Search This Blog

Monday, February 20, 2006

Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous

There is a push in this country to legalize "gay marriage" and a push back to institute laws banning the same. What is the deal here?

Okay, first of all the phrase sounds a lot like "dry" water to me. There is no such animal. A marriage is a union between a male and a female. This has been the way of marriage for hundreds, indeed, thousands of years. The entire idea of a "gay marriage" sounds to me like a cat that barks or sweltering hot ice. It doesn't make any sense. The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured. Obviously a gay union won't be producing any children any time soon.

Yet it is a hot button item. Homosexuals are trying and in some cases succeeding in co-opting a heterosexual tradition and getting some measure of legal status. They claim it is a right that is being denied them.

Thomas Sowell rather eloquently argues to the contrary.

"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football."


Now I hear the voices rising in protest. "But without marriage, gays in committed relationships have no rights to visit each other in hospitals, have joint ownership of land and so on!" Not true, actually, for people have been entering into various partnerships since the beginning of recorded time. Nevertheless, there are other ways to address this issue.

Ramesh Ponnuru writes on this subject in the National Reviw Online. Concerning recent legislation proposed by Colorado state senator Shawn Mitchell:

"Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such."

In truth, such legislation would not please "gay marriage" advocates because they don't really want what they say they want. The issue is not really about getting married, it is about other agendas.

Agenda # One: Acquiring society's official imprimateur of respectability on homosexual relationships. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in this country but the majority of citizens still consider it an aberrant behavior. Making "gay marriage" legal goes a long way towards erasing the stigma of homosexual relationships.

Agenda # Two: Partner benefits. Many companies give medical coverage to spouses and children, but not to co-habiting couples. Homosexuals want a benefit not usually given to other co-habiting-but-not-married couples by having the option of marriage available to them.

Agenda # Three: Advance the cause of the continued breakdown of sexual mores in society.

To agenda one, I say that society has no interest in encouraging homosexuality. In a normal, free country we would neither shoot gays on sight nor pass them a marriage license. It is aberrant activity but if it is not prohibited by law then it becomes a choice left up to the people involved. Just don't come to the rest of us and ask us to tie a ribbon on it.

To agenda two, I say it is up to the individual company whether to offer "partner benefits" to people living together whether of opposite or same sex. Some companies do this already and some don't. A same sex couple can seek employment with a company that does, or seek to get the rules changed at that company. I don't believe that we should legislate on this issue either way. Let companies and their employees come to the decisions they prefer. Trust me, employees have a say, because a company needs to attract the right people (not talking about MacDonalds here, okay?) and the market or needs of a few key employees can drive this decision one way or the other.

Now to agenda three. I have been accused of setting up a "straw man" with this argument but I will argue strongly that I do not. I believe that much of the radical element of homosexual advocates seek to push the envelope farther than most people realize. Homosexual advocates, in association with the ACLU and NAMBLA, are seeking to change other laws.

Consider this exerpt from an article found at traditionalvalues.org:

"According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!

Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.

The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children."


The homosexual will argue on logical grounds that he is seeking to fulfill his sexual orientation. Then comes the pedophile asking for the same. This is an avowed goal of NAMBLA and also many in the homosexual advocacy movement. So then here comes the necrophile demanding the right to have sex with corpses and now comes the sado-masochist and so on. You say straw man, I say I see forces aligned in hopes of eliminating any restraint on sexuality in our society.

Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight published a 32-page paper on the linkage between the homosexual agenda and pedophilian which you can peruse here. It is not a matter of a bunch of conservatives running around yelling that "the sky is falling" but a recognition that evil is on the move and it has a plan.

Go ahead and reject the notion that "gay marriage" brings on the legalization of necrophilia. Fine, but it is a fact that advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to bring about pedophilia. One only has to go to the NAMBLA site and read what they say and keep in mind this is what they are willing to admit to the general public. I quote from the site:

"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -- David Thorstad

Sounds like a nightmare to me!

184 comments:

Middle_America said...

Wow. Very good, clear articulate post. Good Job!

Sam said...

Whether you ruffle feathers or not, you have expressed this in a very intelligent way. You are sure to really enrage some people, but I am not one of those people.

And you made the point about a protest that people would make, listed below:

'Now I hear the voices rising in protest. "But without marriage, gays in committed relationships have no rights to visit each other in hospitals, have joint ownership of land and so on!" '

To those who protest... how does the law physically stop gays from visiting one another in the hospital? How does the law prevent them from living together in their own place of choosing and live as if they were married?

You write some good stuff here. You are my kind of controversial!

Meg said...

"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have."

This is not true. Marriage is a right. Not only is it the right to bind yourself legal to another, but it creates rights concerning your spouse. Many of these rights concern rights upon death, illness, and divorce.

Meg said...

P.S. Thomas Sowell has no legal traning. He's an economist. I think this leaves him unqualified to discuss what a legal right is or isn't.

Meg said...

"Now to agenda three. I have been accused of setting up a "straw man" with this argument but I will argue strongly that I do not."

You didn't give one argument that this isn't a mis-characterization of the gay-marriage proponents. You simply quoted people who wanted to legalize youth sex and asserted that their support of gay marriage somehow shows that their view are shared by all/many proponents of gay marriage. Have you ever taken a logic class? If so, do a circle diagram and look at how big you can make the gay marriage circle and how small you can make the youth-sex circle.

radar said...

I'd say that Thomas Sowell has enough credentials to speak on such an issue. Economics includes any law that touches on it's scope. A short Sowell bio:

"Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.

Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif."

Meg said...

I read his bio. That's how I figure out he didn't have any legal training. Economics considers some law, but only law that is very economically relevant (e.g. trade laws). To give a legal opinion on what constitutes a right, a person should have at least some legal training in those areas of law.

radar said...

Meg says "To give a legal opinion on what constitutes a right, a person should have at least some legal training in those areas of law."

Previously Meg said "This is not true. Marriage is a right. Not only is it the right to bind yourself legal to another, but it creates rights concerning your spouse. Many of these rights concern rights upon death, illness, and divorce."

I take it that Meg has a law degree? Otherwise she would be uncomfortable posting on the issue?

Or is a black, conservative individual held to a higher standard? Just wondering....

Meg said...

I am graduating from law school in May. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a clue as to whether marriage was considered a right or not.

Of course I don't hold black conservatives to a higher standard. It's not nice of you to imply that I would.

Mark K. Sprengel said...

Meg

A law degree is not required to make a valid argument about law and rights. There are those with law degrees that would argue the same as Sowell anyway. I'm sure Robert Bork would be one.

All you have done is avoid the merits of the argument and resort to argumentum ad hominem, a fallacy.

Your first post concerning rights is mostly just assertion, without supporting argument and assumes that such is settled regarding marriage, when that is very much what is being debated. Circulus in demonstrando

Meg said...

It's not required, but I think it would help them make actual legal arguments.

If someone with legal credentials is making this argument, better to link to their argument not some economists. I've never read anything (besides this article) claiming that marriage isn't a right or gives no rights.

So that I'm not accused of making only personal attack and circular arguments, here are some rights given through marriage: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

radar said...

Meg,

I wanted to point out that Dr. Sowell is a minority because some try to make this issue a minority issue (as if homosexuals are a minority group rather than a behavior).

It is also true that I have found many on the "other side" of the fence who go on the attack against a Sowell, a Condi Rice or a J.C. Watts because they are persons of color who oppose liberals on most issues. Cartoons such as those picturing Rice as an "Aunt Jemima" type or a parrot perched on the President's shoulder are popular with the Democratic Underground folks.

Your response tells me I was wrong. I apologize. Your admonition to me in this area was correct.

radar said...

However, if you have never read anything that says marriage isn't a right, Meg, you don't get out much.

I am interested, where in the Constitution is marriage listed as a right?

cranky old fart said...

A Sowell, a Rice, a J.C. Watt, er, um, hold on, I know there's another one, hmm, what's his name again...? The list of black Republicans goes on and on doesn't it!

I know, I know. I'm exaggerating, but I couldn't resist.

Actually, you would be correct that many black leaders are against gay rights. Many are Baptists who view gays as being willfully sinful, etc. Many also see the issue as somehow diminishing their own struggle for equality.

(As an aside, I recently saw a half-page ad in my newspaper where J.C. Watt is hawking one of those "get free government money" seminars around the country. Kind of embarrassing if ya ask me. http://www.hillnews.com/thehill
/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage
/040705/watts.html)

Meg said...

I know some liberals can make racist arguments like that. It's not right.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, but homosexual sex is.

While there are constitutional cases that say that Marriage is a right protected by the Constitution, even if you disagree with those opinions, the Constitution isn't the only source of rights. There is
legislation in ever state that gives people the right to marry.

cranky old fart said...

As for your last comment. Gay rights come under the heading of equal rights. And that comes under the heading of the equal protection clause. 14th Amendment and all that.

radar said...

Cranky. I'll make a list of black individuals in the Bush cabinet and staff and you make one for the Clinton cabinet and staff.

Which list is bigger? ;-)

BostonGayDad said...

One has to wonder why a purportedly heterosexual man perseverates to such an extent on issues of gay civil rights. Indeed I find it quite peculiar and it is interesting how pervasive this phenomenon is. From legislators to clergy people to average everyday bloggers, what is the big deal to them? The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. It brings to mind the case of Lonnie Latham, (see below) a Southern Baptist pastor of a 1000+ member church in Tulsa, OK and executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention who was arrested for soliciting a winsomely handsome young (male) police officer for gay oral sex. The louder (or longer) they yell, the more suspicious I get.

From the Associated Press:

An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention, and an outspoken opponent of homosexuality, was arrested on Tuesday night (January 3, 2006) after propositioning a male police officer. Lonnie Latham, senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, was booked into Oklahoma County Jail Tuesday night on a misdemeanor charge of offering to engage in an act of lewdness, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker said. Latham was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.

Latham, who has spoken out repeatedly against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded, Becker said.

radar said...

bostongaydad..

This is hilarious! You are perhaps accusing me of being a closet homosexual because I post on the subject of gay marriage? The implications are what, that if I were shame on me? Huh? What a comment!!!!

If you bothered to actually read the posting, I gave three reasons why I was posting on the subject. None of them are because I am a "closet homosexual" and it gives me a big thrill to write stuff that would actually work against homosexuality. Wow.

radar said...

Meg, thanks for graciously accepting my apology. I should probably post on the subject soon. I am normally a gentleman who checks his words before speaking or writing.


Cranky, while you may apply the 14th amendment, what equal protection under the law provides for does not specifically include marriage, which is a religious custom that has become recognized by the law. That marriage has been defined as a man/woman relationship makes a homosexual trying to apply this amendment fall short. He or she may still marry someone of another sex whether they are avowed gays or not.

This is not about equal protection, it is about trying to change what marriage is and it is about a means to other and in my view more sinister ends.

Meg said...

Were you being sarcastic? I'm sorry, but it's hard to tell sometimes. I accept your apology. Thank you for making it.

The 14th Amendment applies to all rights, not just those in the Constitution. States give the right to marry and to freely choose your marriage partner, that right it denied to homosexuals; it’s a violation.

Meg said...

But even if it weren't a constitutional issue. We should all try to follow the golden rule and treat others like we would want to be treated. Radar think about how you would feel if heterosexual were the minority and homosexuals denied you the right to marry your beautiful wife. Would you feel that was fair? Would you feel sad that you were being discriminated against?

radar said...

No, Meg, I meant it.

We just disagree on the 14th amendment. Homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage and then shoehorn their way into the altered arrangement. Sorry, if they want to marry they can but it must be someone of the opposite sex because THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS!!!!

It is legal to hunt deer around here, in the correct season. Maybe I cannot stand my neighbor. I think I will go find a judge who will declare my neighbor a "deer" and then I will shoot and kill him.
Why not, I am deer hunting and that is perfectly legal!

You say, no, deer hunting is restricted to hunting ruminant mammals in the family Cervidae.

I say, no, marriage is restricted to joining male and female of the family homo sapiens.

Meg said...

Okay, but the 14th Amendment makes it illegal to restrict legal rights based on things like sexual orientation.

Marriage is a right (and the ability to choose who to marry is a right). We are restraining this right based on sexual orientation, hence the violation.

But I'm not as interested in 14th Amendment violations as I am on ideally what rights we should give minority groups. So, what do you think of my last post?

radar said...

Meg, if homosexuals were in the majority, they wouldn't be for long...there would be issues concerning offspring (heh heh).

Again, homosexuals are not prohibited from cohabiting. If there was no marriage, then my wife and I would simply live together. But that argument is backwards because marriage was designed for male and female. You know it and everyone else who argues this knows it.

You are arguing for change, not fairness. You want to alter what marriage is, not include groups that have been unfairly excluded.

Meg, you may have no other agenda but the "gay marriage" movement has an agenda. One of those agendas is to make all forms of sexual activity legal. "Gay marriage" is the first step.

Remember the story of the camel and the bedouin? The camel, on a cold night, begged until he was allowed to stick just his nose under the edge of the tent, and then begged until he was allowed to get his entire head within. In the morning, the bedouin found himself shivering in the cold and the camel had taken up the entire tent for himself.

I'm fighting right now, at nose level!

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

Do you see sinister forces everywhere? First it's in Ouija boards....

I understand your thinking though. Those old ladies up in Massachusetts getting hitched is a sure sign that Satan is on the loose!!!

(Sorry, just feeling silly today)

Meg said...

Radar, DO you think you would feel sad that your wife and you weren't able to get married?

radar said...

Are homosexuals a minority group???

If so, then people who prefer to drink fruit juice rather than coffee in the morning are a minority group.

People who enjoy singing in the shower are a minority group.

Rednecks are a minority group.

People who love opera are a minority group.

Meg said...

What about people who prefer to be Christians or Muslims? Do they deserve protection? The 14th Amendment says so.

Meg said...

Maybe I wasn't clear with my last post. To clairfy, I think it dangerous to get into choice discussions, beucasue religion is also a choice.

Simon Peter said...

Radar, sorry I'm late to the party. :-)

Meg, absolutely religion is a choice, but religion invented marriage, so why is it permissible for the government to co-opt it?

Why don't we just get rid of it? People were talking about it being an outdated institution back in the 70's and 80's. Lots of talk about "open relationships".

Meg said...

Well, I think getting rid of legal marriage would be an option to cure the equal-protection problems and the gold rule problems.

My point with choice comment is that arguing homosexuality doesn't deserve protections because homosexual sex (like all sex) is a choice, also leads to the conclusion that religion doesn't deserve protection, beucase religion is a choice.

Meg said...

P.S. Religion didn't invent marriage. Or if it did, it certainly wasn't Christianity. The Greeks and Egyptians got married before anyone had ever heard of God or Jesus.

Truthbearer said...

LOL, you actually believe this junk. Take some heterosexual aspirin, you prudish nitwit.

As for the ninnies who run round you in circles, praising this quasi-intellectualised notion of downright bigotry and amoral, prejudiced babble, you should all be ashamed.

Oooh, the gays are going to undermine the sancity and foundations of your marriages; give me a freakin' break.

If you lot had half as much self-assurance in yourselves as you do in the inhumane way you treat others, you wouldn't be ragging on innocent people.

'Ignorance' doesn't go anywhere near describing you ninnies.

Go get a life instead of bringing down others'.

highboy said...

"Do you see sinister forces everywhere?"

The problem is that you see none, except the "evil Republicans come to steal your liberties." Boo.

"Homosexuality isn't a choice"

In that case no sexual preference is a choice, including pedophile behavior. In which case, we have no right to prosecute someone for something that is out of their control. That is the point I think Radar is making, and since liberals want lighter and lighter sentences for child molestors I'd say its a good one.

"The 14th Amendment applies to all rights, not just those in the Constitution. States give the right to marry and to freely choose your marriage partner, that right it denied to homosexuals; it’s a violation."

Wrong. States are given power to govern themselves provided they pass the U.S. Constitutional test. Any rights the state provides have to pass the Bill of Rights. Those are the rights we have as citizens.

"But even if it weren't a constitutional issue. We should all try to follow the golden rule and treat others like we would want to be treated. Radar think about how you would feel if heterosexual were the minority and homosexuals denied you the right to marry your beautiful wife. Would you feel that was fair? Would you feel sad that you were being discriminated against?"

Not a valid argument. Its not about how we treat others its about changing what marriage is. Marriage has always been recognized to be betweena man and a woman, no matter how far back in civilization you look. Even in many governments that endorsed homosexual behavior, such as the Roman Empire, marriage was still strictly between a man and a woman. Period.

"Marriage is a right"

Marriage between a man and a woman, yes, because that is what marriage is and always has been.

"beucasue religion is also a choice."

Which is something clearly specified in the Constitution. Same sex marriages are not marriages, therefore they are not protected under the Constitution. The definition of marriage has been changed to what it was to what gays want it to be. In any event, the "slippery slope" argument is certainly valid here, because now you have to protect the rights of EVERYONE to get married. Meaning, a 15 year old boy marrying a substitute teacher in Georgia must then have his "rights" to protection under the 14th amendment. It means that a mother has the right to marry her teenage foster son in Nevada. You can't protect one human's "right" to marry over another can you? The 14th amendment does not differentiate between age groups. This is the society we are degenerating too, because people want to try and make these disgusting practices appear normal. There is nothing natural about homosexuality. If it was natural, it wouldn't make millions of people all over the country so uncomfortable. If sex is just a straight-forward bodily function, than no one will mind if I take their teenage daughter out for the weekend will they?

radar said...

No, Meg, God instituted marriage before anyone heard of Egyptians or Greeks.

tucker said...

ok, ok radar...lets say for a moment that you are right...and i won't lie...i tend to agree with you...if marriage is what all the christians claim it to be: a union of a man and a woman under god - then so be it...homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry...and why the hell should they want to? so that they can have their relationship recognized by a god (be it a fallacious god who only exists in the minds of the desperate) who abhors them and sees their lifestyle as a sinful abomination? what we need to do is afford homosexual couples all of the rights that hetero couples gain through marriage but by some other means...excuse my ignorance on the matter of "the other means"...i just dont understand why homosexuals are so desperate to be recognised and accepted in churches and by various faiths when it is clear that they are not wanted...dont get me wrong...im as lesbian as they come but i can accept when im not wanted and it doesn't bother me in the least...im glad im not part of some asinine religion which dictates to me what i am allowed to think/believe/feel...gay people need to gain a bit of self respect and stop begging at the door of the very people who claim it a "sin" to be gay...

Simon Peter said...

Meg: Are you serious? Adam and Eve were the first married couple and while not a betting man, I suspect that they had heard of God.

The paragraph on getting rid of marriage was sarcasm, by the way. I hit send before I had chance to say that people need to make their minds up. First marriage is a boring strait-jacket, then suddenly it's of absolute importance to be allowed to get married. Please keep your story straight.

BostonGayDad said...

If the pump fits, radar... I am just pondering why so many of you straight guys post so virulently on the subject. Indeed there is a pattern of vitriolic rhetoric by all kinds of people who turn out to be closet cases. I most assuredly wasn't accusing you personally of anything. As to why you would post these nasty comments if you were a gay guy, gosh, I dunno. Why did Pastor Lonnie speak out as he did? Poor guy, he'd be a lot happier if he just came out and found himself a nice partner (we say husband in Massachusetts) to live his life with. If he wanted to serve God, he could always serve in the UCC, Episcopal, American Baptist, or Unitarian Universalist churches, to name a few.

BostonGayDad said...

You say gays want to legalize all forms of sexual activity? And you use NAMBLA as proof? That cracks me up. They are a scary group but you know and I know that NAMBLA is so far out on the fringe and such a miniscule representation within the gay community that the cops and the courts can continue to keep them in check as they have. Who cares what those loonies say in their speeches. What they want is illegal now and it will be illegal centuries from now. A significant number of those NAMBLA weirdoes are “straight” and married. It’s about dominance and control not sexual gratification regardless of what they say on their website.

BostonGayDad said...

You are fighting at nose level? Why why why are you fighting so hard? Do you believe that histrionic “end of western civilization” thing that Dr. Dobson blithers about? The only legitimate argument against equal rights for gays and lesbians is a religious argument. But it’s only legitimate within the confines of that disapproving religion. Like it or not, the US is a secular society. Civil marriage is a civil contract, not a religious contract. Hence even atheists can get married in a secular “proceeding”. Do you think there were any religious proclamations made during Brittney Spears’ first wedding ceremony? If you take religion out of the equation, you lose your “marriage was designed for a man and a woman” argument. This country prohibits gender bias and discrimination in its laws and its constitution. I will grant you, though, that in defining civil marriage laws and contracts, the State has a legitimate interest in creating an economically and emotionally stable environment in which to rear children. And two men or two women, or one man or one woman for that matter absolutely can provide that. If child rearing were the only purpose of marriage, both civil and religious marriage would exclude male-female couples with no intention or no ability to have (or adopt) children. I am blessed with four wonderful children all while living as an out gay man (not from a M-F marriage). If I ever find the man of my dreams I want to have the same 1000+ rights and responsibilities as any other married couple…and indeed for me it is about public recognition of my relationship as well as the rights and benefits. Equal marriage rights are equal treatment under the law, plain and simple. So let’s agree to disagree. I won’t try to change religious marriage if you won’t deny me the right to the same institutions granted to straight American citizens (with my MAN, not a woman).

BostonGayDad said...

This country was founded on a quest for religious freedom. And now I find myself being denied MY religious freedom. The minister of my mainline Protestant church is ready, willing, and able to marry me to another man. Our faith respects the right of all people to all the rights and benefits of American citizenship. I have the right to marry now because I live in Massachusetts, but this right could be taken away (though I doubt it will be). But of course any Massachusetts same-gender marriage is not granted federal recognition. I for one stand opposed to writing the first discriminatory language (toward members of a class or group of fully contributing citizens) into the federal or any state constitution.

Meg said...

I'm keeping my story strait. I never called marriage a strait-jacket.

When I refer to history, I leave out fairy-tales. That's why I didn't include Adam and Eve.

But that was a minor point. The major point(s) are that gay marriage seems not only to violate the 14th Amendment but also the golden rule, so let's stick to those two arguments.

P.S. Do you think that religion being a choice renders the "homosexual sex is a choice so let's not protect it" argument?

BostonGayDad said...

Meg,

I'm sorry they are taking so long to respond to you. I can hear their keyboards tappin furiously to what I just posted. I'm gonna sshut up now.

BGD

Meg said...

BostonGayDad, You are making some great points. I'm glad you are here :)

radar said...

"Fairy Tales"! Honestly, unbelievers! No ancient documents have been more carefully authenticated than the Old Testament scriptures. Adam and Eve are historical characters.

Boston, you sound like something else is bothering you. My post is pretty straight forward (pun intended). There are lots of loonies involved in pushing this "gay marriage" agenda and what they want is dangerous to society. I care about my country enough to get involved personally, politically and through this blog.

Tucker, I don't hate you. I don't dislike you. It isn't you personally who is not wanted, just homosexuality. That is a different issue. Thanks for the post!

Anyway, you are like a lot of homosexuals who don't even seek for a change in what marriage is because apparently you don't have any other agenda. God doesn't dominate me, I choose to try to live as He wants me to live.

Meg, not sure how you try to link "religion" and the 14th amendment specifically. What do you mean?

tucker said...

dominate: to have a commanding influence upon - what was that you were saying about god not dominating you but you trying to live as he wants you to???? interesting indeed...

radar said...

Tucker. God is the inventor of free choice. I choose to believe or not believe. I choose to accept Jesus or not. I choose to serve or not. I choose to obey or not. God always lets me, every day and every minute, choose what I will do. What is difficult about that to understand?

Meg said...

Well, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of all laws. Marriage and the ability tho choose a partner is created through law. Many states do not allow marrige to be equally applied to thoes who want to choose a same sex partner. So, not giving homosexuals the same rights to marry as heterosexuals is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Simon Peter said...

Meg: All sex outside of the biblical definition of marriage is fornication, even if it involves one man and one woman or any other modern day combination. I am pro-marriage and anti-fornication. Feel free to call me an "old fuddy duddy", I'll wear the label with pride. (Not that sort of pride, sheesh.)

If Adam and Eve are a fairy story, how come Cranky still can't come up with any evidence to disprove creation? [Off-topic flame wars are *so* much fun!]

BostonGayDad: Dude, you have just as much right to marry a woman of your choice, anywhere in the United States as I have. The fact that you don't want to is separate from your right to do so.

For me, the defense of marriage is because I love the biblical institution of marriage, not because I want to discriminate against anyone else.

The choice of homosexuality is your business. You don't like us telling you not be homosexual, so how come it's ok for you to say that you want in on the biblical institute of marriage?

Go and petition for some kind of government approved relationship, give it any label you like that isn't spelled "marriage" and be done with it.

radar said...

"Go and petition for some kind of government approved relationship, give it any label you like that isn't spelled "marriage" and be done with it."

Simon, exactly! If the proponents really don't have one or more of my three agendas at heart, they will simply do as you say.

tucker said...

right...so then dont use words like "serve" and "obey" if you are trying to tell me that religion and yours truly j.c. don't "dominate" your life...

Meg said...

Simon,

(1)
Crank doesn't have to prove a negative. You are trying to show a positive, therefor the burden in on you for proof. Didn't you take a logic class in college?

(2)
Don't give us that BS about letting people have civil unions after all those states passed laws banning them.

Simon Peter said...

Meg: [sarcasm]I realise that as an "almost" lawyer, you naturally know everything there is to ever know, but where is the text in the 14th ammendment that says anything about homosexuality?[/sarcasm]

Really. Assuming this site has the text correct, I don't see it. Perhaps it's in that special section where the words "church and state" can be found?

Meg said...

"deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The marriage law are laws.

radar said...

From Cornell law web site:

"The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html).

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate."


Meg, you can marry a man in any state in the union. Where does the above give you the right to change the definition of marriage and then try to apply it to the 14th amendment? Marriage has a rational basis and purpose that is beneficial to the state.

tucker said...

is it just me or are "church" arguments being used in an attempt to justify "state" issues? the seperation of church and state in the glorious u.s. of a is a farce and everybody knows it...

Meg said...

Your right. The 14th Amendment has a rational basis exception. What is the rationinal basis of keeping marriage between a man and a woman?

p.s. I have to run. I'll be back in an hour, so don't think I'm ignoring you.

tucker said...

please explain the rational basis and purpose...im very intersted to hear this...and for that matter explain how that pertains to whether or not gay marriage should be legal...

cranky old fart said...

Hi Simon,

Speaking of off topic flame wars, care to revisit the eternal damnation of 3-year-olds that you so heartily endorse, hmmm?

Simon Peter said...

Meg: Logic? I'm a computer programmer. I eat logic for breakfast. That said: I have no need to prove anything; I'm saved and heaven bound. Cranky is the one who keeps trying to tell me I'm wrong and yet never has any evidence.

If you can't have civil unions, then perhaps it's because your cause is not as popular as you like to suggest it is?

And you could always just live in old fashioned sin. All kinds of people do it. Have done for most of recorded history. It would be the more intellectually honest approach, rather than trying to hijack an existing institution.

radar said...

Yes, I will have to leave for awhile, too.

Separation of church and state IS a farce, true. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion, although I could argue that humanism has an argument for having become a state religion.

But anyway, Simon is so right. Be intellectually honest, live as you will and quit trying to change the institution of marriage. Call homosexual unions something else, establish your own "church" and have your own ceremony. Be done with it!

tucker said...

ok so whos left? simon, cranky, you still there?

tucker said...

cause i sure would like to visit the eternal damnation of 3 year olds? whats your view on the matter simon?

radar said...

I have it!

"Garriage"

Garriage is the union of a man and a man or a woman with a woman.

Homosexual world, I give you the solution. Go forth and fail to multiply! (attempt at humor)

No, really. Maybe if you think on it, Tucker is right. Why try to co-opt something from people you vehemtly disagree with anyway? Do your own, new thing.

Garriage. Consider the concept a free gift from me to you!

cranky old fart said...

Simon,

Speaking of the logic "you eat for breakfast"; why no answer to the simple puzzle I've posed regarding the dangers imposed by your scheme for damnation of 3-year-olds?

highboy said...

Truthbearer: So in other words, the fact that we excersise a belief that condems homosexuality, we are prejudice? You liberals are not nearly as tolerant as you claim to be.

"I leave out fairy-tales"

Prove the holocaust happened. If you can't, its a made up fairy tale.

Bostongayday: No one said that gays themselves want to legalize all forms of sexual behavior. Like most activists, they are only concerned about what directly effects them.

"The minister of my mainline Protestant church is ready, willing, and able to marry me to another man. Our faith respects the right of all people to all the rights and benefits of American citizenship."

Your faith is not based on the Bible, and your pastor has no business teaching from the Bible he is so obviously misinterpreting.

Meg: If the 14th Amendment protects our rights to choose a partner to marry than you will defend my rights to marry multiple wives, and reap the benefits that come from being married to each wife. Not a bad idea, if I had 3 kids to each of the 20 wives I wed I could claim 60 dependants plus earned income credit. Not a bad idea at all. You also would have to support my right to marry my neighbor's dog, and even a small child, as long as they consent.

To agree with Simon, gays have a right to marry another woman same as me.

cranky old fart said...

Tucker,

I gotta run, but ya gotta get Simon's take on burning the little tykes. It's beautiful man.

Be back shortly!

tucker said...

you do realise that polygamy is recognized in other countries? it is simply a cultural difference...marrying animals and or young children is somewhat different in my eyes to marrying a consenting adult human...
but (please note my sarcasm) i guess if we let people over the age of 18/19/21 drink and smoke then we had better legalize it for everyone...

tucker said...

condemned, burning 3 year olds included...

tucker said...

so if i live in some rural backwater and have never been "exposed" to the gospel i can basically live as i choose and god will forgive me?

Simon Peter said...

Cranky: I've given you answers before. God will judge everyone, taking everything into account. Exposure to the gospel message is one such factor. The behaviour of a child's parents (up to the age of moral majority) is another such factor. That you don't like my answer is not a reason to suggest that I have not answered.

Now, want to discuss abortion? As you are obviously such an enthusiast for the well-being of small children, perhaps you'd like to comment on the regular state authorised murder of the pre-born?

radar said...

Tucker, you actually help make my point!

Many of our laws are formulated for the good of society. We don't let children drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. We don't allow children to be sexually used by adults. We prohibit human-animal sex.

Once society prohibited homosexual behavior. It has been decided to decriminalize homosexuality. Homosexuals should be glad that they can now legally do what they do, not try to push the envelope. They are seeking to promote activities that are dangerous to society, dangerous to the country. A little more here, and a little more there...no! It has to stop HERE.

No one locks up Tucker for homosexual behavior and no one locks up Boston for adultery. You are not being discriminated against.

tucker said...

let me guess...you also think stem cell research is the work of the devil?

radar said...

Wow, big silence on abortion here, eh?

Before stem cells come up, what about abortion? That question is hanging out there...

tucker said...

i never claimed to be discriminated against...but please tell me - what is it about me having a relationship with another consenting female adult that is dangerous to society and the country? we have no intention of having children nor do we condone paedophilia, bestiality or the like...hell i dont even live in your country so i shouldnt even care about this issue...but seriously...what the hell is the problem?

tucker said...

we can get into abortion but i am a scientist at heart...i know without even beginning the discussion what my arguments are and what your retorts will be...also i am not from the u.s. and not familiar with the particulars of the abortion laws...

radar said...

Tucker, the rural backwater question?

First, God calls believers to go into every corner of the world and tell them about Christ. Members of my family have been missionaries and we financially support a few ourselves. I also talk to people about God when the discussion opens up and have done so with hundreds of people over the years. Believers have a responsibility to spread the Word, so to speak.

Second, each person has their own responsibility. "He hath put eternity in their hearts" the Bible says....everyone has a place in their heart that asks for God, I believe. Some people drown that voice out or ignore it.

Third, the very creation around us speaks of God. "The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork." I believe that anyone can see God within creation and seek Him for him-or-her self.

radar said...

Tucker asks "i never claimed to be discriminated against...but please tell me - what is it about me having a relationship with another consenting female adult that is dangerous to society and the country? we have no intention of having children nor do we condone paedophilia, bestiality or the like...hell i dont even live in your country so i shouldnt even care about this issue...but seriously...what the hell is the problem?"

So do it. No laws against it. That is your choice. Just don't attempt to call it "marriage" and no one is going to pay any attention.

radar said...

argh, I have to go when this is so interesting! Later, people! Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion...

highboy said...

Tucker: You're dodging my point. Will YOU defend my rights to marry a 6 year old? No, you wouldn't, especially if it was your child. But as long as the child consents, by your logic and interpretation of the law, my rights to choose her as a wife must be protected. Period. Same with animals and multiple wives. You are picking and choosing just like us heteros. Welcome aboard. As to your remarks regarding stem cell research: keep playing with it. I'd love to see how that backfires. While you're at it, see if they can't find a way to help gays procreate. Have fun passing that kidney stone.

"so if i live in some rural backwater and have never been "exposed" to the gospel i can basically live as i choose and god will forgive me?"

No. You will still end up cast out into outer darkness because the Bible clearly states that God will reveal Himself to all in some way, so that none have an excuse. If homosexuality is natural, than so is my desire to oppress it. If we are all just collections of instincts and bodily functions than I have no right to deny you the freedom to marry other gays, and you have no right to deny me the freedom marry the corpse of your dead grandma.

"no one locks up Boston for adultery"

They should. He broke a legal contract. There are actual cases in my home state of PA where the spouse pressed charges against their adulterous partner and won.

tucker said...

you have to give me a minute...so many things to reply to...

highboy said...

tucker: Where are you from? Canada? I'm a U.S. citizen but I go to school up here that is why I asked is all. I'm in New Brunswick.

tucker said...

so you are telling me that a remote tribe living off the coast of india who has not been in touch with the modern world for hundreds of years is supposed to feel an empty space in their heart for god to fill and through some divine communication with the heavenly being know that he/she must ask forgiveness for his/her sins and accept jesus?

tucker said...

im originally from canada but now living in south africa...

Simon Peter said...

Tucker: I think that Stem Cell Research is the work of mis-guided, morally lacking scientists. Contrary to some suggestions, there are *not* devils behind everything.

Everyone will be judged. Not being exposed to the gospel message will be a factor that is taken into account. So live carefully!

It's all very straight-forward really.

Simon Peter said...

Tucker: You can, and most likely will, live any way you please. We may not care for your lifestyle choice, but at the end of the day, it's *your* lifestyle choice.

Radar and I are saying that we object to using the word marriage to describe something that isn't marriage. Period. Full stop.

God invented marriage and as followers of God, we object to the concept being stretched beyond it's original intentions.

tucker said...

if you will allow me i would just like to ask an honest question (it is somewhat off topic)...please dont feel that i am attacking any of you...i have posed this question only to people of my like-mind and we just can't figure it out: as you may have noticed i am not a christian and am not as knowledgeable as i would like to be about the christian faith...what i want to know is how the many facets of christianity are justified? i said it before: if marriage is indeed a religious institution then it should not be changed just because gay people want to fit it...but how then is it justified that there are so many different takes on christianity? are the protestants right, or the catholics? the baptists or the methodists or the anglicans etc...surely if the word of god is so true and all encompassing, christianity should be composed of a very definite set of beliefs, values, morals and laws...why is it that so many christians feel that they can interpret the faith the way they like and in whatever they choose? how do you know what segment of christian society is actually right? every christian thinks he is right and i have yet to find 2 christians who can agree on all aspects of the bible and gods word...

tucker said...

highboy: in case you havent noticed i havent said anything regarding the law because i think its all a lot of mumbo jumbo full of loopholes and vapid arguments...but if your right to marry is protected then why isn't mine? surely you can see the difference between adults (be they monogamous or polygamous) and children/animals...i understand your argument but really...children and animals are protected because they are innocent and unable to make informed decisions...adults however are or should be fully aware of the implications of their decisions...

tucker said...

is anyone going to post anything? if not im going to bed...its 1am and i have to get up early...

cranky old fart said...

Simon,

The puzzle posed by your scheme is this:
3-year-old is judged by parent's acceptance/denial of the gospel. If they don't believe, baby burns. Cool

Next; Parents never exposed to the Gospel. 3-year-old will be judged on own merits, and presumably goes to heaven.

Given this scheme of yours, isn't a 3-year-old safer, eternity wise, if his parents are never exposed to the gospel?

tucker said...

why should my ultimate fate depend on who/what my parents were/are? that is absolutely ludicrous!!!! assuming i was under the age of moral majority...

Simon Peter said...

Cranky: How many times are you going to ignore my answers? Dude, get some remedial reading classes or something.

If a child dies before it reaches the age of moral majority, then it's parent's moral condition is taken into account when God decides it's final destination. It is not a "sure thing" that any such child is going to be sent to hell. That's just trying to stoke up the fire (pun intended).

After a child has reached the age of moral majority, their salvation is 100% based on them and them alone.

You attend a church, if you don't like the way that God runs the universe, then take it up with him.

tucker said...

oh and are there any honest answers to my honest question?

tucker said...

simon what would your answer be if i were brought up as a rasta or buddhist or muslim?

tucker said...

and happened to die in a terrible accident on the day that i should become of age to be part of the moral majority?

Simon Peter said...

Tucker: That's a great question and one that I don't have time to answer fully now.

The short version of the answer is that all denominations are man made. There is no concept of denomination in the bible.

Some denominations are caused by mankind trying to do things their way while others are caused when people try to get closer to God and reject unbiblical teachings of their parent denomination.

As for who's right? That's easy. The bible is right. Any denominal teaching that is contrary to the scripture is wrong.

Let's take the Catholic church's concept of purgatory as a simple example. The word purgatory is not in the bible. The concept of purgatory is not in the bible. Purgatory is, therefore, extra-biblical and wrong.

tucker said...

apologies...i am being sarcastic and somewhat pedantic...but only to prove a point...the rules for acceptance are so finicky and interpreted differently by almost every christian or at least every christian church or subgroup...surely god would have laid it out in clear, straightforward english...surely he wants his people to be aware of the prerequisites for entry into heaven...isnt is kind of perverted of him to leave it so open ended so all of you christians are left constantly wondering if you have done enough and fulfilled all the criteria?

highboy said...

tucker: You are refering to the hundreds of denominations out there. I understand the confusion. The fact is, while some obviously rip a page here and there out of the Bible, and others don't, the differences are not so much about who is right or wrong, at least its not suppose to be that way. God separates us into different groups to use as tools. For example: Baptists believe in eternal security, and so have a great understanding of God's grace. Wesleyan's do not believe in eternel security the way Baptists do, and emphasize holiness, and so have a great grasp on God's holiness. They are not SUPPOSE to be warring factions.

As for your other remarks, trust me I totally understand how ridiculous it would be to marry an animal or a child, BUT PEOPLE DO. At least they try, as the links I posted earlier clearly show. How about polygamy? Shouldn't I be able to marry as many women that will say yes if that is my wish?

Cranky: The scheme, as you call it, is not a scheme, its actually quite simple. Children not old enough to make a decision about Jesus are Heaven bound. They do not pay for the mistakes of their parents. Those old enough to make a choice have a responsibility to make that choice. Those that don't are left out. A 3 year old is not judged by his/her parents acceptance of the Gospel. Also, the Bible specifically says that Christ will not return until the Gospel has been preached to all nations.

Tucker: Where abouts in Canada are you from?

tucker said...

ok...i can accept that...thats the best answer i have gotten yet...

tucker said...

so then what about the old testament? sorry, once again excuse my ignorance...should that also be taken 'literally' ie: if its not in the bible its wrong so if it is in the bible its right?

Simon Peter said...

Tucker: My answer to you is the same no matter what your upbringing. God will judge you and all appropriate factors will be taken into account. See? Same answer.

tucker said...

given that you simon are correct and your interpretation of your religion is correct (which i tend to agree with) doesnt that mean that there are a lot of "christians" who are being mislead and deluded by ministries and denominations that are misinterpreting christianity and adding their own sub sections as they see fit? but again if god takes all things into consideration it shouldnt really matter because they have been misguided by someone in their faith whom they should be able to trust...

cranky old fart said...

Simon,

Just so I'm clear, since you won't answer the question directly, exposure to the gospel now has no bearing on the eternal damnation issue? It's all just dependent on the general "moral condition" of the parent?

Debbie said...

All this argumentation about the Constitution, religion and cival rights leaves out one undeniable point, homosexual practices are unhealthy. Germs don't care about your commitments, they just multiply in the best enviroments.

I live in Indiana. Doing some research for a letter I sent to my local paper, I looked at the IN health department web site; www.in.gov/isdh
They have mapped out by counties reported S.T.Is and HIV/AIDS. There is a break down of modes of transmission. The categories are: MSM (men who have sex with men), IUD (intravenous drug user), NR (not reported), Hetrosexual, and Mother to infant. The more populated the county the more over all reports. But no matter how many or how few reports there were, by far the largest category at least 90% of the cases were in the MSM group.

If one of my children or someone else I loved were in that lifestyle I would do whatever I could to get them out of it. You can't tell me that homosexuality is natural and a predisposition if it distroys the human body.
If we really love someone we would tell them the truth.

tucker said...

give me a break...homosexuality doesn't destroy the human body...unprotected sex with people who have std's/HIV and concomitant transmission of that disease and further proliferation of that disease destroys the human body...

tucker said...

what about transmission of std's/HIV between lesbian woman? got any stats on that?

tucker said...

i believe lesbian transmission statistics are far lower than that of you dirty heterosexuals and mothers....(please note sarcasm)

tucker said...

im diabetic...as far as i can see its pretty natural...its also destroying my body...should i be shut up and quarantined or rid of my sinister ways?

tucker said...

thanks for the entertainment everyone..i have to sleep now...

Meg said...

Radar,
This got super long. So I think I may have missed your rational basis answer. Did you have something for me?

radar said...

Meg, Marriage has a long history of being between a man and a woman. So it has precedent on its side.

Marriage between a man and a woman often produce children. Marriage has always been a way of preserving (if possible) a solid family unit, a family that stays together, is identified together, and nurtures children to adulthood.
There are holds placed on those who marry to help keep them together and much of that is for the sake of the children.

It is also sadly true that marriages break up. But it does require time, effort and legal proceedings to accomplish this and sometimes making it difficult convinces partners, especially parents, to keep working at the union.

Society benefits from stable family units that produce and nurture children. Homosexual unions cannot produce children, they are strictly a partnership between consenting adults. Society has no need to be concerned as to whether such a union will survive.

Meg said...

But there is no evidence that discriminating against homosexual marriage will affect the stability of these marriages. We need a rational basis to discriminate, not a rational basis to have marriage in the first place.

Debbie said...

Tucker,
From a strictly health perspective, there are no statistics on lesbians, just that the women most at rick for HIV/AIDS and SDIs are women who have frequent sexual contact with infected people, usually IUD or bisexual men or other women who have been infected in like manner. Taking all the morality out of it, unless women have internal contact with each other's anunes,(and not being intersted in that sort of thing and not being a lesbian)and I have no idea how frequently that occurs. The ordinary physical contact on a woman would not have any health effect. But the more sex partners the greater the risk for both sexes.

For males, the penis anus contact, whether it be with a male or a female is inherently dangerous because the human body was not designed to be used that way. It is the most efficient way for all kinds of germs to mingle cultivate and grow.

Safe sex is a myth. The best science can give us is the condom, if it worked perfectly to prevent pregnancy the pill with all it's various side effects would not be as popular as it is. Women put up with potential problems of the pill because it is more effective than a condom against pregnancy. The pill is not safe sex against STIs. A woman can only get pregnant a few days a month, she can get an STI any day. If condoms could prevent pregnancy 100% maybe they could prevent some STIs, but that would be hard to believe because a sperm is bigger than a germ and easier for a condom to stop. Condoms don't help very much for herpies, that can be spread by skin to skin, hands, mouth, unless you cover all exposed skin with latex (how romantic). HPV also can be spread the same way as herpies. HPV by the way is the virus that causes cervical cancer. If they could develop a test to screen for HPV most women wouldn't have to have a yearly pap smear.

The truth is, what ever you do has consequences, physically, mentally and spiritually. There are some things we can do to prevent some physical consequences, no anal sex, sex with only one partner, don't smoke, don't drink a lot of alcohol, don't take drugs not piscribed for you, don't over eat, if you have diabetes be more careful what you eat or drink and liston to your doctor.

The mental and the spiritual are linked with conscience. We all have a conscience that tells us right from wrong, we can harden that conscience so that what once use to bother us no longer does. That's why we have a spiritual nature that cries out to something beyond us because we all know deep down inside that we do not have all the answers and that we are unable to live up even to what our hardened consciences require. It is only when we reach out to God can we really understand ourselves and the consequences of our actions.

Jesus Christ, God and man in the flesh, was crucified and rose from the dead so that I, by believing in Him can be made spiritually alive and will one day also physically rise from the dead no more to be tormented by the consequences of my sins.

BostonGayDad said...

“Simon Says”: The choice of homosexuality is your business. You don't like us telling you not be homosexual, so how come it's ok for you to say that you want in on the biblical institute of marriage?

Simon, can’t you remember my post long enough to respond to what I wrote? I GIVE you your biblical institute(tion). I don’t want or need your biblical institution of marriage. We gay folk in Massachusetts aren’t asking disapproving clergy in disapproving churches to marry us and sign our marriage licenses. The civil contract will do just fine for me as long as it has each and every privilege, right, benefit, and yes, responsibility that marriage offers. I kinda like the term marriage and since it is the word used in the civil marriage contract (regardless of its biblical meaning) we’ll just stick with it for now. And goodness gracious Simon, if it ends up that we have to use a different word, say, ‘gayrriage’ or something like that I don’t really give a horse’s petutti…I will still refer to my spouse as my husband, and I will refer to our relationship as marriage. [Gosh, I still call our sports arena here in Boston the Boston Garden even though the sign on it says “TD BankNorth Garden”] But Simon….PALEEEEEZE don’t tell me this gargantuan effort you and radar are making to “save” marriage is really all about a word!! A WORD!!

BostonGayDad said...

HighBoy Says: Bostongaydad no one said that gays themselves want to legalize all forms of sexual behavior. Like most activists, they are only concerned about what directly ‘effects’ [affects] them.

Oh, but HighBoy – you haven’t read radar’s post (which post is what started the entire discussion) Radar did say it. It is officially labeled above as “Agenda #3”. Have a gander.


HighBoy says: Your faith is not based on the Bible, and your [pastor] has no business teaching from the Bible [he] is so obviously misinterpreting.

Re-read my post. I never said my faith was based on the Bible. My minister is a woman and she doesn’t teach from the Bible, or more accurately stated, she doesn’t teach that the Bible is anything more than a book of parables and an excellent example of ancient literature.

BostonGayDad said...

“Simon Says”: Now, want to discuss abortion? As you are obviously such an enthusiast for the well-being of small children, perhaps you'd like to comment on the regular state authorized murder of the pre-born?

Ooh, ooh, I’ll take this one. Have you noticed the correlation between the declining murder rates nationally since Roe v. Wade legalized a woman’s right to choose? I condemn people who would use abortion as “birth control” but if a woman knows that her, ahem, “pre-born” baby is not going to have all that a child needs to grow up to be a safe, healthy, and moral adult the best alternative is to have that child stay with God. Goodness knows that child’s soul will be reincarnated again some day anyway. And please don't tell me the woman should carry the baby and give it up for adoption. In Massachusetts alone there are over 2700 "post-born" children waiting for adoptive families. I have adopted one of them. Will you do the same? If every abortion clinic protester could come to the clinic with a lawyer and an adoption contract, they would prevent far more abortions than holding up their silly signs.

BostonGayDad said...

Radar says: …and no one locks up Boston for adultery.

Boston responds: Adultery????? Good grief, do you guys think I got my kids by having sex with a woman? Perish the thought. My 3 yo daughter and my 18 month old twins are my biological kids by alternative insemination. I swear, the doctor put the sperm in there, it wasn’t me. (Wait a minute…Is masturbation considered adultery?) My 12 year old son is adopted (2 yrs ago). He is my challenge (but also, I believe, my Purpose) He was physically and emotionally damaged by his heterosexual mother. When our department of social services became aware of him, he was crawling on a filthy floor with rat shit all over it, he had feces in his diaper that was bone dry – almost powder-like, he had a diaper rash that had evolved into a gaping wound (from above his penis to his belt line in the back) which has resulted in permanent scarring (disfigurement) he was malnourished to the point of having diseases that his doctor hadn’t seen since he went on a humanitarian mission to Biafra as a medical student in the late 60s. At the age of five he was unable to talk... Now at the age of 12 he has finally learned to read independently. But unfortunately he will always be compromised because he was so badly cared for during the most critical years of brain development. And his heterosexual dad you ask? Oh, he abandoned his child before he was even born. And you say gays are trashing marriage and the “traditional” family?? Sheesh!

a•dul•ter•y ( -d l t -r , -tr )
n. pl. a•dul•ter•ies
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.
adul•tery
Pronunciation: &-'d&l-t&-rE
Function: noun
: voluntary sexual activity (as sexual intercourse) between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : the crime of adultery —compare FORNICATION —adul•ter•er /&-'d&l-t&-r&r/ noun —adul•ter•ess /-t&-r&s/ noun
for•ni•ca•tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin fornicatio, from fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic- fornix arch, vault, brothel
: consensual sexual intercourse between a man and esp. single woman who are not married to each other; also : the crime of engaging in fornication —compare ADULTERY
NOTE: Where still considered a crime, fornication is classified as a misdemeanor.

BostonGayDad said...

radar says: Society benefits from stable family units that produce and nurture children. Homosexual unions cannot produce children, they are strictly a partnership between consenting adults. Society has no need to be concerned as to whether such a union will survive.

Rad, many of my friends are in same-gender marriages (don't for get I hail from Massachusetts) and those marriages have produced children that are just as human and just as worthy as and heterosexually conceived child and there for these families are just as much in need society's concern as any other family. Most of the children in gay families are kids who have been given a rare second chance after being utterly FAILED by their heterosexual parents.

BostonGayDad said...

Debbie claims: Women put up with potential problems of the pill because it is more effective than a condom against pregnancy.

Oh Debbie, you're so funny. Women put up with potential problems of the pill because straight men are pigs and they refuse to wear condoms.

highboy said...

bostongaydad: Your Pastor is not a good pastor, that is what I'm saying. The Bible is the word of God, and she has no business calling herself an evangelical pastor if she teaches otherwise. Get it now?

" many of my friends are in same-gender marriages (don't for get I hail from Massachusetts) and those marriages have produced children that are just as human and just as worthy as and heterosexually conceived child and there for these families are just as much in need society's concern as any other family"

Yes, they are just as worthy, and given the state of their guardians I'd say they are in more need of society's concern.

"Most of the children in gay families are kids who have been given a rare second chance after being utterly FAILED by their heterosexual parents."

Prove it. Picking out sob stories here and there like you did earlier isn't proof by the way. The last gay couple I've seen were doped up on Ecstasy and drinking themselves to death. See? I can do it too.

"Goodness knows that child’s soul will be reincarnated again some day anyway. And please don't tell me the woman should carry the baby and give it up for adoption. In Massachusetts alone there are over 2700 "post-born" children waiting for adoptive families. "

I won't take anything you say seriously now.

Tucker: Listen carefully, this may get a little muddled. The Old Testament is literal, and should be taken literally, but not by itself. We know Jesus is the Messiah because of the Old Testament prophecy He fulfilled some 700 years later. In regard to the 632 laws that I know your concerned about: don't be. Yes, they are literal, but when you read the Bible as a whole you will find that Jesus fulfilled the Law. For example: burnt offerings. It is no longer required that whenever we sin we offer a sacrifice to the Lord. Jesus was the sacrifice. No more penalty needs to be paid once we except that sacrifice. Other parts are cultural. Example: Tattoos. No tattoos. Why? Because in the Hebrew culture that distinguished the prostitutes from the common folk. Another example: It is no longer required that a brother of a dead husband marry the widow in order to keep the family line going. In the early years when God was trying to establish a nation land and descendants were important. Now we Christians are led by the Spirit. In other words, instead of trying to live by the Law that Jesus fulfilled, and checking it off like a laundry list, we have the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide us and teach us and give us the wisdom to make the right decisions.

Meg said...

ackackackackackack. So true GayDad. That really is why women take the pill.

Thank you for adopting those kids and giving them a loving home. It sounds like where they came from was just awful. I've done some volunteer work in social service offices and know firsthand that some heterosexuals can make atrocious parents.

radar said...

Boston - why do you guys even call it a church? No Bible, no God...?

Adopting children is awesome! If people gave up kids for adoption instead of aborting them, then the baby mills from overseas would be out of business and so would the baby-murderers. If only it were so....Boston, you deserve props for caring!

BostonGayDad said...

Radar postulates: Meg, Marriage has a long history of being between a man and a woman. So it has precedent on its side.

BostonGayDad retorts: Rad, c'mon. Christians claim about, what?...8,000 years since "creation"? (even though scientific evidence documents hundreds of millions of years of natural history, but I digress) All the "precedent" in the world doesn't mean a hill of (Boston baked) beans. We have a system of government that prohibits gender bias and discrimination. So it is time to have a funeral for your 'precedent' at least as it applies to secular/civil affairs. Take your precedent back to your church where it belongs. To do anything else is patently un-American!

Meg said...

Radar, Do you have an answer to my above post concerning a rational basis?

highboy said...

"some heterosexuals can make atrocious parents."

So enter the gay calvary to show us heteroes how its done, huh? Yeah, that will make everything better.

In regard to the health concerns, why are more gays contracting AIDs than any other group? Just curious, since its so natural.

BostonGayDad said...

HighBoy offers: The last gay couple I've seen were doped up on Ecstasy and drinking themselves to death. See? I can do it too.

GASP!!! HighBoy...were you in a GAY bar? Seriously, trust me when I say those gay guys could never get approved for adoption.

And c'mon 'high', if you can believe that some guy called God dropped two adults(white skinned with great hair according to most renderings) into a garden with an apple tree, I can believe in reincarnation!! (I apologize for not labeling that as sarcasm)

highboy said...

"HighBoy...were you in a GAY bar?"

No, they were getting high and drunk on the clock without getting trouble because the manager was gay too. He was their supplier. Yes, they could get approved for adoption, and did.

"I can believe in reincarnation!"

Sure you can, you can also believe your ridiculous notion that the world is billions of years old too. That doesn't make it true. But I was actually refering to the rest of the quote. Giving the type of "pastor" you have instructing you I'm not at all surprised you believe in reincarnation. Now, about that AIDs virus you guys keep contracting, how's that coming along? Why is that more rampant among gays if it is so natural?

BostonGayDad said...

HighBoy says: So enter the gay calvary to show us heteroes how its done, huh? Yeah, that will make everything better.

BostonGayDad assures him: I am already doing that.

And on that note, I am leaving for a while to watch a dvd with my son. I'll check back on the fun after I put him to bed. "Parenting before blogging" I always say. Now you guys with kids - you better go do the same.

highboy said...

"I am already doing that."

Except your not. You're gay.

"Most of the children in gay families are kids who have been given a rare second chance after being utterly FAILED by their heterosexual parents"

Still waiting for the proof on that, and a response to the fact that gays contract AIDs more than any other group. Apparently we just ignore what we can't answer.

BostonGayDad said...

couldn't resist:

Highboy: Yes, they are just as worthy, and given the state of their guardians I'd say they are in more need of society's concern.

Higboy, you mean the birth parents don't you? They are the reason these kids have to be adopted by others.

ok, I'm off.

Meg said...

Highboy,

Apparently the gay calvary can help. Apparently GayBostonDad does do it better.


P.S.
Is your picture of Jesus carrying a gun?

highboy said...

"Apparently the gay calvary can help. Apparently GayBostonDad does do it better."

Does it better than who? Their previous parents, or all heteroes? You base that on the fact that bostongaydad adopted an otherwise unwanted child? That's some responsible logic.

"Is your picture of Jesus carrying a gun?"

Yes, its a rifle. You don't like it?

highboy said...

"Higboy, you mean the birth parents don't you? They are the reason these kids have to be adopted by others."

Past and present parents, yes. So no go on the AIDs issue huh? That's what I thought.

highboy said...

Did anyone else's wife have a hard time seeing their ankles when they were pregnant?

highboy said...

I felt I should post again and say that while I stand by my faith, and its stance on homosexuality and so forth, that I in no way meant to sound as insulting as I did in some of my posts. My wife pointed out to me how I sounded when reading my posts and I realized she was right. So to bostongaydad, and whoever else, please note that my sarcasm is not meant to insult you, nor am I trying to imply that you are a lousy father, etc. Nor do I mean to imply your child is better off in an orphanage or something. Anyway, I sometimes forget that while blogging its hard to tell someone's tone. So to anyone I offended, it was unintentional but please except my deepest apology.

radar said...

"But there is no evidence that discriminating against homosexual marriage will affect the stability of these marriages. We need a rational basis to discriminate, not a rational basis to have marriage in the first place."

Meg, you put the cart before the horse. There is no discrimination. Marriage is a union between man and woman and it is open to you in every state.

You aren't being discriminated against, you are trying to change what marriage IS and then afterwards claim that you are facing discrimination. Why not admit the truth???

highboy said...

Radar: Do you like my Jesus?

radar said...

Highboy, I love your Jesus...

Do you mean the picture? Oh, the picture...

Actually, me and thousands of my fellow Christians intend to march around with signs and burn down embassies, get on national TV and kill a few innocent bystanders. Then we'll threaten you with death and.....oops, sorry, I forgot that I'm not some islamofascist from Syria or Iran or someplace like that.

radar said...

Look, marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. You cannot use the "discrimination" word because no homosexuals are being discriminated against. You are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

What you are trying to do is change what marriage is. Get it straight. This is one reason you are going to lose this fight, you are fighting an institution that is a cornerstone of civilization.

I was kidding about Garriage, but figure out your own traditional union and figure out how to make it work for you and quit trying to change marriage. The majority of Americans don't want marriage changed and they shouldn't have to let a very percentage of the population destroy an institution that is thousands of years old.

highboy said...

Canada as of now has legal same sex marriages, and its one of the main issues that got Prime Minister Martin voted out. Harper, the Conservative, got elected based almost soley on his stance against same sex marriage.

radar said...

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001830.html

Another view of the issue...

BostonGayDad said...

“I am already doing that."

high boy says: Except your [‘re] not. You're gay.

Ho hum...getting tired of this. One more time highboy: You can only speak from a religious point of view, and that just doesn't wash with me. Can you please get that through your thick skull (sorry but I've had about enough of this and you're beginning to make me mad). I completely reject your religious argument. First of all it has nothing to do with my parenting skill. You and I both already know that children of gay and lesbian parents turn out gay at the same rate that children of straight parents do. I am not going to engage with you on Christian teaching or doctrine because it’s irrelevant in a secular society. But I will say that as to my religion I have had to correct an erroneous assumption you have made about my religion in every post with which I have responded to you. So here is some additional detail about my faith: Once again, my clergy person’s title is minister not pastor and I’ll thank you to have a little respect and use the right term. You may also refer to her as Reverend if you like. I’m sure she would even respond to you with her characteristic warm smile if you called her “Hey Dyke…” But once again I digress. I am a Protestant, and I am a believer in God, but I never said I was a Christian; although some of the congregants in my faith community are Christians. I’m a Unitarian Universalist. The Unitarians and the Universalists merged in 1961. Prior to that time you could say that in addition to a belief in the Unity of God, the Unitarians believed God was too good to damn them, and the Universalists believed they were too good to be damned. (Universal salvation). Today I think it can be said that Unitarian Universalists are more concerned with the “here and now” than with the “hereafter”. Now before you start going off on my religion and its “errors”, don’t forget that our nation was founded on religious liberty and I have the same right to my beliefs as you do to yours. I respect you for your blind faith despite the fact that I may have made some derogatory comments about Christian beliefs. I think most Christians are authentic and honest in their faith. But I am also being authentic and honest when I say that I don’t believe your beliefs (but I believe in your right to believe them). As for me, I think the “what happens after death” question is an awesome and beautiful mystery. I embrace the mystery. In other words I have faith that because I am being the best person I know how to be, I will be embraced after death by a Loving God. On the other hand we all might simply end up as maggot food and nothing more! I just don’t know and that’s OK. I believe that God is an inseparable part of all beings. I believe that God is Love. I believe that God “created” evolution. (Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first fully evolved humans, but if they are real, I’m sure Eve didn’t have milky white skin, perfectly coifed long curly auburn hair and shaved armpits and Adam didn’t have high cheekbones, a square jaw and those perfectly chiseled pecs as if he were a long-time member of Gold’s Gym.) I also believe in science and reason.

BostonGayDad said...

BostonGayDad said: "Most of the children in gay families are kids who have been given a rare second chance after being utterly FAILED by their heterosexual parents"

HighBoy says: Still waiting for the proof on that…

Um, why do you think there are so many "post-birth" kids out there waiting for families that will love, protect and nurture them? I’m sure they weren’t all taken away from gay parents, and they weren’t raised by wolves, a panther, and a bear like Mogli in the Jungle Book.


High Boy asks for: …a response to the fact that gays contract AIDs more than any other group. Apparently we just ignore what we can't answer.

Finally I am getting to this! It wasn’t germane to the topic, Tim… I think unfortunately Africans In Africa) are out-doing American gays. But here I think you are right; gays in this country are still acquiring HIV/AIDS at a higher rate than other groups. This is a sad reality, is it not? You’re not happy about so many people acquiring a fatal virus are you? I think that if gays had been fully accepted by society throughout history, there would be far fewer suicides and much less promiscuity. (Maybe even no HIV/AIDS at all???????) Nevertheless, the sexual revolution changed sexual behavior across all demographics, not just gays. The ironic thing is that people like you have criticized the promiscuity in the gay community ad infinitum and now that there is beginning to be a trend toward monogamous commitment, why in the world isn’t it being universally supported? You people should have been offering marriage to us (and just plain accepting us for who we are) all along!

BostonGayDad said...

radar said...

Meg, you put the cart before the horse. There is no discrimination. Marriage is a union between man and woman and it is open to you in every state.

CORRECTION:
RELIGIOUS (Christian) marriage is a union between man and woman and it is open to you in every state. Civil marriage must be a union between two people because because otherwise in constitues illegal gender bias.

BostonGayDad said...

To Tim and Stevina High: You are about to have your first child together. CONGRATULATIONS! Tim, when you see your baby and hold him/her for the first time YOU are going to cry tears of utter Joy. I still remember the first moment I laid eyes on my my first child, Grace. If I didn't already believe in God, I would have started to right then and there! There is nothing in the world as wonderful as being a parent, and in a few days your life will change dramatically and permanently. Suddenly there is a tiny little human whose life is more important than your own. You know gay men can get to be pretty self-absorbed when you think that most of us are educated professionals making pretty decent incomes. And many of us come into adulthood and midlife with no major responsibilities. Heck, we usually don't even have a need to buy life insurance!! When my special needs adopted son moved into my home, I quit my $128k a year job and since then have been struggling to launch a home based business (one-man operation) so that I could be 100% available for him. In 2005 I barely earned $30k, but it was enough to pay the mortgage and other fixed expenses. I buy clothes for both of us at Walmart. But I can meet with my son's teachers at school twice a week, I can spend hours upon hours on homework help. I am home to greet him every day when he gets off the school bus. There is now nothing nothing nothing more important in my life than my kids. And I have never never never been happier. Please post your thoughts on your blog when your baby arrives. I want to share your joy (and I want to know if you really did cry). :-) I wish you nothing but happiness for your family and I trust that you and your wife wish the same for me and my kids. We should exchange pictures after your baby comes. I think sharing the joys of children can melt away any philosophical arguments between two people. Good luck and I don't usually say this to anyone but, God Bless you and your family. Take good care of them. --BostonGayDad (Scott)

cranky old fart said...

Bostongaydad,

I've stayed out of the conversation because you are doing such a wonderful job, I've had nothing much to add.

Not only are your arguments spot on, you must be a wonderful typist!

Now where did Simon go? I really need to get more info on parent's ability to cause eternal damnation of their innocent 3-year-olds!

Meg said...

Hi Radar,

I think it's hard to argue that Marriage is not discriminating and here is why. People not only have the right to marry but the right to choose who to marry. The right to choose who to marry is limited for people who want to marry a person of the same sex. Like Bostongaydad said, while the church has the absolute right to define marriage as co-ed only, the state needs to define it's laws in non-discriminatory ways to pass 14th Amendment muster.

But I thought we had move on from the marriage discrimination argument to finding a rational basis for the 14th Amendment (i.e. seeing if there was a rational basis for the discrimination). I hate arguments that jump around like that, because nothing ever gets resolved. Okay, so can we accept that marriage laws discriminates against the group of people who want to legally marry someone of their own sex (P.S. even Scalia accepts that it does, so you would be in good company)? And then move on to the rational basis argument?




Simon, Honestly I think your picture is a little creepy. But my boyfriend thought it was hilarious. He always jokes that Jesus wrote the 2nd Amendment.

highboy said...

Meg: My name is highboy, not simon. That is my picture of Jesus, and He did write the Second Amendment.

Bostongaydad: I'm going to ignore the fact that you seem to be getting angry at my implications. As I said earlier, whether you read it or not, I did not mean to imply you suck as a dad. While I already apologized for any unintentional insult, I won't apologize for my faith. You can get mad that I base this on my religion, but you base the fact that you are a good parent on your faith, so what is the difference? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are speaking from a religious point of view every bit as much as I am. Don't preach to me about our nation being founded on religious liberty than get mad when I exercise mine.

bostongaydad says: "I am a Protestant, and I am a believer in God,"

No you're not. (Protestant) Protestant are Christians that belong to denominations of the Reformation.

bostongaydad says: You’re not happy about so many people acquiring a fatal virus are you? I think that if gays had been fully accepted by society throughout history, there would be far fewer suicides and much less promiscuity. (Maybe even no HIV/AIDS at all???????)

No, I'm not, and maybe.

bostongaydad says:Nevertheless, the sexual revolution changed sexual behavior across all demographics, not just gays.

True.

bostongaydad says: The ironic thing is that people like you have criticized the promiscuity in the gay community

No, I never did. I criticize promiscuity in any community, and promiscuity is not just sex outside of marriage. I condemn all sexual immorality, and I don't think homosexuality is better/worse than fornication. (Something I had my own problems with)

bostongaydadsays:why in the world isn’t it being universally supported?

If you don't want to talk religion, don't ask me questions like that. You already know the answer.


bostongaydad says: You people should have been offering marriage to us (and just plain accepting us for who we are) all along!

Accepting people for who they are does not constitute condoning everything they do. I accept you for who you are. I'm not demanding you stop being gay. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You are trying to change that. That is the disagreement. My worry for you is not that you are gay. In my faith, being gay doesn't send you to Hell. Being good doesn't get you to Heaven. Jesus Christ saves you from Hell and welcomes you to Heaven. No one is "good" enough. Not me. Not you.

By the way, I can tell you right now that I will cry. My wife and I only got pregnant one time, and it ended in a miscarriage. This is a miracle child. (Though God would grant it right in the middle of college) Thanks for the kind words and believe me this little guy will be loved!

Cranky: If you have anything to add on the same level as your take on science we can do without. You've already demonstrated that you are not interested in discussion and debate but rather insulting those you disagree with. Your constant harping on Simon is a prime example.

Meg: As I already pointed out, the logic in your argument would have to mean EVERYONE can marry who or what they choose.

BostonGayDad said...

Cranky,

Thanks for your kind words! It seems I get a little more articulate when I'm attacked. Usually I just grunt like a cave man. And as for my typing: I'm a horrible typist, but I'm a perfectionist so I compose offline and the proofread and paste. I have appreciated all your comments as well.

------------

Meg,

It has been fun reading your posts. For the most part you've come across as dispassionate and polite, but then later last night you got feisty and I loved it. I was sitting here saying “YOU GO, GIRL!!!” Then this morning I noticed your reference to your boyfriend. You’re a straight woman! And you are here defending equal rights for gays. I am grateful. This June at gay pride in Boston, I will buy you a tee shirt that says “Straight but not Narrow” By the way, where do you go to law school? You’re not a fellow Bostonian are you? Thanks again for being here and for articulating your well reasoned views.

radar said...

Meg, you want to pass by my stand on this. I do not agree with you that the marriage laws discriminate. Therefore I don't wish to defend discrimination since I don't see it.

Marriage is between man and woman. If you try to change marriage, then not only man and woman but also man-boy, man-dog, yada yada yada have to be considered.

If man-woman marriage (the only kind their is) is discrimination, then why would man-boy or girl not also have to be included?

You say, no, for adults only. What, you want to discriminate against MINORS? You are no better than that Radar guy who wants to discriminate againts gays!!!!

No, no, no...Marriage has always been man with woman, it is open to adults in all fifty states and it is in no way discriminatory.

Meg said...

Hi Bostongaydad,

I have a pin on my backpack that says "Strait but not Narrow". I love it. I go to Law School in New York City (I wont say which one because I don't want to be accused of hailing from a North-Eastern elitist liberal cesspool). Although this semester I came to Michigan to be with my boyfriend who is clerking at a federal court here.

Both him and I believe gay rights are one of the most important issues out there right now.


Simon,

I apologize for confusing you with Highboy. I'm not sure how those wires got crossed in my brain.


Highboy,

"Meg: As I already pointed out, the logic in your argument would have to mean EVERYONE can marry who or what they choose."

Yeah, that's pretty much my position. The only line I draw is at consent. In other words, I believe in living in a free society.

Meg said...

You see Radar, It IS discrimination against minors, but there is a rational basis for that discrimination, namely consent and protection of children.

Do you see what I mean?

BostonGayDad said...

From HighBoy: bostongaydad says: "I am a Protestant, and I am a believer in God,"

Highboy quips: No you're not. (Protestant)
Protestant[s] are Christians that belong to denominations of the Reformation.

Yes I am too a Protestant and a believer in God. Unitarian Universalism is a Protestant denomination. It's just that swearing you are a Christian is not a requirement for membership.

And for the very last time: The man-woman thing is a religious doctrinal thing and there is no state religion. And since you appropriately pointed out that I too am using religious arguments to defend my positions, I will add that in addition to the fact that gender bias is unconstitutional, when the government restricts my access to the institution of CIVIL marriage (to marry a man man man man - don't regurgitate the "I am free to marry a woman" crap) my constitutional right to the free exercise of my religion is being violated.

BostonGayDad said...

Radar,

And so it turns out that restricting marriage to man-woman only is NOT discrimination within the boundaries of Christianity (and many other religions). But secular society restricting marriage to man-woman only IS discrimination. The government is favoring your religion over mine. That is unconstitutional. OK...phew! Now we're clear. I have defended your position within it's correct context (your religion) and I have asserted that the constitution precludes gender restrictions on CIVIL marriage. Done.

highboy said...

Meg: Are you saying that as long as your daughter consents, I can marry her? What about your pet cat? What constitutes consent? The Constitution doesn't specifically give age restrictions either. Are you saying that adult/child marriage should be protected too? If so, you're sick. If not, then you're discriminating.

Meg said...

Highboy, Read my last post to Radar (Radar I would love a response if you have a chance).

BostonGayDad said...

highboy said...
Meg: Are you saying that as long as your daughter consents, I can marry her? What about your pet cat? What constitutes consent? The Constitution doesn't specifically give age restrictions either. Are you saying that adult/child marriage should be protected too? If so, you're sick. If not, then you're discriminating.

I think she was incorporating existing "age of consent" laws when she used the word consent. While age of consent restrictions may not be specifically stated in the constitution, I don’t believe they conflict either. Perhaps Alito, Scalia and Thomas would argue falls within marriage law in that the married couple is expected to provide a stable home and keep their children safe. Prior to a certain age (varies by state I believe) a person (child) is deemed to be non-consenting, even if the word "yes" comes out of her mouth. So if you were "with" Meg's underage daughter (in the Biblical sense) you would be guilty of statutory rape (jail time also varies by state).
I think we could also use a second amendment example. The constitution does not say when it is and when it is not ok to keep and bare arms yet we have laws that preclude bringing your 12-guage shotgun onto an airplane, or into a school. Even Jesus would be forbidden to bring his rifle to those places. There are also a variety of laws in various states pertaining to licensing and concealing a gun on your person. These are not specifically stated in the second amendment but in a civil society these laws are necessary to maintain order. Hence they do not conflict with the constitution. My cat cannot consent because he cannot communicate his consent or non-consent in a language that you, me of the Supreme Court could understand and verify. He also is incapable of writing or signing his name. The same goes for my cow and my sheep. (Full Disclosure: I don’t really have a cow or any sheep.)

highboy said...

Wow! There are so many issues here that I don’t even know for sure where I should begin. I am going to let my heart speak for a moment, because I feel that it is very important that something be said.

Tucker, I feel that I need to say something to you. Although Radar and others have said some very intelligent things about Christianity, I would like to go out on a limb and suggest that you don’t listen to them. Now, understand that I’m not suggesting that what they’re telling you is wrong (because that is not at all true). I’m simply encouraging you to not listen to them. I encourage you to not listen to me, or my theology either. What I encourage you to do is seek the truth yourself.

If you really want to know, I suggest that you ask God. Now, I understand that this idea is going to seem really pointless for someone who doesn’t know, or has had no exposure to the Lord. But if you feel inclined, I would encourage you to try something. Sometime, when you are alone (although you don’t have to be), ask Him to reveal Himself to you. After all, what’s it going to hurt to ask? If He really doesn’t exist, then you’ve wasted a total of two minutes of your life. All you need to do is say to Him, “God, I don’t know if you exist. But, if what I’m being told is true, please show me that you’re real.”

You will not be blinded by light, or have angels descending upon you. But God is faithful, and He will answer. It may not be according to your time or schedule, but He will respond.

I think that it’s great that you are asking questions. It shows that unlike some others out there, you are responsible for what you take into your heart. We, as humans, are fallible. We are all sinners. To use terms that are less theological, we all act inappropriately in some capacity. Whether we tell lies to people, or take things that aren’t ours, or indulge in behaviors that are completely self-indulging, we all have the tendency to do things that hurt God.

The important thing to remember is that God still loves us. He loves me, and I screw up all the time. He loves all of the people that I’ve met while working, even if they don’t know Him. And He loves you, no matter what your lifestyle may be.

It is a shame that this fact has to be confused by the issues that we bring to the table.

Do I think that gay marriage should be illegal? That’s for the courts to decide. Do I believe that gay marriage is wrong? I believe that it is an indulgence that hurts my Lord. I understand this to be sin. Does it anger me that persons who are gay wish to marry? No. I pray from my heart that all humans learn to turn away from all sin, but I know, and have known many homosexuals in my lifetime, and a great many of then have, and are great friends. I, for one, don’t want to look for the things that you do that I see as wrongs, I seek to know your genuine spirit.

I hope that you take the time to ask Him for truth. I hope that “cranky” reads this, and has the capacity to try this “out there” concept as well. Keep seeking the truth. It will set you free.

highboy said...

Incidentally, this posting came from Disciple, who was responding to one of my posts. I felt that the application would be better served here.

BostonGayDad said...

POSTSCRIPT FROM BOSTON GAY DAD

Blogging with you guys over the past 24 hours has been fun and educational. Y’all gave me a chance to refine my arguments and I have a renewed confidence that I am correct. Thank you Meg, Cranky, HighBoy, Radar, Simon, Tucker, and Debbie! (I had a girlfriend in high school named Debbie. I turned out to be a fag, and her, a fag hag. Thirty years after high school we are still the best of friends.)

I have one final topic-related comment. I am grateful that you anti’s are willing to support same-gender marriage by another name with, I assume, full access to all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage/garriage. But alas, I do not think that nationally, the anti’s would assent to that position and drop the fight. But I believe we’ll eventually win, hopefully within my lifetime. I never thought I would live to see what we have won in Massachusetts!

And now it’s time for me to say good bye. Believe it or not this is my first experience blogging on a philosophical issue. As I said above, it was fun. I never thought that I had a propensity toward addiction. I am a teetotaler and I have never used illicit drugs nor have I ever been promiscuous (shattering the stereotype), but I feel that within a very short span of time I could become addicted to blogging, especially on gay civil rights issues. Do you guys feel addicted? Were any of you working yesterday, or today? If so, you couldn’t possibly have accomplished much. I’m off this week with my son (whose name is Joey BTW). It’s school vacation week out here. We are leaving in about 45 minutes to head for New Hampshire for a couple of days to ski with my best friends Tim and Jon who have adopted two totally awesome Cambodian boys. Anyway I am going to try my best not to develop a habit of posting on issue blogs so as to avoid losing touch with the world beyond my PC monitor (where my kids live). Now this doesn’t mean I won’t stop by and say a quick hello to y’all if I “see” you, but I will do my best to keep my 2.5 cents to myself.
Thank you all. Thank you radar for this little gathering of minds. Good luck and much happiness with your baby, Highboy. Good luck finishing up law school, Meg. You are an awesome straight woman and it sounds like your boyfriend is an awesome guy. You should be a civil rights attorney and we could use more like you in Massachusetts because there is an oppressive effort afoot here to take away my right to civil garriage. We have until 2008 before it could potentially come to a vote. (Ooooops I feel myself yielding to temptation: Civil rights or discrimination issues should not be put to a popular vote. Can you imagine what the voting results would have been if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put to a popular vote?) Meg I have some loose connections at a couple of large law firms in Boston. Mintz Levin and what was formerly called Hale and Dorr. Hit me up if you like.

If any of you want to say hello through email send it to bostongaydad@earthlink.net.
And finally (Stevina you helped Highboy set a good example) I am heartily sorry if I offended any of you personally by anything I said in the heat of anger/passion.

I’m done! Buh Bye!!

Disciple said...

Sorry guys. I have been spending a lot of time on Christ Matters, and I agreed with highboy that my last posting to his site was more relevant in this stream.

Disciple said...

bostongaydad,

So if you were "with" Meg's underage daughter (in the Biblical sense) you would be guilty of statutory rape (jail time also varies by state).

Just to mention . . . the only reason that anyone would be going to jail is because, at present, it is illegal. Just like homosexuality was just a few short years ago. What has been argued many times here, is that the gay population is continuing to have the law changed to support their indulgences.

Meg said...

Disciple,

Sex and marriage is a right not an "indulgence."

Disciple said...

Meg says: Sex and marriage is a right not an "indulgence."

Marriage is an institution of religion, not government. Government has "adopted" this practice, but it still remains that marriage is a religious privilege. God created man, woman, and the union between them. Our human society changed that, not Him. For any government to legislate any change to law is it’s right. As I explained earlier, homosexuality is indulgence of an act that displeases God, the same God who created marriage in the first place. I don’t condemn gays for wanting to increase the boundaries of what our society will except, I condemn the practice of anything that displeases God.

highboy said...

bostongaydad and all other gay rights activists: Your assertion that the government is discriminating against your religion illegally are unfounded and irrelevant. Any person on this planet can make that claim. You will need to provide proof, other than the Establishment clause, to prove your claims. First, in order to violate the Establishment Clause, the government would have to FORCE you to practice Christianity or any other religion. The clause does not say that the government cannot endorse religion, and in fact our founding fathers make very clear their intent for a government based on Biblical valutes. Evidence? Well, the very people that wrote the establishment clause turned around and did things like demand officials swear on the Holy Bible, pray to the Judeo Christian God before every session of Congress, spend government tax money on converting the Indians to Christianity, and so forth. If you need links I'll be happy to provide them. The very institution of marriage, as Disciple has said, is a religious institution that the state has recognized and ENDORSED. Once again, gays have the right to marry. Other women. That is a marriage. Gay plus gay does not equal marriage, it equals two gays that are shacked up together. Period. Christians have this government locked. Deal with it.

Meg said...

Disciple, Marriage is now both a religious and governmental institution.

Highboy, You don't understand constitutional law at all. Not one bit. And I feel like you really haven't tried to learn anything about it. I really respect that Radar made an effort to go to Cornell's web-sight and lean about the 14th Amendment. You should do the same. Stop listening to what your minister says about the Constitution (or whomever you are listening to) and start reading historical documents and legal documents and learning about it yourself.

Disciple said...

Meg:

Thank you for repeating what I said. Again, it is the right of any government to create it's own laws. I havn't said anything to the contrary.

If you are trying to imply something else (like that you don't believe that I have the right to beleive in God), then you had better try to be more clear.

I am not saying that the government has no right to do what they do. I'm not talking about rights at all. God gives us the right to choose what we will. I have merely stated where marriage came from, and where it has come to. I spoke of my belief, but I don't claim that you need to believe what I do.

You have the right to belive what you will, whether you are right, or whether you are wrong.

highboy said...

Holy crap, if I ever want to increase page views I'll just post about same sex marriage. I think we're all Radar's pawns.

Meg: You spent a paragraph telling me how I don't understand Constitutional Law, yet failed to point out my errors. Nice. Congress thought I understood it though when they invited me and my brother to appear on C-Span. (Captial Hill is not that intimidating) I even had the pleasure of telling Arlen Spectre that I thought he was a lunatic. But anyway. The Constitution clearly states that the goverment cannot respect the establishment of a religion. Now some, like liberals, claim that this demands a separation of church and state, and that the government cannot endorse religion. They might however, want to tell the founding fathers that when they see them in Heaven. You see, common sense and history give clear intent as to what the founding fathers meant with the establishment clause. Like Thomas Jefferson, one of the main authors of the establishment clause, using tax funds to convert Indians to Christianity. Not Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other ism or anity. That is "discrimination." It is also "discrimination" to have the President be sworn in on the Bible, the book that Christianity bases its faith on. It is also discrimination for Congress to pray to the Judeo-Christian God before each session, as opposed to some other deity. Marriage is a religious and government institution as you've claimed. But they are not exclusive as you claimed. I understand the Constitution very well thank you and have the common sense to look at history to deduce what was intended by the Establishment clause. You tell me to read historical documents and legal documents. Fine.
http://www.americandaughter.com/index.html?http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=290>Enjoy.
Pay attention: Although liberals have had quite a field day for a while do to illegal legislatures like the 9th Circuit, that day is quickly coming to an end. My minister doesn't give me my legal information, I get it from the Constitution, and from the decisions of the people who wrote it, not liberals who feel they do a better job interpreting the Constitution better than its Framers.

highboy said...

Well Meg, now I'll give you a valid link since I apparently sent you to the Blogger home page. (Though you might consider getting your own blog.)

Where was I? Oh, yes, legalities.
Here you go.

Meg said...

My boyfriend clerks in the circuit that case came out of (the 6th).
Your link is an example of how you don't understand the argument. That case had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment and a rational basis exception.

radar said...

Wow, have your cable provider go down for a day....

"You see Radar, It IS discrimination against minors, but there is a rational basis for that discrimination, namely consent and protection of children.

Do you see what I mean?"

Meg, we disagree but I do see what you mean.

Pardon me, everyone, I work with the teens in Youth Group each Wednesday night. When I get back I will enter back into the conversation.

Yes, apparently posting on this subject increases your page views. I did it because of a conversation on an earlier post, with Cranky, and I had no idea!!

I promise, Meg, that I will go ahead and post as if I did believe there was discrimination and we would need a rational basis to do so.....later when I return.

highboy said...

Meg: Didn't say it anything to do with the 14th amendment. I also wasn't argueing from a rational basis conception. (I just now went back and read that post you wanted me to read.) So what are you asking of me?

radar said...

rational basis:

IF the current marriage laws are discrimatory (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 extraoridinary 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.

You don't like me bringing NAMBLA into the discussion but they are working hard to bring about "gay marriage" because they know that widening the stakes on accepted sexual behavior advances their agenda. That makes a darned good reason # 4>

There you go, Meg, four rational reasons....

highboy said...

Supposedly they've done a study up here in Canada that showed given the fact that Canada has a high rate of abortion, nation wide same-sex marriage (for now), and the second highest suicide rate in the world, their population should be dwindled quite considerably. I'll post a link. (If there is one)

radar said...

I hope some of you will go read my February 22nd post.

I want you to understand that I may disagree with you but I don't hate you, no, not even you, Cranky! (wink)

I also want you to know that I am not holier-than-thou and it is pretty likely I have done more bad things in my life than any of you, before my conversion to Christ. I did plenty of things that might have landed me in jail or made me very dead. But for Jesus....

Meg said...

Hi Radar,

First Argument

I've heard the argument that society has more interested in protecting heterosexual relationships because we produce kids. But I think this argument is fundamentally flawed because protecting homosexual marriage will not detract from our protection of heterosexual marriage (or at least there is no evidence that it will). An argument needs to do more than show why one group gets rights, it needs to show why the other group shouldn't get them. I think this distinction really hurts the "heterosexuals have kids arguments."

P.S. It’s hard to argue that Dads like BostonGayDad isn’t helping out our soceity by adopting thoes abused kids. There are lots of gay men out there like him whos family we should be interested in keeping together.

Second Argument:
Homosexuality is bad because it correlates with some other bad things. The problem, as I see it, with this argument is that LOTS of groups correlate with bad things. For example, why not bar poor people who live in the projects from getting married. Surely we can all agree that crime highly correlates with poverty (as do STD's).

Third Argument:
Pedophilia is wrong and there are laws against it. The idea of discriminating against a whole group because a minority of them seems really problematic. For example, you are pro-life. Some pro-lifers shoot doctors. But should we then punish all pro-lifers for the actions of a rough few? Or, I believe in animal rights. Some people who belive in animal rights shoot scientists. Should I be dicriminated against beucase of them?

While it's neither here not-there, Did you know that while proportionally a larger percentage of pedophiles molest little boys (32%), most petophiles are "strait" (i.e. men on girls)? And since almost ALL petophiles are men, maybe men should be dicriminated against : P (just kidding to make a point).

I only counted 3 arguments. Am I missing any?

radar said...

Meg, the bostondad situation is highly unusual. There are probably more serial killers on the loose in the USA than their are homosexual unions that have taken in two troubled kids. Who knows? But we cannot even begin to take his situation as typical.

The first argument, you pass it by easily but don't. Unions that do not produce children and nurture them are one less union that does. Putting the stamp of approval with the further step of calling it a "marriage", which has always been man-woman, is like saying now society wants and encourages such unions. It does not.

Remember, homosexual unions statistically have more STDs, more "partner abuse", more incidence of suicide, more illegal drug use, than heterosexual unions. It harms society to promote such unions.

By the way, such unions are allowed now, simply not officially acknowledged. No homosexuals are being restrained from setting up house together.

My take on this? Because homosexuality is not natural it causes additional problems. People know that the Bible teaches against homosexuality and are often offended. But the Bible teaches against incest as well. The Bible teaches against adultery as well. Any of these sinful sexual activities are harmful to society.

Adultery has become more acceptable today. Now homosexuality, and I say it is because our country is less sensitive to sinful behavior. Part of the reason is that the standards for ethical behavior are up for grabs.

Once the Judeo-Christian ethic was the basis for our mores in the USA. You didn't have to be Christian to be a citizen but all knew that Judeo-Christian foundations were what the country stood upon. There have always been those who seek to destroy that foundation.

If we do destroy the foundation we will have managed to emulate Rome and other great nations that have crumbled for lack of moral character and divisiveness within.

Those who seek to change the Constitution, calling it a "living document" are, too me, enemies of our country. The Constitution is the greatest document of human governance ever in my opinion, one of the milestones of human dignity and freedom. It is the foundation of our country.

I may add a room to my house, change the siding, re-do the deck. This is like legislation. But I am not going to fool around with the foundation. Everything else is built upon it.

Likewise, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis for our mores in this country. It has been under pressure, under attack, from those who wish to be set free from moral guidelines. Take restraints off of sex, off of recreational drugs, etc. It is the doctrine of "if it feels good, do it!"

Without our moral compass and foundation, our country will fall apart from within. Respect for life is diminishing already, with well over 40 million babies having been murdered since 1973. 47 million, I believe it is.

I am one among many who seek to end the nation's moral decline, and that decline hastens the decline of the nation as a whole.

Meg, you are seeking ways to explain homosexuality into marriage. You must truly believe in your cause. You think you are helping an oppressed minority. But why do they seem to be oppressed?

I have a right to say this. I have been a great sinner. I lived a wrong life doing wrong things for years. I have, in another post, pointed the finger at me and said that I was sinning and I was wrong. So I say homosexuality is wrong. It is harmful to society. If it is legal, then it should not be prosecuted. But don't take your own time, your own energy, to willfully help pull this country down. Be on the right side in the argument.

Meg said...

Ahhhh!!! Radar, let's stay on subject. I beg of you. I hate arguments that jump around. They don't lead to anything productive.

Okay, so I'm going to draw from your post three arguments.

(1) Heterosexual marriages are worth preserving. True, but there is no evidence that homosexual marriage would make heterosexual marriages less stable, which is something you need to justify discrimination against homosexual marriage under the 14th Amendment.

Do you see the difference? Protecting heterosexual marriage through legislation is a different ballgame than not-protecting homosexual relationships. They are not mutually exclusive.

(2) Heterosexual marriage is Christian marriage, and this country is traditionally a Christian one.
True, but we were founded on principles of liberty more than Christianity. Even assuming that the founding fathers were Christian, they decided not to create a Christian state, rather they decided to create a state of liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. Because our country was not founded upon creating a religious state, In order to discriminate legally we need to do more than say "the Bible says it's wrong."
I would also hasten to point out that the Bible says lots of things are wrong that we don’t think should be legislated about. For example, no one thinks gluttonous persons shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

(3) Homosexual Unions are correlated with other problems.
I addressed this argument in my previous post. Lots of us belog to groups that correlaste with some bad things.

Meg said...

To your argument about what homosexuality does to the country, here is my view. There are bad things that should be legal and bad things that should be illegal.

For example, it’s bad to eat too much (the Bible says so), but eating like a pig should be legal.

I really believe we should work towards giving people as much liberty as possible, and then work hard to get them to make the right choice!

If you think homosexuality is the wrong choice! Tell homosexuals about disease; tell them what the Bible says; tell them that they can change through the help of God.

But, let’s not get off into other areas. I think we haven’t exhausted the rational basis exception, so I eagerly await your response to my last post.

radar said...

Meg, you asked me for rational reasons to keep marriage as it is and not expand it to include homosexual unions. I gave several negatives that are associated with homosexual unions. It does not help society to promote these unions, so rationally it would not. It could be detrimental to society to promote such unions, so rationally it would not.

I have given you rational reasoning not to expand marriage to include homosexuals.

Pointing out gluttony as a sin, har har! I had to go on a strict diet awhile back because I had fallen into the habit of gluttony and wanted to straighten up and fly right. There is not an end to things to work on about oneself!

Meg said...

Hahahahaha. I think lots of people are guilty of that sin. But I still want to let them marry. : P

I guess then we have reached the end of our argument. You gave me "rational reasons." I told you why I don't think those rationals work, and instead of refuting my arguments, you said you are sticking to what you had written. Okay. I can accept that. I only hope that I have possibly moved you towards a broader understanding of how 14th Amendment arguments work and possibly given you a glimpse of some of the problematic/flawed arguments anit-homosexual-marriage people make.

See ya on another controversial post!

Meg said...

P.S.

If you live near a law school, see if they will let you audit a constitutional law class. you might really like it. or at the very least keep reading that cornell web-sight!

radar said...

Meg, have enjoyed posting with you. It seems we both understand each other's positions but are not going to agree...but they are comprehensible.

I hope you start a blog someday and be sure to let me know when you do!