Search This Blog

Friday, February 24, 2006

"Gay Marriage", Christianity and the ACLU

Tim at Christ Matters was a participant in the lengthy and fascinating comment thread on "gay marriage" which is found here. He has been inspired to write his own excellent posting. Here is an excerpt:

"The heterosexual union of a man and a woman in monogamous marriage is the rightful context for procreation. When reproduction is severed from marriage, the society reaps the breakdown of both kinship and parental responsibility. Put most simply, even secular historians are aware that marriage is what explains why a father remains committed to the care of his own children. Societies that devalue marriage provide an automatic incentive for young males to act irresponsibly, fathering children without ever assuming responsibility as father."

Read the entire post here.

The original post on Radaractive, "Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous" is here in case you missed it. Between that thread and the one at Christ Matters there should be plenty of discussion to sink your teeth into.

At issue in the discussion was whether the 14th amendment guaranteed the "rights" of homosexuals to establish "gay marriage". I hold that it does not. Nevertheless I contend that if the 14th were to be applied to this issue and a rational reason to discriminate against homosexuals was required, it was obvious that a rational reason was at hand. Three of them, in fact:

"IF the current marriage laws are discriminatory (I don't believe that they are) there are nevertheless good reasons that this is so:

First: It is beneficial to society to encourage loving unions that produce and nurture offspring. - It requires extraordinary means for homosexual couples to bring children into the world and no matter what is said, a man and woman are both required. Homosexual unions tend not to produce children. When a society doesn't produce offspring it dies from the inside out.

(Side note: Watch what happens in China in one more generation. All these years of forcing couples to either have one or no children will result in a work force that reaches retirement age without enough younger workers to support them and keep the country productive.)

So, heterosexual marriage benefits society while a homosexual union does not. In fact, it is detrimental because it would decrease populations.

Second point. Homosexuality is generally considered an aberrant behavior. Nothing personal, but it is true. Note that early in the discussion, bostongaydad accused me of being a closet gay. Why? Because he knew I would associate shame with that. There remains a stigma on gay behavior in society. It is true (look it up!) that violence, drug use, and STD occurence is higher statistically among homosexuals (Yes, Tucker that is more because of the men than the women). For society to approve of homosexual relationships makes those relationships more likely to occur and therefore increases the likelihood of increased violence, drug use and STDs in the general population.

Third: Although some of you won't like this, the homosexual population is more likely to be involved in pedophilia. The Catholic Church has massive problems with this, as homosexual men found a refuge in "the cloth" and then preyed on young boys. It has happened in every good sized parish you can think of in this country and overseas as well."


STOPTHEACLU chimes in with point four: Once you allow begin to allow changes to marriage, almost anything goes - "Here in America there is a saying, which is

“As California goes, so goes the nation”

and the reason this saying has come about is because California has a long history of passing legislation that the rest of the country seems to follow. A scary thought since California is home to San Francisco and Berkeley, both hotbeds of non-sensical liberalism.

People that have stood against gay marriage have stated, among many other arguments against it, that first it will be gay marriage, then polygamy.

Well, perhaps the new saying should be

“As go the Dutch, so goes the world”

as the Dutch government has granted a civil union to a man and two women.

As Ric over at RTH so succinctly puts it,

“if two people love each other and want to have their commitment recognized through marriage, society has no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so, on what basis could you prevent adult siblings, parents and children or three of more persons from “marrying” each other.”


Read the whole post here, and also another related posting here.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a slippery slope.

23 comments:

radar said...

Okay, I posted this because I wanted interested parties to read Tim's post on the subject and to be basically sum up the direction that the comments thread went. I think I am through with this subject for a long, long time!!!

Juggling Mother said...

I'm guessing you don't want more discussion here then?

I have also posted about this somewhere, but missed your previous discussion:-(

radar said...

Mrs. A, I enjoy the discussions! I simply meant to say that I wasn't going to make any new posts on it for awhile. Between the other thread about four posts down and this one possibly there is enough grist for the mill, so to speak.

Kindly let 'er rip!

cranky old fart said...

To take your last point first.

About polygamy being the next logical step down your scary slippery slope if gays are allowed to wed.

Why would you oppose polygamy? It fits perfectly with your championing of heterosexual marriage based on procreational preference.

What better chance of lots of babies being produced in an atmosphere of kinship and parental responsibility than to spread the seed of one husband (rooster} among as many fertile wives (hens) as possible.

Your "procreation as justification" is the best argument for polygamy I've seen.

The other reasons given are just blather, IMHO. Gays are deviant etc. Your God made 'em that way, so I guess your God just has a weird sense of humor.

Besides, given your view, I should think getting 'em into monogamous committed relationships would be a big step forward, no?

radar said...

Polygamy has historically led to the abuse and/or exploitation of children and it is detrimental to women as well. There are remarkable problems in the State of Utah in the USA, where polygamy is illegal but is being praciced under the radar of the law. What happens is that women and children are "stealth married", placed on welfare rolls, and the older daughters become additional "stealth wives", not by government approval.

highboy said...

Cranky: I don't know if you read my article, but I never used procreation as the sole reason for keeping marriage between homosexuals. It is simply one of many reasons.

cranky says: The other reasons given are just blather, IMHO. Gays are deviant etc. Your God made 'em that way, so I guess your God just has a weird sense of humor.

If it is blather than regute it. If you are implying that homosexuals are born that way, I suggest you contact someone because you must have evidence that scientists don't. Other than the secrets you alone must possess, there is no evidence at all that homosexuals are born that way.

Juggling Mother said...

Ok, I'll let her rip:-)

The problem here IMO is purely one of semantics! Because Western countries have mostly evolved from Christian regimes, we do not differentiate between the religious & legal forms of marriage.

If you look at marriage as a religious ceremony, to procreate and legitimise sexual relations, then obviously there should not be gay marriages. Or marriages betwen couples who have no intention of bearing children. Or between non believers.

However, if you look at marriage as a civil partnership with contractual and legal obligations, demonstrating two peoples commitment & love, then obviously gay marriage is a s legitimate as any others.

I believe it is time to split the religious & legal aspects and have two seperate institutions.

Apart from anything else, it annoyed me that when I got married (even though it was a civil ceremony) I had to mouth a load of words that I absolutely did not believe in (in the UK, up to a couple of years ago, the legal requirement for a marriage was about half the C of E ceremony).

This belittles the religious form of marriage, and the civil form.

It should be possible to choose who you consider to be your next of kin for legal purposes, irrelevent of sexual orientation. A civil partnership is the obvious way to sort out all the legal implications of freedom of the individual to live life as they choose - provided it does not harm others, and that would include homosexuals, polygamists, atheists and anyone else.

radar said...

Mrs. A, a good civil partnership law could be the hero of the day. I agree, for in that case it avoids the pitfalls associated with changing what marriage is and also sex would be entirely irrelavent to a civil partnership. The stops the pedophiles and polygamists in their tracks and allows for the assignment of next of kin and so forth in a legal manner. I agree with you.

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

The problems you cite have more to do with the illegality of polygamy than the practice itself. Thing forced underground often create more problems than they solve. (i.e. abortion...oops, I can hear it now!)

Highboy,

You need to get out more. How many gay folks do you actually know? Yeah, it's a choice. I mean, who wouldn't want to be gay?!?!

highboy said...

I do not agree, because I argued on my site, it is not just polygamists, homosexuals, and atheists, its pedophiles and incest. To claim the 14th Amendment protects the rights of one sexual preference over the other is discrimination by "progressive" way of thinking, so to discriminate against pedophilia is equally discriminative. Especially when the movement is fighting to make more legal every day.

oriolebird38 said...

A few quick hits:

1: Can we please stop saying "well if we can't discriminate against gays, we can't discriminate against pedophiles either." I find it offensive to think that we're actually putting those two things in the same boat. If I'm just misrepresenting the arguement (and I hope that I am), well then ok. But there is a HUGE difference between homosexuality (which does not harm the parties involved) and pedophilia (which obviously does).

2: I don't really think a scientist is a good person to ask about the choice vs. non-choice of homosexuality. Is there any evidence that explicity states that gay people are choosing to be gay? To try to quantify love and attraction in a laboratory is folly. No scientist truly understands how those things work and they probably never will.

If homosexuality is purely a choice, how do you explain all the instances where people are gay, deny it, get married, but never actually change their orientation and end up getting a divorce. It would appear to me that if you had just chosen to be gay, you could easily choose to be not gay. And why would anyone choose to be gay anyway? I'm bisexual, and I never chose to be so. Furthermore, I would like to choose to not be. However, I haven't had much luck either way. So I think the arguement that orientation is a choice is absolutely absurd. If it really is a choice, then you yourself could become gay right now, correct? Go on, choose to become gay. Well, if I can't choose to be straight, I don't think you'll have much luck doing the opposite.

cranky old fart said...

To whom are are you speaking highboy, and about what?

oriolebird38 said...

And btw, I'm for a good civil partnership law also, because it does avoid a lot of problems radar addresses while still keeping our country non-discriminatory.

Donald9250 said...

Check out these Asian-on-white (Asian guys fucking white girls) porn sites.

www.asian-man.com
www.asianguyonwhitegirl.com
www.butteroncream.com
www.pinkcrave.com
www.bordello4am.com
www.phuckfumasters.com
Not yet online (www.asiansonblondes.com)
And god knows how many more.

highboy said...

Yes, we know that there is a big difference between homosexuality and pedophile behavior. One involves children and the other doesn't. That is the difference. However, if you think that there is not a movement that wants to de-sensatize pedophile behavior I suggest you do some research and come back later. Homosexuality was illegal until homosexuals started whining about their rights to sexual preference. Pedophiles will do the same thing, and as you can see, are very successful. If the court is willing to marry a mother to a 15 year old foster son, they are willing to decriminalize pedophile behavior. I have given ample evidence of this, those that advocate civil unions must now refute it.

Cranky: I know 7 homosexuals, and if you are implying that it is not a choice, prove it. Sarcasm doesn't prove your argument. Facts do. You seem to be lacking those.

highboy said...

To The Whole Gang: Um, is it me, or is there a comment with a bunch of links to porn sites on this post?

oriolebird38 said...

Yes, I've been fully briefed on the dangers of NAMBLA and their push to legalize pedophilia. But lets be realistic here, the possibilities of that happening are very far off. Can anyone actually give any proof that this movement is strong and on the verge of victory? If so, then I will retract. There is no way our current court system will allow this. For things to be decriminalized, there has to be legislation or a supreme court decision. Seeing as Congress is probably anti-pedophilia and so is the Supreme Court (could be wrong, of course), I think we're safe for now.

Highboy, how exactly does one "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice. Do you need me to isolate the "gay" gene? Or find the "gay" stem cell? My proof is in my own life and the lives of people I know. If you know 7 homosexuals, ask them why they chose to be gay, and tell them to choose to be straight. If you suceed in that, I will, again, retract.

I wish I had an answer to that porn site comment. But, for the record, I would just like to state that I support the rights of Asian male adults to like White female adults, and vice versa.

radar said...

unfortunately, I am off for the weekend with my wife and where I am I cannot use Blogger tools to remove the offending post. I get back Sunday afternoon and will try to get it done then.

Bill Garnett said...

Here is an argument that may sound odd at first, but the more I ponder it, the more intuitive it becomes.

Years ago with some time on my hands, working in Riyadh, I began a genealogical hobby and was proud of the approximately 500 individuals, back to Jamestown and before, that I had discovered. I had seen how, not just arithmetically, or geometrically, but exponentially do the cousins and grandparents and branches and twigs grow into a tree, that were it to be taken back twenty or so generations would have encompassed most of the then population of the then Europe. This may be the core unconscious draw to genealogy.

It is this realization of the connectedness we constantly deny. We stop at a traffic light and are indifferent to the “relatives” in the car next to us. Or we haven’t a clue as to our relative who lives a few inches away in the next-door apartment. Or the very distant cousin who is the annoying salesperson we dealt with recently. It is this realization on which I’d like to weave this rather odd but encompassing argument – the argument that, to have the civil right of civil marriage forever denied to homosexuals, is abhorrent to the reality that all gays are from families and that almost everyone has a homosexual in their family (in fact with the new UK government survey that showed six percent in their population, we can assume that there are tens of millions of homosexuals in our American population). And it is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with not just family values but with “Tradition American Family Values”, that we do not undervalue any American and certainly not any member of our family. As we are all family in the truest sense.

Our founders used no word or phase more forcibly, more courageously, more passionately – then they did the word “we” and the phrase “we the people”. We are one large family – or should be. And a family would not act to deny the civil right of a relative they loved. They would want that person to have as full a citizenship as they have. And they would want the protections and rights and responsibilities to be equally accessible.

Ergo, in the most fundamental of fundamental arguments, traditional family values should rule the day. Certainly it would not be family values that would lobby to amend a constitution in this land, the primary aim of which was to prevent two heterosexual lovers who wanted to get married from getting married - and to thus effectively promote sex outside of marriage.

A note to the religious right. You have yet to provide one reasonable argument to describe in any believability how amending our constitutions will bring about a favorable change in your lives. And you have yet to acknowledge any damage this action may bring upon tens of millions of your blood relatives – if not in blood, certainly in the blood of Christ.

highboy said...

Note to Bill: Seeing as how the Constitution does not describe marriagea as a civil right, it would not be an amendment to the Constitution. Actually, the relgious right would like the Constitution to stay the way it is, without adding "civil liberties" such as same sex marriage, abortion, etc.

oriolebird38 says:Can anyone actually give any proof that this movement is strong and on the verge of victory? If so, then I will retract

highboy says: Woman marries foster son Notice that she was not arrested for marrying a juvenile, but for marrying while still wed to someone else. The state had no problem marrying her to her juvenile son.

65 Year old man marries 15 year old girl. Notice in this one how they were acquitted of all charges. The marriage to a 15 year old girl still stands.

Woman marries dolphin Irrelevant to the discussion but I came across it and had to share it. Tell me if you chuckle, puke, or roll your eyes. Your reaction is important to me.

Teens 14 or older can get married in many states In mant states you'll see that parental consent is not always required, especially if one of the individuals is pregnant.

The marriage is upheld.

These cases are endless when one does research. But let's not stop there.

Judge gives pedophile 60 days Now admittedly he changed the sentence to a mere 3-10 years but only after weeks of media harassment and public outcry. But this is happening all over the country.

Millions wasted in sex offenders in Florida

On top of it all we can place the ACLU and NAMBLA, the 9th Circuit Court, and many other groups that are trying to de-sensitize the country to pedophile behavior. They claim the penalties are un-Constitutional, and a lot of states are opposing Jessica's Law, fighting tooth and nail to keep it from being passed.

So yes, the movement is going strong but is it on the verge of victory? No, because states are standing up like crazy lately fighting to pass Jessica's Law, fighting to outlaw abortion, and fighting to ban same sex marriage. Even states like Michigan. This country went from outlawing homosexuality to tolerance of pedophilia and even allowing kids to marry adults. You'd have to be wearing blinders to not see the slippery slope effect that holds this country when it comes to sexual behavior.

Despite the advantages gays already have they are looking to manufacture rights based on something that is not so readily identifiable or based on any scientific data. There has been no scientific discovery to prove the purely biological occurence of homosexuality. However, we do have such discoveries-like DNA and forensic science-to prove the sex and "race" of a person. We have found pieces of bones thousands of years old and have been able to attain, the age of the person, the sex of the person and even their ethnicity. No test has been developed to distinguish their sexual preference. [Note: In this article I will use the term sexual preference instead of the more misleading sexual orientation, since sexuality is fluid and can be modified.] To devise laws on something that is not innate and has the flexibility to change will inevitably cause chaos. How? Because a person can claim to be gay anytime it suits them to further themselves.

The Civil Rights movement was not fought so we could sleep with whomever we want without any consequence. It was fought to better the lives of true minorities, people who were denied educational opportunities, job advancements, who were disenfranchised. It was about creating fairness in housing, civic organizations and all segments of society, so that we could interact more positively with one another.


There has been no systematic abuse of homosexuals in this country, at least not on a governmental level, as with the others.
As such they are not entitled to special protection. Only the same protection every other citizen in this country is entitled to, no more, no less.

There is no 100% identifiable way to gauge who is gay and who isn't. If you fantasize about the same sex but don't act on it, are you gay? Do you have to stand before the Human Resource Department at a potential job interview and kiss, fondle or have sex with someone of the same sex in order to demonstrate your gayness? What is the criteria for being considered gay?

All laws discriminate and infringe on someone's right to act the way they wish. Why should this one be any different? Laws are not made to make people happy but run society in the most humane way possible. A way that promotes the greater good. True wthics, as we've talked about on my own website, are about duty and obligation, not making people happy, or ensuring everyone is treated exactly the same. That is not justice. If everyone is treated equally, then criminals of all sorts would have to enjoy the same freedoms innocent people do. You can claim that this is all a "slippery slope" argument but the evidence is right if front of our faces.

highboy said...

Check this out.

Juggling Mother said...

Highboy - some scary stories there I aree - but they highlight the problems of the US culture (particularly some states) rather than the point that gay marriage = loss of all sexual morals (which i think was you're argument)

Many European countries have had same sex partnerships & marriages for many years - it is a "constitutionsl" right under the European Declaration on human rights. Yet here in the uK (for example) we have MUCH stricter laws on age of consent; who, when, where & why you can get married, sexual activities and sexual abuse of all kinds.

For example it is quite definitely illegal for foster mother to marry her foster son whatever age he is, it is absolutley illegal for anyone to marry until they are 16 (18 without parental consent), it is illegal to marry anything other than a live human being:-), it is illegal to bring any of those into the country & continue to treat them as though you are married, it is illegal to force, coerce, bribe or blackmail someone into marriage/sex, it is possible to have your spouse arrested for rape etc etc etc

But we have gay marriages, openly gay polititions (and openly atheists ones) and very tight child abuse laws.

Personally I don't see the problem with polygamy - provided the other safeguards and procedures are in place, but the belief that acceptace of homosexual = the acceptance of every sexual act ever concieved is patently ridiculous.

highboy said...

It might be ridiculous in your country, but its not in mine, as you can plainly see. Frankly, what Europe does is not my concern. Fact is, the U.S. government condones heterosexual marriage, and the fact that the state will perform and recognize heterosexual marriage is evidence of that. There is nothing in OUR Constitution that says that the government HAS to condone same sex marriage, or any marriage. If it condones one over the other oh well. As I said, and did a fine job of illustrating I must say, is that the government can't condone all forms of sexual behavior, obviously. We on the religious right want them to recognize heterosexual marriage and no other. Same sex marriage advocates want the government to recognize heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage and no others. Both policies are discriminatory.

Mrs. Aginoth: You didn't find the race care amusing?