlaw them.

Sue, I don't follow you her... (Below threshold)
Hulabaloo:

Sue, I don't follow you here, I think you are mixing two points and not really addressing my question.

I asked the question becuase I have heard this mantra of gay marriage threatening "marriage" repeated on and on but never heard exactly how this damage to marriage would manifest itself. You don't address this. Furthermore I understood it to mean that this (the threat of gay marraige) would directly impact people's (yours, mine, my neighbours...) marriages, not the ethereal concept of marriage. If it simply a matter of this redfinition of what "marriage" as a concept means (civil union, religous or what have you) then surely this is simply semantics. To be flippant for a moment, I think it's a shame you can't use the word 'queer' to mean 'odd' anymore without other connotations, though I'd stop short of a constitutional amendment to remedy that. To return to seriousness country, the institution of marriage has meant many things over the centuries and many of them differ with your (and my) understsanding of it today. Social structures, such as this, evolve and that is the way of things.


Now the other point you raise is the old slippery slope idea. If this now, then where will it stop? It seems obvious to me, and I think most people, why peadophillic and incestous marriages are very different cases than consensual adult homosexual realtionships. I think there is a clear line that can be drawn in the sand there, after all it has been done with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws. Yes, people on the religous right said that by repealing sodomy laws we would open up the flood gates to bestaility and other abhorrent sexual acts. Howver I don't think this is the case, nor do I think that iti will be the case in the future. I think public opinion (and in adeocracy this really should be the ultiimate arbiter of what is acceptable) says that homosexual acts between two consenting adults is acceptable, while perversions such as bestiality or paedophilia are wholly unacceptable. I think we can be reasonably confident that this will remain the overwhemlming public opinion for sometime. If in the future, two thirds of Americans think doing the nasty with dogs is ok, then it might be time again to change things. (That is not meant ot be taken entirely seriously) Moreover, incest and paedophilia have very negative potential effects on the health of one or more of the people involved in the marraige (or in the case of incest igonoring phycological harm, the health of any offspring).

So to return to my question, and rephrase it, why do you think (without resorting to slippery slope theory) gay couples having equal rights with hetrosexual couples will damage marriage(s)?

I asked the question bec... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

I asked the question becuase I have heard this mantra of gay marriage threatening "marriage" repeated on and on but never heard exactly how this damage to marriage would manifest itself. You don't address this.

I have given you your answer in my first reply to you, Hulabaloo. I will restate it in simpler terms.

Legalizing gay marriage does not affect my marriage.

The argument that gay marriage should be legalized because it does not affect an individual heterosexual marriage is a non-sequiter. It is just as silly as arguing that we should legalize cannibalism because it doesn't affect your particular eating choices. Shouldn't people have the right to eat what they want?

Furthermore I understood it to mean that this (the threat of gay marraige) would directly impact people's (yours, mine, my neighbours...) marriages, not the ethereal concept of marriage.

If the institution of marriage is so ethereal, then why are homosexuals demanding that it be redefined for them?

If it simply a matter of this redfinition of what "marriage" as a concept means (civil union, religous or what have you) then surely this is simply semantics.

Words mean things. Otherwise, civil unions would be enough for homosexual couples, wouldn't they? But they're not. The union must be labeled "marriage" or it's just not good enough for the activists. If it's just semantics, why worry about what it's called? If someone gave you a brand new red Ferrari but told you had to call it a Chevrolet, would you give the keys back?

To return to seriousness country, the institution of marriage has meant many things over the centuries and many of them differ with your (and my) understsanding of it today. Social structures, such as this, evolve and that is the way of things.

The "way of things" is not necessarily good. There has not been any relationship better for human societies than heterosexual, monogamous marriage. It provides things well that other relationship variants (in and of themselves) either provide poorly or not at all.
Considering their comparative effects, one could argue that the other variants are not evolution, but devolution.

Now the other point you raise is the old slippery slope idea. If this now, then where will it stop? It seems obvious to me, and I think most people, why peadophillic and incestous marriages are very different cases than consensual adult homosexual realtionships.

How is it obvious to you? Incestuous marriages can qualify as consensual adult relationships if both partners are 18 or over.

If we legalize homosexual marriage, then a father and son or mother and daughter can marry, thus eliminating one of the main non-religious arguments for incestuous marriage, that being genetically defective offspring.

And if we follow the path laid out by activist homosexual groups, "consenting adults" could mean a child of nine years old and an old man.

The argument for a slippery slope is valid when the construction crew building it keeps showing you the blueprints for it.

I think public opinion (and in adeocracy this really should be the ultiimate arbiter of what is acceptable) says that homosexual acts between two consenting adults is acceptable, while perversions such as bestiality or paedophilia are wholly unacceptable. I think we can be reasonably confident that this will remain the overwhemlming public opinion for sometime.

Why do you consider pedophilia a perversion? Because public opinion says it is? Public opinion said homosexuality was a perversion up until thirty or so years ago. The public can be swayed by slick propaganda campaigns. Morality based on such a thing can be very easily manipulated, as Goebbels well knew.

Moreover, incest and paedophilia have very negative potential effects on the health of one or more of the people involved in the marraige (or in the case of incest igonoring phycological harm, the health of any offspring).

Science says you are incorrect. Who are you to dispute science? You haven't been talking to those religious nuts again, have you?

Morality based on such a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Morality based on such a thing can be very easily manipulated, as Goebbels well knew.

Umm, equating the gradual acceptance of homosexuals in society with Nazi propaganda? Godwin calling...

Oh Sue. Where to start? </... (Below threshold)
Hulabaloo:

Oh Sue. Where to start?

I'm glad we can agree that your marriage (or any other for that matter) wouldn't be affected by legalizing gay marriage. So I have to assume that you mean that the concept of marriage (ethereal or if you prefer metaphysical, whatever, not AN actual marriage) would be damaged. I'll ask again, how so? What form would this damage take?

Words mean things. Otherwise, civil unions would be enough for homosexual couples, wouldn't they? But they're not.

Who are THEY? The bogeymen? No, no it doesn’t matter really, let’s just move on from that. I think civil unions are a perfectly reasonable idea, and one that I think most gay and straight people would happily embrace. Essentially what homosexuals are asking for is equality in the eyes of the law when it comes to property rights, hospital visitation rights and so forth, not so much to ask is it? Now maybe I don't understand the difference between civil unions and, say, a civil marriage. As far as I can tell you would be perfectly happy with civil unions, just as long as nobody called it marriage. Is that about right?


And if we follow the path laid out by activist homosexual groups, "consenting adults" could mean a child of nine years old and an old man.

Not if the age of consent remains at 18. A separate issue and one that is so ridiculous I’ll not say more on it.

Incestuous sex and pedophilia are perversions. Homosexuality is not.

I think most people would agree with those two statements and I think those opinions would be reasonably impervious to the ‘devolution’ that you worry about. Let me try to explain why I think this.

They are considered perversions because the vast majority of people are aware of how damaging they can be to offspring (incest) and the minors (pedophilia) and because they cross deeply ingrained and long held social norms. On the contrary most people tolerate homosexuality first and foremost, because of experience. They know homosexuals; after all they are all over the place. Most people realize they are not evil or strange or scary, but nice, ordinary (in many cases God-fearing) folk. My point is that there is a very clear difference between these perversions and homosexuality. In fact I think conflating the two is rather offensive. It’s like saying all religious people are terrorists in the making. After all it is just a small step from faith to fundamentalism and from there to blowing up an abortion clinic or an underground train. Offensive, eh? Yes, I agree, so watch what you say.


Science says you are incorrect. Who are you to dispute science? You haven't been talking to those religious nuts again, have you?

You know what I think of that paper you linked? Piffle. I disagree with them entirely, I'm sure you do to, that’s why you linked it right? Who am I to disagree with science? Well, I am a scientist (I'm about to finish my PhD in Biochemistry) and my 5 years of scientific training has taught me to spot this sort rubbish, pseudoscience a mile off. Indeed my training has also taught me that I’m compelled to voice my opinion when I see this sort of tripe being published. That’s how science works you see, by dissent and discussion – sort of like democracy. Often bad science gets into good journals, homeopathy is the best example I know, but just one paper (or even a handful) doesn’t mean that it’s set in stone. Science relies on consensus, and on matters like this the jury is still out, though I'd wager the majority opinion is on your (and my) side, not with these quacks.


I’m afraid you argue so vociferously on this whole subject because deep down you are a homophobe, I sincerely hope you aren’t. In any case, invoking Goebbels and his slick propaganda against homosexuals is going too far. You see on this issue a homophobes and Goebbels would agree. Remember why people wore pink stars in the Lagers? Yes, that’s where intoleranceand bigotry lead enventually; to hatred, wickedness and worse.

Sue, I am child of God and ... (Below threshold)
Adam and Steve:

Sue, I am child of God and as such my homosexuality and my love for my husband are holy and possess sanctity. If this doesn't jive with your religious lifestyle or your fundamentalist agenda then that's your problem. I suggest you upgrade to a better religion.

And, for the record incestuous heterosexual marriages were commonplace well into the last century in Europe -- think royalty and if I'm not mistaken in the United States as well where first cousins were routinely married -- by priests, in churches no less. Along with polygamy, I might add. So please spare me the Greco-Roman malarkey.

As soon as your marriage is legal in all 50 states, then that will open the door for the incestuous, polygamous, and pedophilic kinds as well.

I beg your pardon, but incestuous, polygamous and pedophilic marriages have been common among heterosexuals for eons. Same sex marriage will have no effect on the sexual predilection of heterosexuals. Our marriages will not make heterosexuals any more perverted than they already are.

And if we follow the path laid out by activist homosexual groups, "consenting adults" could mean a child of nine years old and an old man.

There must be some misunderstanding. Pedophilic marriages are traditionally promoted by religions -- not homosexuals. Just ask the Prophet Mohammed. But I agree that religions should stop promoting these disgusting types of marriages.

Science says you are incorrect. Who are you to dispute science? You haven't been talking to those religious nuts again, have you?

That's patently false. Scientists have observed homosexuality in hundreds of species. It would seem that homosexuality predates humans and is part of Mother Nature's grand design. We are perfectly normal it's you religious conservatives who need to give your heads a good shake.

I am somone who has a homos... (Below threshold)

I am somone who has a homosexual orientation but believes that homosexual desires are a perversion. no, I am not ill, demented, or repressed. I live a joyful life, because I've found something better than sex or religion to fill my life. I am a living example that to live is Christ and to die is gain. I do not agree that gay marriage should be institude, not because it harms individual marriages, but because it makes homosexuality (a perversion) that much more acceptable to the government. it enables the government to call what I am writing right here as "hate speech", though that is ridiculous, because if I "hated" homosexuals, I would hate myself! :)

I do love reading all of you folks' opinions. I am not a lawyer or debater or scholar. just wanted to add my two cents and remind people that it is possible to be so in love with JESUS that these arguments are just trifles.

I also wanted to mention th... (Below threshold)
Mateo:

I also wanted to mention that though I believe homosexual sex is wrong, I don't believe it's wrong to have homosexual desires. even Jesus was tempted "in every way", so he obviously experienced homosexual temptation but overcame it with the power of God. that is where I stand - if homosexuals wanted to experience freedom from the bondage of homosexuality, they can turn to Christ, just as I have done, and live a much more fulfillin life (in my experience) than a life of conscience-bending/searing immoral behavior.

hm. I think this thread die... (Below threshold)
ARC:

hm. I think this thread died a long time ago, Mateo. like, four months ago.

yes, I know this thread is ... (Below threshold)

yes, I know this thread is over. but you never know if someone will stumble across it. like you. :)

Love,

matthew




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy