Update: If I had to put a label on her, I’d call Christine at Talk Wisdom a traditional marriage activist.
To dissenters looking for an explicit argument on how and why “gay marriage” is bad for society, read Protecting America’s Immune System: A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage. Frank Turek is much more articulate and “reasonable” than I am.
In some form or another over the past 2.5 years of LBC’s existence, I’ve touched on each of Turek’s points:
1. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare.
2. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare.
3. The law is a great teacher; it encourages or discourages behavior and attitudes.
4. Legalization of homosexual marriage would encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive. It also would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself.
5. The law should endorse behaviors that are beneficial and restrain (or certainly not endorse) behaviors that are destructive.
6. Therefore, the law should endorse traditional marriage and it should restrain (or certainly not endorse) homosexual marriage.
I’d hate to reinvent the microchip, but it may be time for me to write a definitive “why I think homosexual ‘marriage’ will destroy the foundation of society” post. Some will balk, but I believe certain behaviors should be stigmatized, discouraged, and restrained, as I’ve argued many times.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Happy 666 Day!!!
Before I get started, let me lay it out. Spiritually speaking, I am commissioned to tell unbelievers that they are sinners under God’s judgment.
My “job” isn’t to point out particular sins, but simply to let people know the consequences of sin and to share the Good News that Christ is the Savior who pays the penalty for our sins.
Practically (physically, carnally?) speaking, I honestly don’t care who is sleeping with whom or what they do, and I wish homosexuals weren’t so eager for us to know. What do you want me to say? Good for you! Knock yourselves out! Leave me alone already. By the way, the painting is an interpretation of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by Victorian artist John Martin. The painting’s title, appropriately enough, is “Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Beautiful rendering, isn’t it?
For background, read Genesis 18 and Genesis 19.
Now, on to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a case “they” said would begin the push for homosexual “marriage.” Do you feel up to reading a couple of Supreme Court cases? Good. 
Bear with me as I give you the gory details. Tyron Garner (left) and John Lawrence (right) were a couple of consenting adults doing whatever they do. In response to what was probably a false domestic disturbance complaint, the police arrived at Lawrence’s home and “caught” them doing whatever, and both were arrested and convicted of homosexual sodomy, which was a criminal act in Texas at the time. Both claimed the law deny them Equal Protection because the Texas law discriminated against homosexuals.
The court told them to get lost, citing Bowers v. Hardwick (Georgia law against homosexual sodomy was not unconstitutional. “The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.”).
Lawrence and Garner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District, and the full court affirmed their convictions. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied review. The Supreme Court got the case in 2002. The court overruled Bowers, holding that the Texas sodomy law violated Lawrence’s and Garner’s due process rights.
The court discarded Bowers like so much dead weight, reasoning that:
- Laws against homosexual sodomy reached beyond the mere act to prohibiting the freedom to enter into relationships of one’s choice;
- Laws against homosexual sodomy did not have “ancient roots” in America, as claimed in Bowers because early laws were aimed at non-procreative activity, not homosexual activity per se, and sodomy prosecutions often involved “predatory acts” between adults and children, or men and animals;
- Bowers had been inconsistently applied and was the subject of “substantial and continuing” criticism. No court had detrimentally relied on Bowers as there had been a pattern of nonenforcement;
- Citing the dissent in Bowers, the court contended that just because a “State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice” and that non-procreative sex is a form of liberty protected by due process.
The Lawrence court also cited Griswold v. Connecticut, a case which struck down a criminal law against using contraceptives. In this seminal case (no pun intended), the court found that the law intruded upon “marital privacy.”
Bottom line: Consenting adults can do whatever they want to and with each other.
In theory, I don’t have a problem with this, but when homosexuals want to tear up the foundation of society — traditional marriage and the family — I take great issue with it. I will continue speaking out against homosexual “marriage” as often and as loudly as I can.
In fact, I hope my words travel the air waves. There’s a possibility I may appear on FOX News to talk about the Federal Marriage Amendment. I will defend the rights of states to decide this issue but vehemently attack with the idea of homosexual “marriage.”
“They” say the Fourteenth Amendment gives homosexuals the right to marry.
1) What do you say? Explain your reasoning. I’d especially like to hear from lawyers and/or people familiar with constitutional law.
2) Do you hold the same opinion about civil unions?
Sources:
- Case summary
- Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
- Background on Lambda Legal’s Supreme Court Case Challenging Texas’s “Homosexual Conduct” Law
Related posts:
- Federal Marriage Amendment: Bone for the Base Dogs
- The Unconstitutionality of Brown v. The Board of Education
Christian bloggers and 666: Jollyblogger, Oh How I Love Jesus…
I agree with the ruling in Lawrence, but oppose gay marriage. The reasons have to do with what is the benefit or cost to society of the practice. In the case of homosexual conduct, I see no compelling public interest in preventing consenting adults from doing what they wish with each other. It does not cost greater society anything to allow gays to cohabit and have sex, aside from the moral consternation it causes many of my fellow Christians.
Gay MARRIAGE, on the other hand, is a case where gays are requesting a subsidy from society at large, and there is no compelling public interest in society granting those benefits to those, who by definition will by and large not be procreating (gays who want to adopt are an aberration in my opinion and the issue of allowing adoption by gay couples is a tangential issue).
Asking for the privilege to marry is nothing short of asking society to bless and subsidize gay relationships. The problem is that society receives no return from that subsidy.
Married people receive a (scant) package of benefits from greater society because it is traditionally married couples who provide the next productive generation - without which there is no future. We have an interest in protecting the institution. Having and raising children as a monogamous couple is what adults do. In my opinion, privileges and benefits for people who do the necessary work of raising tomorrow’s productive adults should be expanded, not diluted. It’s bad enough that heterosexuals have done so much to devalue a critical institution without inviting homosexuals to help devalue it more.
Go over to Brussels Journal sometime and read what this kind of nonsense is doing to Europe.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish” - Proverbs 29:18
Comment by DC — 06.06.06 @ 1:18 pm
From a strictly spiritual perspective, I couldn’t agree more with your opinion. We are commissioned by God to share with others what sin is and how to be saved from those sins.
From a practical or legal perspective, I think a constitutional ban on gay marriage is a horrible idea. Constitutional amendnments which ban or abolish something (slavery) have traditionally been created to ensure that the first 10 amendments aren’t being trampled on for anyone. In this case, a ban on gay marriage doesn’t accomplish such this. It has only one purpose which is simply to banish a PRIVLIDGE (not a right) from some people. This is similar to what prohibition was all about. (and you already know how that turned out.
Comment by Wade — 06.06.06 @ 1:19 pm
I’m probably not helping much, but my belief is that religious marriage and civil commitment should never have been intertwined. Marriage should be a strictly religious entity, governed by the rules of your particular denomination, and should confer absolutely no civil benefit. Conversely, civil unions should be the sole method by which to obtain the civil benefits (inheritance law, tax law, family law) that marriage now confers. To me, granting a priest/minister the temporal power to confer civil benefits violates the Establishment Clause and the best way to fix that is to completely separate the two. Marriage may then remain a religious institution; those denominations that so choose may allow same-sex religious marriage, and states can choose which couplings to recognize without entangling churches in things they may not want to recognize.
Comment by Captain Ned — 06.06.06 @ 1:19 pm
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
Does that mean that anchor babies don’t count?
(I think the SCOTUS once ruled that way, but then later changed its mind.)
As for “marriage”, I thought the definintion of that
was two people cohabiting with the possibility of creating more people (and thus continuing the species); and that the state’s interest in the matter was confined to preventing the spread of inherited diseases and determining which of the offspring had legal rights to inherit.
Same-sex ‘marriage’ seems therefore to be a misnomer, and also something which does not need
to be liscened or taken note of by the state.
Comment by Seahawk — 06.06.06 @ 1:25 pm
Regarding gay marriage, I don’t think that the law should EVER prohibit states from refusing to legalize or refusing to acknowledge gay marriage. As far as the gay amendment Bush is pushing, I admit that I wouldn’t be bothered by such an amendment passing since I don’t support gay marriage, but objectively I see difficulties with amending the constitution for such a purpose.
Comment by Shade — 06.06.06 @ 1:29 pm
I’m probably more with Captain Ned than not…it seems to me that the function of the state in recognizing marriage is to help establish financial security for the family, and define responsibility for children produced. If I were to change the role of the state, it would be along the lines of “producing” and “non-producing” relationships. Most homosexuals are not going to be raising children - they should be able to convey their material goods any way they want. When it comes to children, though, two persons of the same sex cannot create children. Who, then, is responsible for their nurture? previous spouse? AI donor? the State?
This is why I think the State (individual state) should be involved in the legality of such a union.
The question, of course, if whether the State has the right to regulate marriage in _any_ way - should incest be legal? etc.
When it comes to income tax and SS, if a couple is married in a “homosexual marriage is good” state, and then moves to a “homosexuals may not marry” state, are they still entitled to file a “married filing jointly” form? If one dies, is the other entitled to SS benefits based on the earnings of the other?
This is why I think the Feds have a right and an obligation to get involved.
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 1:31 pm
It has been revealed in Janice Law’s book, Sex Appealed: Was the U.S. Supreme Court Fooled? that these two men “caught” in the act of sodomy was purposely staged just to get it into the courts. Their goal all along was to overturn the sodomy laws by falsely re-labeling it a “civil right.” That horrible decision has led us spiraling down the cesspool of homosexual indoctrination with blinding speed.
I would like to alert all of you as to Why We Fight For Traditional Marriage and why it is crucial to do so.
I hope that many here will take a moment to read some or all of the Article 8 Alliance/Massresistance emails posted at my Talkwisdom message board. They vividly will show you what legalizing “gay†marriage in Mass. has led to… And…what it leads to is not good at all!! In fact, it has been disastrous for that state!
I guarantee that you will see that Massachusetts has become the “indoctrination gone wild†state of homosexual activism!!
Christian friends…do we really want this in California?
Or, if you live elsewhere…in your home state?
After reading and seeing all of the email notices, messages, blogposts and links, is there any doubt that the threat of “gay†marriage legalization is a serious issue(that is, unfortunately, currently ‘legal’ in Mass. due to a radical left-wing loonie activist judge) that needs to be protected from activist judges and stopped through a Constitutional Amendment?
And, if you are mistakenly of the mindset that the traditional marriage protection issue is about “civil rights†for homosexual individuals, please read this excellent article in The Weekly Standard called, Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy.
President Bush was absolutely right when he stated:
“Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society…This national question requires a national solution. And on the issue of such profound importance, that solution should not come from the courts, but from the people of the United States. An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice. When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution, the only law a court cannot overturn.â€
If you don’t believe that this is a very important issue of our time, then you haven’t been paying any attention to the radical homosexualization indoctrination going on in our public schools and in our courts.
Massachusetts is the “poster boy state†for permanently closing the door on “gay†marriage through a Constitutional Amendment. We must do this for the sakes of our children and grandchildren….
Comment by Christine — 06.06.06 @ 1:33 pm
I walk away from the computer for five minutes and return to seven thoughtful comments.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.06.06 @ 1:35 pm
Why We Fight For Traditional Marriage
La Shawn Barber has an excellent post called, “Lawrence v. Texas and the Push for ‘Gay Marriage’”
She states,
“…when homosexuals want to tear up the foundation of society — traditional marriage and the family — I take great issue with it. I …
Trackback by Talkwisdom — 06.06.06 @ 1:45 pm
La Shawn,
Here’s a less thoughtful comment for you!!!
Anyway, I posted a story about the woman who “married” a dolphin. I figured as hardly anyone reads my blog I’d not even have a hit or comment on it.
Well, this Israel Allows Human-Animal Marriage post led to a long back and forth between me, a gay marriage supporter and gay men who demanded I retract my assertion that the gay agenda that pushes for homosexual marriage is intended to destroy our culture. I was constantly required to provide “proof” that the gay agenda is meant to destroy our way of life. I had multiple times linked to posts and websites and they were always dismissed as “not acceptable” to prove my points.
No matter what you say, no matter what evidence is seen from other countries as to what follows when gay “marriage” is allowed, you will be attacked constantly to be silenced. The radical gay agenda requires all dissent from their line to be punished and all opposing views ridiculed.
We’ve seen what happened last year in Belgium. I posted about that too, but Blogspot just went down so no link, sorry.
Whether we personally believe or not that gays have any rights to their behavior, allowing them to claim equality with traditional marriage is going to lead to other things even less palatable. They can say all they want, that’s the way it is and will be, anyone with eyes can see it. Doesn’t the Bible say the sexual sins are the gateway to worse? If we allow gay “marriage” we will end up allowing anything and everything unless we have destroyed ourselves first.
Scott G
Comment by ScottG — 06.06.06 @ 2:01 pm
I can try to be thoughtful. Basically, I think this boils down to this: Homosexuals want, crave, to have their ‘lifestyle’ accepted as normal by our society.
Standing in their way are Christians who keep pointing to the Bible, which shows that God calls homosexuality an abomination, a sin, and which says that no homosexual will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
So, to achieve acceptance, Christian values/moral laws must be obliterated, filtered out of society.
They can try, but the Word of God is eternal- many societies in the past which have tried to move away from God have found that God will not be ignored.
China has more than 70 million Christians, even though purges of Christians have been going on for over 100 years.
They may sue me for ‘hate speech’ for posting the above, but they will stand in Judgment before God , whether or not they cover their eyes/ears when they hear a Christian denouncing homosexuality as a sin.
Comment by Doug — 06.06.06 @ 2:34 pm
I am always amused when I see talk of “homosexual indoctrination.” The thought that your sexual preference can be influenced flies in face of nearly all scientific research and in the reality of most people’s lives. Think back to when you first noticed who you were attracted to. Was it a decision or an instinct? As the question has been put, “When did you decide to be attracted to the opposite sex?”
If its the children we want to protect, we should look at the heterosexual pedophiles who make up most of the violators.
I also do recall similar arguments against interracial marriages in the not so distant past. There are, as well, some who look at working women being a destructive force in the “traditional marriage.”
As black person, it offends me when homosexuals try to use our fight to be treated as first class citizens to argue that perversion is also a civil right. It’s nauseating, actually. There aren’t many blacks who feel that way, I’m sad to say. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/285fhdqe.asp - Admin
Comment by Hazel — 06.06.06 @ 2:42 pm
Wasn’t there more to that case in Texas. Something about the guy you had called it in, was later murdered and that this may have been a set-up to force a case of this nature to go through the courts up to the Supreme Court?
Comment by Jim — 06.06.06 @ 2:46 pm
As a culture, I wish we’d look at the effect no-fault divorce has had on this country. I predict that if other variations of marriage are allowed, it will end up in legalized pedophilia. Anyone who’s been to Thailand has seen Western men walking around with Thai kids. Imagine one of those guys coming back to the U.S. and saying, “We have the right to get married: the precedents are numerous re-marriages, homosexual marriage, and polygamy.”
Comment by mj — 06.06.06 @ 3:36 pm
I think that “no fault” divorce coupled with the absolute marginalization of fatherhood by the courts is one of the best reasons why the judiciary needs to be shut out from further rulings in the area of so-called gay-marriage. If there is one thing that has chapped my hide for years, it is that the judiciary has usurped the right to MAKE law, instead of interpreting and/or enforcing the law - that is when the judiciary isn’t IGNORING the law entirely.
Do you ever sit and wonder what the Lord thinks about all of this? I do that - and I somehow suspect that He is - at best - completely disappointed in His children!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 06.06.06 @ 3:47 pm
It’s nauseating, actually. There aren’t many blacks who feel that way, I’m sad to say.
I believe that most blacks feel exactly as you do.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/lar/lar_01homosexualscivil1.html
Comment by Shade — 06.06.06 @ 3:50 pm
So how does gay marriage “tear..traditional marriage and the family”? Nice leap of logic LaShawn. I’d wager that you can’t justify your statement.
Lazy new readers are boring. Read the entire Cultural Decline category. And you must be living in a vacuum to think “gay marriage” won’t weaken traditional marriage. Either that, or you’re very young and/or willfully obtuse. - Admin
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 3:51 pm
My thoughts from earlier today:
CIVIL UNIONS WITH PETS?:
The more I see homosexual rights advocates pushing for the right to “marry” their same-sex partners or enter into civil unions, the more I want them to answer this question. Since the presuppositional foundation of the quest for so-called “gay marriage” appears to be a combination personal autonomy and privacy, why would that foundation not also support the right of pet owners to “marry” their pets?
I mean, its a loving relationship; there are significant medical/veterinarian bills (at times) which would be alleviated by extending the coverage of employment-based medical insurance to pets; there are residential discrimination issues sometimes involved (”no pets allowed”); and the statistical incidence of domestic violence reports is probably far lower for human/pet relationships than it is for human/human relationships.
I think this conundrum illustrates that the problem with the effort to promote civil unions and homosexual “marriage” is that it proceeds from a faulty foundation. Marriage is not merely an expression of personal autonomy and personal privacy. It proceeds from sources other than the individual. For those who are religious, God is generally regarded as the author and definer of marriage. For those who are secular, the state is generally regarded as the author and definer of marriage. In each case, however, the individual enters into something that was created and is regulated by authorities outside of the individual.
So I think one of the reasons that “gay marriage” is doomed to failure is that it fails to rely on any recognized religious authority, secular governmental authority, or societal tradition. Indeed, it attempts to do battle with all three of these sources of authority, all in the name of the supremacy of individual rights of autonomy and privacy.
Comment by Laserlawyer — 06.06.06 @ 4:01 pm
Ditto. - Admin
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 4:02 pm
DC in comment one captured my thoughts on the issue beautifully.
Hazel–mothers working full time ~has~ impacted our society and our children and not always in a positive way. I’ve seen the difference in my own family, especially with the children.
Laserlawyer–the move to allow “marriage” or civil union with pets (or any animal) is already underfoot. In San Francisco, one does not “own” a pet; one is a “guardian.” PETA, ALF, and other animal rights organizations argue that pets have just as many rights as humans (although I don’t remember hearing the flip side–that pets have equal ~responsibilities~ with humans) and that the value of a snail darter, spotted owl, or the species du jour is greater than that of a human. “Marriage” and forced benefits will be the next step, I’m afraid.
Comment by March Hare — 06.06.06 @ 4:33 pm
Hazel, for every study that says sexual preference is genetic, there is one that states the opposite. There is no proof that it is genetic. You choose your actions. Period.
Comment by Ian MacD. — 06.06.06 @ 4:51 pm
Why Do We Need The Federal Marriage Amendment
It’s the second sentence of the FMA that drives me to support the FMA, otherwise, I’d be open to leaving it to the states. I am not in favor of casting judgment on homosexuals, nor do I wish they would vanish, but I cannot support public servants tha…
Trackback by Church and State — 06.06.06 @ 4:53 pm
See, Brody and Hazel are exactly what I was talking about….
Comment by ScottG — 06.06.06 @ 4:53 pm
I’d wager that you can’t justify your statement.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
Comment by Shade — 06.06.06 @ 4:57 pm
“Hazel, for every study that says sexual preference is genetic, there is one that states the opposite. There is no proof that it is genetic. You choose your actions. Period.”
Has there been a study that actually says that it is genetic? All I see are studies that try to link it to certain genetic traits. It’s like saying that people who have fair complexions are more succeptible to skin cancer. One can link the genetic trait of fair skin to skin cancer but that is far from saying that there is a skin cancer gene and that one who has fair skin is automatically destined to have skin cancer. I doubt that there will ever be a study that concludes that people of a certain genetic make-up are destined to be gay.
Comment by Shade — 06.06.06 @ 5:07 pm
>>If its the children we want to protect, we should look at the heterosexual pedophiles who make up most of the violators.>>
No excusing any pedophile, but I wonder which are more common - heterosexual pedophiles or homosexual pedophiles? It’s my understanding that most of the RC priest-pedophilia cases were not actually pedophilic cases - that is, perpetuated upon children below the age of puberty - but actually homosexual acts of the NAMBLA variety. Supposedly the numbers were researched by a lawyer who represented many of the individuals sueing the church. (I’m sorry - I don’t have a cite for this)
I’d like to see research done on the relationship between sexual molestation by someone of the same sex and later homosexuality - I have a feeling there would be a link. It’s fairly accepted that a young girl who is molested in her childhood tends to be sexually promiscuous as an adult…doesn’t it stand to reason that a young man might also be affected in their sexual behavior?
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 5:27 pm
The best argument for protecting traditional marriage I ever saw was by, of all people, Dennis Prager, the LA talk show host. Sorry I don’t have a link. But he does not use legal grounds. Legal grounds may very well shore up the SSM movement because law is so narrow and technical. Prager made a historical-cultural argument, how the Jews thrived when they embraced hetero unions and sanctioned homosexual behavior. He paints a world that was just basically spinning its wheels in hedonistic sexual practices. When men were forced to channel their desires into *civilization building* it resulted in, well, civilization.
I am a lawyer but to me this is a power struggle. We have a right to protect our society and culture, to want to perpetuate it. I will not be cowed by people calling me bigoted because I care about what happens to us.
Comment by cassandra — 06.06.06 @ 5:30 pm
>>As black person, it offends me when homosexuals try to use our fight to be treated as first class citizens to argue that perversion is also a civil right. >>
Hey! At the rate we’re going, interracial marriages may once again become illegal. After all, diversity is good, right? So therefore, homogeneity must be bad - or at least, not so good. Interracial marriage promotes homogeneity, so therefore, interracial marriage is bad. Since it directly conflicts with diversity, we should make it illegal - right?
We should also promote homosexuality in the name of the god Diversity, since homosexuals are seriously in the minority. Of course, if there get to be enough of them, then I suppose we’ll have to promote heterosexuality. Of course, since homosexuals can’t actually reproduce, we’ll have to continually get converts - see my prior post - in order to maintain the numbers. Otherwise, they may be a dying breed. So to speak.
We should be so lucky…!
/sarcasm off/
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 5:36 pm
Very good guy. I used to listen to him all the time when he was on 640AM. He changed stations to 870am and the signal doesn’t carry in my area very well. His message is still strong, but his signal is weak…
http://www.dennisprager.com/
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 5:43 pm
@Shade:
I read somewhere recently, but do not have a ready link handy, that someone did a study showing that PET scans of lesbians’ brains revealed their brain activity patterns to be more like those of an average man and those of gay men to be more like those of average women. It’ll be awhile (got to go out and mow the lawn/hay the field) but if I can find the original link I’ll post it. Otherwise, feel free to disregard this unsourced assertion.
Comment by Captain Ned — 06.06.06 @ 5:56 pm
No excusing any pedophile, but I wonder which are more common - heterosexual pedophiles or homosexual pedophiles?
That’s a good question. Most stats concentrate on child molestation which may involve pre and post-pubescent minors. With regards to general child molestation, most involve heterosexual contact. The cases that involve homosexual contact constitute at least 30-35% of the cases. Now considering that between 2 and 4 % of the population is gay, the rate of molestations by homosexuals is significantly higher than the rate by heterosexuals.
Comment by Shade — 06.06.06 @ 5:59 pm
Well, I think the argument has been distilled. I am not fully prepared to respond, because I need time to be complete, but a response is coming. Kurtz’s article is certainly worth considering. It appears that the main argument however is a cultural battle with the anti-gay [marriage] side pushing to impose, for one reason or another, a traditional culture on the rest of society. Thus the claim is that the traditional culture, of marriage and family, is better for everyone than alternative cultures. All of America (all 300 million of us) should live in the traditional culture is the argument, and the government, via the law (see #5 on LaShawn’s reasons) should be used to “guide” otherwise unwilling Americans to the right culture. Suppressing alternative cultures, at least to some degree, is necessary to preserve the traditional cultures. Its basic conservativism, only this time with an outright attack on homosexual lifestyle.
I disagree wholly. There are many problems with the argument, particularly as applied to marriage. I hope to distiull them and post. But now I’ll just note a number of things. First, a free society is generally a better society. Its never been successful to legislate one culture to exclude others. Second, even granting some arguments against gay culture (which I reject) there are much worse cultures in America. What’s worse two criminal, abusive, and/or drug-addicted parents marrying or two gays? Third, nobody considers the impacts on gays. I think that illustrates the bias. Its certainly a factor to consider isn’t it?
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 6:23 pm
1. Is homosexual marriage protected by the 14th Amendment? The answer is maybe. As legal scholars know, the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, stated that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In Loving, the court declared state statutes and laws prohibiting and criminalizing interracial marriage unconstitutional. Individual liberty has been identified and protected by the court in numerous cases. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court stated that the substantive due process clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage. Casey was decided in 1992. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court held that homosexuals have a constitutional right to engage in homosexual activity. So the question becomes whether this right extends to marriage?
Invocation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is critical to answering that question. The Equal Protection Clause prevents discrimination, not just racial discrimination. Justice O’Connor in her concurring opinion in Lawrence, stated that she would have invalidated the Texas sodomy statute on Equal Protection grounds because the law was not rationally related to serve a legitimate government interest. As she explained, the desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate government interest. Morality will not likely serve as a legitimate government interest. Therefore, statue legislatures must identify a legitimate government reason for denying equal protection of the laws to homosexuals. If they are unable to do so, then certainly it may be likely that the Court will have to permit homosexuals to marry.
For the record, I’m not in favor of homosexual marriage. But I’m also not in favor of a constitutional amendment, which would discriminate against a class of people.
2. Whether civil unions would be afforded constitutional protections? Yes. As stated above, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from treating persons differently unless there is a legitimate reason. Opponents of civil unions will have a hard time arguing for disparate treatment under the law for those persons in civil unions. If someone has an argument in favor of disparate treatment, I would would like to hear it.
Comment by Antonio — 06.06.06 @ 6:40 pm
# 12. Hazel writes: “The thought that your sexual preference can be influenced flies in face of nearly all scientific research and in the reality of most people’s lives.”
This is not a nit-picking point: scientific research has NEVER reached any conclusion about sexual preference. This is because science is very exacting and it finds laws and immutable truths. That is to say, there is no such thing as “rocket science” any more. The laws and immutable truths of the physics of rocketry are known. Therefore, we are left with “rocket technologists” who apply the scientific laws of physics.
So far as sexual preference is concerned, perhaps biological scientists will someday isolate the homosexuality gene. At that point, it will be science and parents who can elect to abort or try a gene splice. Perhaps a homosexual will have the option of gene therapy. Maybe the parents of a “straight-gened” fetus could get it changed to homosexuality.
That is the science component. We are not there yet.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.06.06 @ 6:59 pm
>>the main argument however is a cultural battle with the anti-gay [marriage] side pushing to impose, for one reason or another, a traditional culture on the rest of society.>>
Please explain to me how the “traditional culture” can be imposed on the “rest of society”. Define “traditional”, if you would, and how it is being imposed on whom. If you’re saying that majority rules…well, that’s generally how it goes in a democracy. And even in a Republic. We’re supposed to “respect” the rights of the minority, not necessarily convert to their viewpoint.
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 7:15 pm
Government should get out of the marriage business period.
The only reason the government endorses heterosexual marriage now is to keep married couples believing that there is some tax benefit for their continued fidelity.
Just another tax scheme concocted by politicians if you ask me.
Get government out of marriage period.
Comment by Justin — 06.06.06 @ 7:22 pm
>>…stated that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty…>>
Yes, well, they thought that they knew what marriage was - heck, we all did. Now we find out that we _didn’t_ know what it was. We just _thought_ we did. How many other words don’t mean what we think they do…guess it’s in the category of “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. In fact, if you just change the meangings of various words here and there I guess what we thought was our Bill of Rights really wasn’t. You know…like the Kelo decision. We thought that “for the public’s use” _meant_ for the public’s _use_…come to find out that it just means that if someone think that if lots of people want your property, that’s good enough.
Words are _supposed_ to have meaning. When they don’t, we’re back to the Tower of Babel. Or is that Babble.
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 7:25 pm
Suek– “traditional” culture is at a minimum being imposed on gays. Gays want to live their lives, but the anti-gay [marriage] team’s argument is that the gay culture is opposed to the traditional man/woman union, is “bad” and should be repressed. LaShawn’s post suggested that this be done by laws. Governmental repression of the gay culture to embolden the “traditional” culture is the argument in favor of a ban that I am being presented with. I’m crituquing that argument.
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 7:39 pm
Giving gays the “right to marry” would create an avalanche of costs and issues. First, there would be a cost of reprinting textbooks and re-educating children that the two marriages are the same. Sex education would have to go down the road that most parents do not want their children to go. Secondly, because “gay marriage” is now legalized, children will be persuaded in misleading material that anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is not simply biased, that person is breaking the law. The take-away for students from these shallow lessons will be that it is illegal to criticize homosexuality, and every person young or old should be protected from the mean conservatives.
There would be a backlash of lawsuits against anyone who speaks out against “gay marriage”, particularly the church. Churches will be threatened with the loss of their tax-exemption status if they don’t “marry” gays. Lastly, if gays are given “the right to marry”, then there will men who will want the right to have more than one wife; siblings will demand the right to marry; people will demand the right to “marry” their pet; people will want the right to practice polyamory (group marriage) and the worse would be the right to marry children. The organization NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) sees nothing wrong with adult men being in relationships with young boys.
True marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists. The bottom line of the gay “marriage” agenda is more than the concept of marriage but the acceptance of their “choice” of lifestyle. You change the law and you change people’s perceptions. Is it “will you merry me” or “will you marry me”? There is a difference.
Comment by Tracey — 06.06.06 @ 8:45 pm
#33. Antonio notes: “For the record, I’m not in favor of homosexual marriage. But I’m also not in favor of a constitutional amendment, which would discriminate against a class of people.”
We normally see eye to eye, Antonio, but I am not ready to call gays “a class of people.” To do so would be to give gays a special “civil right.” That is to say that sexual gratification within the same sex is to be protected. On a strictly biological basis, sexual gratification with the same sex is like trying to impregnate a rock in the hopes of creating a bunch of gravel.
I do not deny the humanity of gays, but their biology is a dead end. What compelling reason does society have for discriminating in FAVOR of dead-enders?
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.06.06 @ 8:53 pm
>>Gays want to live their lives, but the anti-gay [marriage] team’s argument is that the gay culture is opposed to the traditional man/woman union, is “bad†and should be repressed.>>
You’re mistaken. Women are equal to men, but women are not men. Blacks are equal to whites, but blacks are not white. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals may have a close and loving relationship but it is not marriage.
Repression would mean that there are laws that punish the lifestyle. No one says homosexuals cannot live together in any union they wish, but they simply cannot have the recognition of society as having a particular relationship - that of marriage.
I may have a very dear friend who is like a sister to me - but no matter how dear she is, she is still not my sister, because a sister is another child of my parents and she is not that. Homosexuals cannot marry because the relationship they have simply is not marriage. It is something else. We define words to mean certain things. Homosexuals - like many on the far left - want to change reality by changing the meaning of words we use to describe reality. Wishing doesn’t make it so.
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 9:35 pm
from what i understand, anti-gay marriage laws are intended to dissuade people from entering the lifestyle/culture. is this not true? why else pass the law then? if you are not trying to discourage gay behavior and encourage straight behavior, why ban gay marriage rather than embrace it? admit it, you want to discourage gay lifestyle in favor of traditional, family based culture. you are afraid that allowing gays to marry will change culture away from the traditional culture of marriage.
what if the government passed anti-jewish laws or anti-catholic laws? thus an amendment: marriage is the union between a man and woman under the eyes of jesus christ. why not? isn’t that better? if you disagree with say for instance, a catholic lifestyle/culture, would you agree that our laws should then seek to discourage it? should we pass laws to prevent jews from being jewish because your culture is “better?” I hope not, but I dont see why on your logic you wouldn’t encourage that. i suggest, you do your thing and get over the fact that gays do theirs.
The fact is, and thank god for the bill of rights, the courts, and good “activist” judges, is that YOU (im referring to all anti-gay [marriage] supporters) can’t force me or anyone else to live your lifestyle or your culture. I’m glad it will take an amendment for you all to impose your culture on a people who dont want it. It will never succeed. More people need to resent the fact that government, and many others try to impose thier culture on others. Get over it. Your life, likely led 1000’s of miles away, shouldn’t be affected by my culture. If you think it will be, then your view of yourself is rather insecure.
As for the definition issue, many many cultures define marriage in different ways. many allow polygamy. many allow divorce. many don’t. some allow marriages to children. some allow wives to be bartered or sold. despite what you think, marriage has not been defined simply as a union beteen a man and a women– it has been, and always will be subject to change and the rules placed on it by various cultures. in america, marriage means different things to differnt people. there are 300m of us! do you honestly think we all define it the same? how arrogant. if anything, American culture is based on the notion that all cultures are allowed. you propose the opposite. the right position is that absent any good evidence of a significant downside, we should define marriage to include gays. its the decent, tolerant, humane thing to do, which at a minimum, gays would appreciate.
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 10:14 pm
Always look for the assumption that is glossed over at the beginning of any assertion.
In this case, it is the notion that marriage of any kind is a “right”.
It is not a right, it is a privilege, proven because of the LICENSE granted by the governmental authorities to enter into a marriage agreement.
The Constitution should not be the place to be toying with the definition of marriage at all then, for the Constitution defines our laws and rights, does it not?
Being black, I’m constantly trying to point out how shamefully the gay “rights” movement readily points to the African-American civil rights movement in an effort to grab onto some kind of parity. There is none.
We are required to possess a license in order to enjoy the privilege of legally driving a motor vehicle. It is not a right.
We are allowed the Right of Free Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Right to Lawful Assembly, etc. with no need for a license.
Marriage requires a license.
Marriage is therefore a privilege.
Not a right.
Next time a supporter of the gay “rights” movement uses the word “rights” to describe what they are trying to obtain, call them on it.
Would that our honorable lawmakers politicians would get called on the same subject.
All that needs be done is a modification of the marriage license in each state, the legal requirements for obtaining said license must include language that clearly states, one male and one female are the only eligible licensees.
.
Comment by The Machine — 06.06.06 @ 10:33 pm
I believe certain behaviors should be stigmatized, discouraged, and restrained
Of course! Such as getting married on a whim, cheating/beating on one’s spouse, bringing babies into such a marriage and neglecting them such that the state takes them away, and divorcing once one party or the other is bored.
Comment by sulizano — 06.06.06 @ 10:52 pm
I agree with you, this is an important issue. Liberals will say “what’s the big deal of two men get married,” but it’s a big deal because it weakens the meaning of marriage, and with more and more babies being born out of wedlock I’m afraid that marriage is an institution that’s in serious trouble.
Comment by Adriana — 06.06.06 @ 11:16 pm
stigmatizing and discouraging behaivor is one thing; restraining it via the government is quite another.
Comment by uni — 06.07.06 @ 1:09 am
A good discussion-
Why was there less of an uproar 40 years ago about homosexuality? Because the taboo back then was so strong, it was considered sinful and wrong. But these days the Homosexual is gaining traction for his/her immorality because our society tolerates more sin as it moves away from God.
They want to be justified before man and God. Won’t happen. The very idea is doomed to fail. Even if they convinced every single human being on the planet that Homosexuality is as good as Heterosexuality…they would find God hard to convince that He should be more accepting and not so darned Judgemental.
Comment by Doug — 06.07.06 @ 2:00 am
I read that it says in the Bible that blacks were cursed by God and that’s why they were given dark skin.
Is it true?
Also, what’s your opinion on fornication. All Americans fornicate at some point or the other. Is it safe to presume they’re committing a terrible sin?
Comment by sum1 — 06.07.06 @ 6:12 am
You are a fornication sum1.
Comment by Jim R — 06.07.06 @ 7:48 am
sum1
Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that any group was cursed with dark skin. Also, the notion of black people being cursed by God came from a flagrant misinterpretation of the Bible in order to justify slavery.
Comment by Shade — 06.07.06 @ 9:31 am
W. Brody -
Despite the fact that I disagree with almost everything you post and you don’t sound like the type of person who would change his/her mind on this particular issue, I do have just one suggestion. How about using capital letters at the beginning of your sentences?
Comment by Christinewjc — 06.07.06 @ 9:51 am
sum1-sounds like you’ve been reading the notes in the Dakes annotated. Whatever the source for your reading, don’t confuse what man has written with what God had written. If someone tells you that the Bible teaches that one man is better than another, that someone is a liar. Look for yourself-King James version-Genesis 4:15 is the scripture usually quoted to “prove” that blacks are inferior. Racist idiots believe that the “Mark of Cain” mentioned was actually God turning Cain black. Absolutely ridiculous. Look at the entire chapter-no mention of race, nor an identification of what that mark on Cain was-we don’t know.
The joker in me wants to say, “Maybe he turned Cain white.”
Just where did you read that anyway, sum1?
Comment by Doug — 06.07.06 @ 10:41 am
So, I’m a “traditional marriage activist”? Thanks La Shawn! I’ll embrace such a label! It sure is a much nicer one than those that I usually get from the liberal left (e.g. New-aged Nazi??)
Comment by Christinewjc — 06.07.06 @ 10:43 am
Legalized gay marriage has already trampled on freedom of religion, as well as freedom of assembly. It is a CRIME to operate an adoption agency in Massachusetts without a license, and that state will now grant no license, and is revoking already issued licenses, to any adoption agency, public or private, that refuses to give children to gay “married” couples, because that is “discrimination.” Catholic adoption agencies have been forced out of business, despite the fact that homosexuality is recognized as a sin, and strictly unacceptable behavior, by the Catholic church. If gays want to adopt children, they should form a gay adoption agency, but no, they go to the Catholic agency, knowing they are considered sinners and won’t be served, and then they sue for discrimination, and WIN. That’s just in Massachusetts. The Catholics are now not free to practice their own religion as they see fit, because it discriminates against married gays. Freedom of religion came FIRST. The FIRST Amendment. In my mind, that trumps any following legal case, especially something based on the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t apply here, anyway, as gays have the right to vote, hold office, etc., and marriage isn’t mentioned in the 14th amendment.
Why do these loud minorities, only a tiny fraction of the populace, feel they have the right to trample all over the majority? And why do the courts allow it? I thought we lived in a democratic republic, not an appointed judicial oligarchy.
Comment by MCY — 06.07.06 @ 10:46 am
I don’t even know where to begin. In theory, I don’t believe the FMA is the answer. Our great-grandfathers would be shocked at how legislated, and regulated our lives have become if they were here today. Unfortunately, our society has become so litigious, that something will have to be done if we hope to protect traditional marriage and religious rights.
Comment by Rick — 06.07.06 @ 10:50 am
I am not aware of any notable society in history that ever sustained itself with liberal, “values” optional rules.
Furthermore, I can not think of any notable society that had a strong liberal beginning and then morphed into a more conservative structure which led to its collapse.
However, we all know how the history of Rome, Greece and now, modern Europe, has gone. They opened their doors to the “diversity” of homosexuality, drugs, license and permissiveness. And they all had or are having a hard time maintaining a religious ethic. And they all collapsed or are waning as a result.
The more we loosen the reins of a moral society, the closer we come to disintegration. The fundamental Muslim is deadly serious about his take on the moral order. Too many Americans who are intolerant of religion in general and liberal in mindset do not begin to understand the mortal danger they are in.
Too many Americans are wedded to the old beer commercial that promoted the belief that “you only go around once in life”….so eat, drink and be merry. It is this liberal fatalism that will most likely bring us down.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.07.06 @ 11:23 am
I’m not sure I understand the underlying assumptions in favor of gay marriage argued by those above. I don’t get the “what if the government passed Anti-Jew laws or Anti-Catholic laws” parallel. In what way is a ban on gay marriage the same as punishing someone for being of a particular religion, or ethnic group?
I fail to see how not granting a governmental privilege that a group has never had is discrimination. And I don’t get this idea that all laws must affect everyone in the same way. The point of laws is to apply unequally, to a large degree. Laws against theft apply unequally against thieves. Laws granting student loans from the government apply unequally in favor of students. The reason for these inequalities is that it was decided that it would be beneficial to discourage some behavior (theft) and encourage other behavior (education).
In what way is this different? Would it make sense to provide extremely low-interest loans to anyone who asked for them? Why not? Because then lots of behaviors that are not beneficial to society (over-spending, indebtedness) would be promoted. Providing this privilege to those participating in a particular behavior is justified because that behavior is beneficial. So even though it is beneficial to provide this privilege to people whose behavior we seek to encourage, providing it to everyone would be counterproductive.
To address another point, is it an acceptable argument to say that since there is no concrete evidence that giving student loans to anyone who asks for them at any time will lead directly to negative consequences (How can there be? It hasn’t been done yet!), that we should do it right away, and see how it works out?
Comment by MacMan — 06.07.06 @ 12:34 pm
This is the text of the Marriage Protection Amendment as it was voted on by the Senate yesterday (the bill’s title is S.J. Res. 1):
“SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Notice that the bill does not, in any way, say anything about *banning* gay “marriage.” The amendment would have defined marriage in the United States as being only between a man and a woman. It banned nothing and defined something that is being twisted to mean something it does not.
Homosexuals have all the same rights as everyone else in the U.S. A lesbian has the same right now that I do–to marry the man of her choice. What is being asked is to redefine the meaning of marriage to make it something it is not.
Not even state legislatures can make a difference. There is a petition circulating right now in Washington state (don’t know if it got the amount of signatures needed) that would put it on the ballot in the fall in the hopes of overturning the marriage definition law that was passed here by Washington state’s legislature. That’s why I feel an amendment defining marriage (not “banning” anything) as what it has always been recognized to be is more of a failsafe than hoping that fifty different states’ laws will hold the onslaught of a tiny but loud, determined minority. Not to mention activist judges, as in Massachusetts.
What really angers me is that the MSM has even warped this to the point that everyone has been referring to this as an amendment to BAN gay marriage. The amendment was called the “Marriage Protection Amendment.” It defined marriage as between a man and a woman. You wanna say it “banned gay marriage,” well, it also “banned” polygamy then. But I don’t notice anyone being up in arms about that.
Comment by Kathleen — 06.07.06 @ 1:31 pm
“The more we loosen the reins of a moral society, the closer we come to disintegration. The fundamental Muslim is deadly serious about his take on the moral order.”
The point here being?
I consider the treatment of homosexuals on this very forum to be immoral. What is disturbing to me is the very same people who claim that homosexuality is a ‘belief’, a ‘choice’ whatever, and just not ’scientific enough’ are the same people who then go on to use religious belief (key word) as the final ‘proof’ that these homosexuals are an ‘abomination’ and going to be ‘destroyed’like in that ‘beautifully rendered’ picture at the top of the page.
That’s some weird kind of ‘humour’ we have going on here? Doesn’t anyone else think so?
Comment by JohnD — 06.07.06 @ 2:30 pm
>>What is disturbing to me is the very same people who claim that homosexuality is a ‘belief’, a ‘choice’ whatever, and just not ’scientific enough’ are the same people who then go on to use religious belief (key word) as the final ‘proof’ that these homosexuals are an ‘abomination’ and going to be ‘destroyed’>>
If such statements are the only ones you see on this forum, then I agree, you are disturbed.
Legality and morality are not substitutible. There are those who object to homosexuality on the basis of morality, and there are those who object to the legalization of homosexual “marriage” as being a logically impossible effort, in the same way that it is logically impossible, for example, to have a square circle.
I see comments here that address both aspects.
You say you consider the “treatment” of homosexuals here to be “immoral”….by what standards?
Comment by suek — 06.07.06 @ 4:59 pm
>>…anti-gay marriage laws are intended to dissuade people from entering the lifestyle/culture. is this not true?>>
No, this is not true.
Neither are the laws which define marriage as being a relationship between a man and a woman “anti-gay”…unless, of course, you also consider that demands to allow homosexual “marriage” are “anti-straight”.
>>As for the definition issue, many many cultures define marriage in different ways. many allow polygamy. many allow divorce. many don’t. some allow marriages to children. some allow wives to be bartered or sold. despite what you think, marriage has not been defined simply as a union beteen a man and a women>>
The one commonality in the various forms you describe is that all “marriages” are between males and females in some combination, so you are mistaken in assuming that just because the number of individuals or the age of the individuals involved may be different from our tradition, the basic relationship could also be defined as being between members of the same sex.
>>the right position is that absent any good evidence of a significant downside, we should define marriage to include gays. its the decent, tolerant, humane thing to do, which at a minimum, gays would appreciate.>>
Please explain to me why it’s important for gays to have their unions recognized by society as one that is identical in every way to marriage.
Comment by suek — 06.07.06 @ 5:14 pm
#59 JohnD repeats two sentences of a previous (#56) post and asks “The point here being?”
When taken out of context, it is an incomplete premise. But as part of the post, it would be hard to miss the point.
I am curious about a statement above: “I consider the treatment of homosexuals on this very forum to be immoral.” On what moral code does JohnD draw to declare posts about homosexuality to be immoral?
I can readily accept that many good citizens are atheist or agnostic. But from what source do they weave their ethos? Are “right and wrong” merely situational and unique to each individual? Or is the ethos decided by polling and referendum?
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.07.06 @ 5:18 pm
Two comments:
#54: “Catholic adoption agencies have been forced out of business, despite the fact that homosexuality is recognized as a sin, and strictly unacceptable behavior, by the Catholic church.”
Actually, according to the Catholic Church, homosexual acts are a sin. Merely being homosexual is not.
Comment #2: Marriage is not about adults and never has been. Marriage is about children . Governments and societies become concerned about “who’s zooming whom” because they are concerned with the welfare of the children either already part of the relationship or who issue from that relationship.
Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a committed and loving environment. Yes, children can grow and thrive in a less-than-ideal situation, but why would any society want to encourage that?
Comment by March Hare — 06.07.06 @ 7:34 pm
When human beings get together to form a society there are inevitably conflicts. There are always competing interests and the trick is to figure out how to create a framework where all parties believe there is some sense of ‘fairness’ and where all feel that adhering to the covenants of the society are beneficial to each individual. To the extent that there are groups of individuals that do not benefit from the societal laws the resolution is often through force. The beauty of the American experiment and its ultimate success is that the founders sought to severely limit the power of government over individuals and indeed to express forcefully that the government derived its power directly from the governed.
One need only look at the seemingly endless roster of countries autocratic, theocratic or any other where power flows from the state on downwards to see massive disfunction and ultimate disintegration.
There appear to be two basic opinions expressed here as to why gay marriage should be not be sanctioned. The first has its roots in various ‘faith’ based arguments which at the end say ‘my god says this and so its right’. The second is more along the lines of should society confer certain advantages via taxation and other contractual benefits to heterosexual couples that
it denies to gay couples.
I find the idea of a legal system whose roots are in faith based propositions to be ultimately untenable because it is by definition untestable. Any outcome can simply be discounted because it can be deemed to be what ‘god’ wanted. So we can have women’s genitalia mutilated in Africa, or non-believers being beheaded all over the middle-east, or condoms being denied people with a high likelihood of STD’s ‘just because’. No matter how much misery, pain or disfunction ensues, societies whose law is derived from ‘god’ can never be wrong, at least not until a new set of high priests take control and rewrites god’s laws.
The idea that society should confer certain legal, in the end civil monetary advantages to married heterosexual couples is certainly more reasonable, but only to the extent that the advantages flow towards the children. In this regard it would make much more sense to simply move resources towards children in general and not tie their well being to the family circumstance in to which they were born. If there are no children involved then the argument disappears or reverts back to the faith based moral one.
I find it remarkable that so many people believe that people ‘choose’ to be gay. There is clearly a spectrum of sexuality from strongly heterosexual to strongly homosexual with some people somewhere in the middle who can go either way. Given the incredible bias against gays and what must be extreme psychological stress that when one first discovers that he or she is ‘different’ why would anyone choose this path? As someone posted above recent research is beginning to shed light upon clear physiological differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual humans.
If you accept the proposition that sexuality is largely genetically determined, then discriminating against homosexuals is no different than discriminating against blacks or tall people or short people or people with low iq’s or blue eyes or any other trait which is largely inherited.
Comment by DavidA — 06.07.06 @ 11:15 pm
“Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a committed and loving environment. Yes, children can grow and thrive in a less-than-ideal situation, but why would any society want to encourage that?”
This is the most compelling argument March, and the one the state(society, common good, us) has the most interest in protecting marriage from same sex, multi-mate, etc marriage deviations. It is “promoting the general welfare” as the Constitution states the government has a duty to do.
Comment by Jim R — 06.07.06 @ 11:26 pm
I did not get an answer to my question. Instead, all the Bible believers have called ME a “fornication.”
So, I’ll rephrase my question.
1)Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. Fine. Homosexuals will go to hell if they don’t follow the path of Christianity.
2)Fornication is a sin. That is, sex without intention to produce children, or among unmarried people is a grave sin. Therefore,
2a) All Americans who fornicate, i.e. use birth control, or have premarital sex, are committing a grave sin.
2b) They will all go to hell.
Am I correct in my logic?
Also, those of you who’re pretending you don’t know what I’m talking about when I ask if it is true that God cursed some people by giving them black skin, it’s obvious you don’t realize that there are several different versions of the Bible, with different texts, and adherents of each version claim that theirs is the real one. Google helps. Try it.
Sum, you’ve haven’t said or written anything profound or asked what hasn’t been asked for centuries. Sin is sin, whether it be sex outside marriage (fornication) or murder. We are under God’s judgment because we are sinners. God’s standard is perfection, so one sin is all it takes, and the nature of the sin is not at issue. Pick one.
Where you got the idea that God condemns non-procreative sex is beyond me, but here’s something you’ll find very helpful: Read the Bible. You’ll learn what’s in it and what’s not, and perhaps the urge to ask ridiculous questions will disappear. This is your last comment on this blog, so go away. - Admin
Comment by sum1 — 06.08.06 @ 7:18 am
Where you got the idea that God condemns non-procreative sex is beyond me
That’s what I’m saying. There is nothing sinful about non-procreative sex between married people. And despite how common fornication is, no one is pushing for legal certification of the act (which I guess would amount to a “fornication license”). Also, no Christians are trying to establish fornication as non-sinful.
Comment by Shade — 06.08.06 @ 10:50 am
DavidA,
“Why would anyone choose this path?” There are a lot of things done that would cause people to wonder this about the person doing it.
In any case, regardless of whether sexuality is largely genetically determined or not, the question remains: what should each person do with the traits they have? If someone has an inclination towards underage sex, does that give that person the right to do whatever they want? If I have an inclination toward not working, does that give me the right to slack off at my job? I choose, and I teach my children, what I believe to be the right choices to make regardless of inclinations (mine or theirs), and I hope that my children make the choices I teach them.
As for the FMA, I don’t even want to get into that right now, but I wanted to respond to this point, since I have heard “this is the way I am” used as an excuse for too many things.
Comment by Snowed In — 06.08.06 @ 10:51 am
snowed in
I am glad that you teach your children what you believe to be the ‘right choices’. I try to do the same with my children.
The discussion is here is one about law, not about trying to have people ‘do the right thing’ in the context of someone or some groups world view.
“if I have an inclination toward not working does that give me the right to slack off at my job?”
Yes, by all means. If that breaks the contractual arrangement that you have with your employer then he/she should have the right to terminate your employment. If its within your agreement to slack off then slack away. I wholeheartedly support the idea that consenting adults can enter into binding contracts of their choosing.
“if someone has the inclination towards underage sex does that give them the right to do whatever they want”
Of course not. I do not condone people acting on impulses if those impulses are clearly harmful to others. Having sex with underage children is extremely harmful to the child and should be dealt with harshly.
If a law is passed banning X or taking money from person A and passing it to person B, ultimately it is enforced by someone with a holster and a gun. To my way of thinking this is a very serious process and should be regarded as such. Anytime the government passes a law, the majority is effectively saying to the minority, abide by our wishes or lose your liberty and or life. Laws should be reserved for those things that are clearly necessary for a functioning society.
In this specific case the law is really about money. The ‘rights’ being granted via marriage are mostly in the areas of inheritance, benefits and taxation. By granting these ‘rights’ to one group and denying them to another the law effectively is taking money (by threat of force) from one group and giving it to another.
If you were walking down the street and saw two women or men holding hands who were clearly a couple would you consider pulling out a gun and asking them for money so that you could give it to another couple that was man and woman? The current laws do exactly this and if you wouldn’t do it yourself then perhaps it needs to be asked why you would empower someone else to do it for you.
Comment by DavidA — 06.08.06 @ 1:31 pm
DavidA,
My original point was that even if homosexuality is completely genetic in nature (I have doubts about the “completely” part), one is still responsible for one’s behavior, and one cannot hide behind their genetic makeup as an excuse for anything, be it something as harmless as slacking off at work (which I am, and per Colossians 3:23, I believe I shouldn’t be) or something as harmful as pedophilia.
Obviously, if I’m citing the Bible, I’m likely a Christian, and I am. My interpretation of the Bible is that gay marriage is sinful. It’s also my interpretation that divorce is as well, along with a whole lot of other things, even those that are seemingly innocuous, including my tendency toward slacking when I should be working.
That said, I don’t think it is the place of Christians to impose their values on others (with the obvious exception of parents and children). It’s most likely not going to cause a mass conversion to Christianity. If gay marriage comes to pass, so be it. I seem to recall that some of Christianity’s competitors in the first centure were much worse than a two women or men holding hands on the street.
As for redistrubiting money from one group of people to another, I could write at length about the whole taxation/entitlement system, but I won’t. At least not here.
Comment by Snowed In — 06.08.06 @ 2:03 pm
Redistributing, that is.
Comment by Snowed In — 06.08.06 @ 2:04 pm
>>In this specific case the law is really about money. The ‘rights’ being granted via marriage are mostly in the areas of inheritance, benefits and taxation. By granting these ‘rights’ to one group and denying them to another the law effectively is taking money (by threat of force) from one group and giving it to another.>>
Separate the categories. You have:
a) inheritance
b) benefits
c) taxes
The interitance factor is one easily dealt with. Marriage is a form of legal shorthand that confers inheritability in a specific form which requires legal action to change. Unions without marriage can arrange the same benefits by way of legal action. In other words, being married saves you the cost of a lawyer.
Benefits of marriage…now this one has me stumped a bit. It’s assumed that a marriage partner can visit in the hospital without a special form. Marriage partner assumes certain rights and responsibilities in the case of a incompetent partner. Surely these aren’t the only ones you’d have in mind. Health insurance? Many companies are including SO in insurance coverage these days. Since health coverage is not required by law, that just means that you need to choose your employer carefully.
Taxes. Ok…married filing jointly is beneficial if one doesn’t work. Actually, if both work, the taxes for one start at $0, but the taxes for the second start where the first ends. So if both partners earn $45000, partner A is taxes in the bracket of $45,000, partner B’s earnings are taxed in the $90,000 bracket. Married filing separately usually works better if both are wage earners. There are deductions for the children, of course, but that would hold whether someone was married or not. Social Security is probably the other major category. Married with one wage earner confers SS benefits on the non-working member. Both working means that the SS would depend on the life-time earnings of each, unless one partner is much lower on the pay scale than the other, in which case, the lower earner would benefit by having the benefits of the higher earner.
What else can you come up with as far as the superior rights of the married?
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 2:13 pm
>>The current laws do exactly this and if you wouldn’t do it yourself then perhaps it needs to be asked why you would empower someone else to do it for you.>>
I take it that you’re for eliminating taxes entirely? And also all social programs?
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 2:17 pm
Suek,
My argument is much more philosophical than practical. I know from personal experience that early on in my marriage my wife and I were paying a stiff penalty for being recognized as married under the law. It used to be that some couples would divorce on Dec 31 every year then remarry on Jan1 just to beat the IRS. This ploy was subsequently shot down.
The important point here is not the calculation of the number to decide how much largess is being moved from one class to another but whether or not the government should have a dog in this fight at all.
The constitution of the U.S. was not developed from the point of view of what is or is not beneficial to public welfare. The declaration of independence talks of ‘certain inalienable rights’. The public welfare idea is much closer to the musings of Marx, Mao et al.
The greatness of this country is directly attributable to the protection of the individual from the whim of the masses. Lets keep it that way.
Comment by DavidA — 06.08.06 @ 2:54 pm
Suek,
No I am not for eliminating all taxes and all social programs. I have personal beliefs that we have an obligation to help those people in our society that need it. Even if I did not feel the personal obligation I would still calculate that it would be beneficial to me to give up some of my wealth so that others might have some so that they would be stakeholders in the society and would be more likely to abide by its rules.
In addition there are certain expenditures that need to be made from a governmental level, defense/foreign policy being the foremost.
I would completely change the tax structure to one that was based upon wealth rather than income. It would probably be no more difficult to administer a tax based upon the value of assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, businesses) than income and the advantage would be that we would actually be moving assets from those who have towards those that don’t rather from those who are not as well suited to having high priced accounting talent to shield them from taxman.
I would also flatten the tax in the sense that we might take 1% of everyones tangible wealth each year for redistribution and probably around another 1% to run the government.
Comment by DavidA — 06.08.06 @ 3:10 pm
Snowed In,
It sounds like your Christianity works well for you.
thanks for the chat,
David
Comment by DavidA — 06.08.06 @ 3:15 pm
>>…the advantage would be that we would actually be moving assets from those who have towards those that don’t rather from those who are not as well suited to having high priced accounting talent to shield them from taxman.>>
>>The greatness of this country is directly attributable to the protection of the individual from the whim of the masses. Lets keep it that way.>>
These two statements - both from you - seem to be in direct conflict.
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 4:25 pm
>
True…but as I recall - don’t have a copy handy - it also speaks of “in order to secure the public good”
>>The constitution of the U.S. was not developed from the point of view of what is or is not beneficial to public welfare.>>
This is one of those picky little points…
“public good”…”public welfare”…I suspect that some of the problem depends on common usage at a particular point in time, but I don’t consider the two terms to mean exactly the same thing. I suspect that the founding fathers would have expected marriage to be a social institution protected by state laws, and I also suspect that the possibility of “marriage” between two members of the same sex would have been considered laughably absurd.
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 4:33 pm
Suek,
Yes, there definitely is some tension between the two statements. I can certainly understand where some folks would be against all taxation except as it relates directly to expenditures on behalf of the entire citizenry such as defense or public works. I am also sympathetic to the idea that once government begins to compel even minimal wealth transfer from rich to poor you are quickly drawn into the argument as to where to drawn the line.
The wealth transfer I am most interested in is from old to young and to those who are truly incapable of supporting themselves. The amount of money involved would be tiny as compared to todays massive redistribution of wealth mostly going from young to old.
Perhaps my ideas are only reflective of the current state of our country and that if given the chance to start the whole thing from scratch the idea of helping poor kids would be one that people would do out of conscience and not necessarily because they were compelled to do so.
Comment by DavidA — 06.08.06 @ 4:54 pm
Suek,
For all the genius of the writers of the Constitution I wouldn’t look to them for guidence in the social realm. The world of the mid to late 18th century is about equidistant in time between ours and the late middle ages. They still hadn’t come to grips with the idea that certain people weren’t property.
I certainly agree that the founding fathers would have found homosexual marriage absurd. I believe that as late at the late 18th century sodomy was a capital crime in England.
Comment by DavidA — 06.08.06 @ 5:15 pm
To suggest that gay marriage is going to increase homosexual behavior is a bit of a straw man argument.
The lack of “approved gay marriages” hasn’t stopped homosexual behavior no more than a ban would.
I see nothing inherently wrong in encouraging people who love each to engage in a monogamous relationship.
Comment by Jack — 06.08.06 @ 5:57 pm
I’m curious Jack,
“I see nothing inherently wrong in encouraging people who love each to engage in a monogamous relationship.”
What age do individuals become people able to make that decision? Does that change like the rest of our laws? Whenever enough people break the law?
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 6:35 pm
Hi Renee,
My apologies, but I am not following you. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about the evolution of law, well then I am happy to engage you.
But like I said, I just don’t follow. Blame it on a lack of sleep and too little coffee.
Comment by Jack — 06.08.06 @ 9:14 pm
Hi Jack,
No apology needed. No philosphy needed. I think you answered my question Jack…
your comment leads to a can o worms that really does not end with so called “people who love each other”… human history shows that without laws and specific definitions (down to the minute detail most times), we humans (in our sinful nature) will go for broke (even with detailed instructions we rebel)…
just an observation from human history
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 10:06 pm
Hi Renee,
See, there is a fundamental difference. I don’t think of humans as having a sinful nature. I don’t think that you have to believe in G-d to be good. I see multiple paths that can be taken.
I find the idea of trying to legislate love to be ridiculous, offensive and potentially immoral.
Do people need rules? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that they need rules for everything.
Comment by Jack — 06.09.06 @ 1:10 am
Jack,
Ask yourself. Have you ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything…even if it was just a small item? There are many more questions I could ask like if you ever fornicated, committed adultery etc. But I won’t go there. The Bible says that all (including me) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. What’s that glory?
Holiness.
If you can claim to be as holy as God, then you are correct that you do not have a sinful nature. However, notice this…that sinless nature has only been accomplished by Jesus Christ.
You said, “I find the idea of trying to legislate love to be ridiculous, offensive and potentially immoral.”
What type of “love” are you talking about? God’s vision of real love or man’s skewed view of it? Whose moral absolutes are you referring to? Infinite God’s or finite man’s?
O.K. If you don’t want the Biblical reasons to oppose homosexual “marriage”, then I suggest you read the link that La Shawn suggested at the top of this post called “Protecting America’s Immune System: A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage.” Even from the secular humanist perpective, it is a very difficult argument to refute.
Comment by Christine — 06.09.06 @ 9:22 am
If you can claim to be as holy as God, then you are correct that you do not have a sinful nature. However, notice this…that sinless nature has only been accomplished by Jesus Christ.
Christine,
That argument only works if you are dealing with people who believe that that Jesus was divine. I am not one of them. I am not even convinced that he existed. What you call the bible I call fiction. And I am sure that you have similar things to say about my faith.
And there is the fundamental problem with trying to establish rule based upon religion. It doesn’t provide the common ground and framework needed to establish consensus.
Comment by Jack — 06.09.06 @ 11:08 am
hank you kindly for your response to my question. regarding my ‘belief vs belief’paradox.
I will return the kindness and attempt to answer your points:
“If such statements are the only ones you see on this forum, then I agree, you are disturbed.”
In this I’m afraid that you are mistaken. I didn’t suggest that I only saw those statements. I was in fact addressing what I perceive to be the common and vocal/illogical statements regarding homosexuality to which I referred. I’m sorry if this was in any way misleading. However I do realise that you were attempting to be insulting. I try not to converse in that fashion, please try and return the respect that I offer by sticking to the debate? Thankyou.
Essentially what is being broadly proposed is that same-sex loving/sexual relationships are a ‘choice’, a ‘belief’? Then it follows that no-one can ‘really’ be ‘authentic’ homosexual?
This argument is heard most commonly from either ‘haters’ or faith-followers (religious people) who, ironically can not by their own definition be ‘authentic’? Their way of life is also (arguably) a ‘choice’, a ‘belief.’ The irony is unfortunately lost on the accusers.
I would flatly state that a (nominal) religious person had a choice in their lifestyle any more than a (nominal) gay person. It would be hopelessly false to paint a brush so broadly.
It strikes me that some Christians/Muslims etc deem homosexuality to be an ‘abomination’ and will pointedly reference *everything* from lack of science, over into theology, and back again in order to disprove or stigmatize the reality of homosexuality. This process is flagrantly (transparently) directed towards putting ‘guilt’ upon the homosexual. It’s that - “Guilty (read ’sinful’) Because Cannot Be Theologically Proved Innocent” - thing that has punished individuals down the centuries for being an affront to a current theism.
“Legality and morality are not substitutible.”
Not quite sure what you mean by that, sorry. I didn’t make that claim.
“There are those who object to homosexuality on the basis of morality, and there are those who object to the legalization of homosexual “marriage†as being a logically impossible effort, in the same way that it is logically impossible, for example, to have a square circle.
I see comments here that address both aspects.”
So do I. I wasn’t addressing those comments. Again, apologies if I wasn’t clear on that point.
You say you consider the “treatment†of homosexuals here to be “immoralâ€â€¦.by what standards?
By my standards. I would never be so arrogant to believe I speak for others, unless they are very, very close/well known to me.
‘Moral’ absolutes of course exist within fundamentalist religions or totalitarian governments. I do not subscribe to that. My moral coda are not for discussion here, but they are in many ways similar to many religious teachings across the world, and in some ways different.
I recognize the societal benefits of certain moral coda, they make sense for a harmonic existence, without which we would risk becoming desperate survivalists in a constant state of war.
We all have our own subtley or widely different ‘moral’ standards; i.e that which is deemed acceptable/inacceptable. In as near to an ideal world as we try to make, democratic processes ensure that the most commonly accepted moral coda have a place in law. Murderers and abusers = bad. Etc.
I do not subscribe to the belief of ‘original sin. I believe punishing a homosexual by *whatever* means to be wholly wrong if they are punished because they are homosexual. Sharia Law, for instance, is wholly IMMORAL to me. Yet the same thing is of course wholly MORAL to the Islam fundamentalist who subscribes to Sharia.
It is grossly unacceptable to me that people stigmatize, stereotype and punish people on account of either their race or gender/orientation. Of course it is only a matter of succesfully criminalizing a nominal ‘group’ for the punishment of said group to be accepted.
The marriage issue is an odd one as marriage is surely partly religious, partly legal, and very much personal? Adult individual’s relationships with each other and their belief systems, their deities, whatever? I understand that theists cannot (by default) accept authority of differing churches or religions as that is the square peg and round hole you speak of. Differing churches have differing views. Differing religions have differing views.
<