logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 11:31:16 AM new
Linda: As I've said before....gay marriage is only going to FURTHER destroy the institution of marriage and family
How can you say Further when gay marriages have only been legal in one state for only six days? You are no better than the rest of the religious leaders and politicians trying to blame the homosexual community for all the problems of the past two thousand years associated straight marriages. It is the straight people who have caused higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, more one parent households....After all it has only been straight people that have been allowed to be married for the past two centuries.
Please do not use the argument that the study done in Denmark proves your point that gay marraiges there have further hurt marriages in general because we have the same problems in the United States without gay marriages.
Linda: On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
I will not deny homosexual relationships may have more promiscuity than straight marriages, but you have your own definition of a relationship and I have mine. What works for you and your partner may not work for my partner and I. How many straight couples are involved in swinging? How many straight women cheat on their husbands? How many straight men cheat on their wives with other women or men?
If you have been watching the news about gay marraiges you would have heard that gay partners that have been together 15, 20, 30 and 50 years have gotten married. While the numbers will be small compared to the number of straight couples that have been together they do exist.
I also have a flaw with the survey you presented in the link above. Your survey has over 40 years of "straight relationship history" to base it conclusions on. I would bet you would get a totally different result if you compare straight relationships and gay relationships in the past 10-15 years.
It is only in the past 30 years that gays have been making their "presence known" and coming out of the closet.
How many of you have said they are ok with the term civil unions and giving gays the same benefits that married straight people have? What then is the difference between that and gay marriage? Nothing except the term that is being used to describe it.
If people want to live in the past, then let's bring back slavery. Let's go back to the time were women stayed home and cleaned house and did not hold jobs. Let's go back to when gays were still hiding in the closet. I am sure this will statisfy everyone.
Re-defeat Bush
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 11:41:28 AM new
logansdad - Remember the site I already provided you for proof of what has happened in other countries...that FURTHER devalued marriage?
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA.
A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock.
Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
------------------
My new tag line...
Me AND MY PEOPLE  SUPPORT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 21, 2004 11:45 AM ]
|
bunnicula
|
posted on May 21, 2004 11:53:15 AM new
Linda: As we've pointed out before, the number of kids born out of wedlock in the US is increasing, too. And gay marriage (with the very recent exception of one state) is not legal here.
One has nothing to do with the other.
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/fertility/ofw-child.txt
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
|
Reamond
|
posted on May 21, 2004 11:58:35 AM new
And there is nothing in the Scandinavian study that demonstrates a causal connection between same sex marriage and anything they point out.
|
Reamond
|
posted on May 21, 2004 12:01:24 PM new
after all...what good are facts when one doesn't want to accept the realities of the situation.
I looked at the sources and facts. Sources and facts do not make a causal claim valid. This weasel pasted together a string of unrelated surveys and then jumped to wild conclusions
|
logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 12:11:20 PM new
logansdad - Remember the site I already provided you for proof of what has happened in other countries...that FURTHER devalued marriage?
Yes that was the link that I thought you would post. Yet you have failed to show how that is revelant in the United States because we have had the same type of results without gay marriages.
How do you explain what has happened to the sanctity of marraige over the past 30 years when gays have not been allowed to marry here in the United States?
If you have a good explanation I would love to here it.
Re-defeat Bush
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 01:31:41 PM new
bunni - Imo, they do have quite a bit to do with one another.....
it's society becoming more accepting of values/morals that go against traditional marriage and the support system that gives to young children. And who pays for all this....society.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 01:43:20 PM new
Linda :it's society becoming more accepting of values/morals that go against traditional marriage and the support system that gives to young children. And who pays for all this....society
If you want to teach children something that is correct, they should be taught there are differnces in this world. While those differences may go against what he/she believes they are not necessary wrong, immoral or evil. It is called tolerance.
I would still love to hear a good reason for this question: How do you explain what has happened to the sanctity of marriage over the past 30 years when gays have not been allowed to marry here in the United States?
Re-defeat Bush
|
logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 01:48:46 PM new
I would love to know what will happen in 2006 when Mass. tries to repeal gay marriages? Will the reason be gay marriages have destroyed the sanctity of marriage?
What will happen when somebody says prove to me how gay marriages has changed society in the past two years (2004-2006) since gay marriages have been legal here in Mass.
Re-defeat Bush
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 02:18:31 PM new
Will the reason be gay marriages have destroyed the sanctity of marriage?
Hopefully not...especially if the other states [those that haven't already done so] pass bills describing marriage as 'one man and one woman'.
But what we have experienced in Mass...is NOT the will of the majority of the people in the state of Mass....nor the process of established legislation....but rather the will of activist judges who think they can *make* law rather than abiding by the current laws.
And that's the sad part....just like it has been with all the other cases of gays being married....when their state laws didn't allow it. Activists who weren't getting their way.....broke the law...rather than establishing new laws....and that too is further decay of our society. We are a nation of laws.....not civil disobedience.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on May 21, 2004 02:51:33 PM new
is NOT the will of the majority of the people in the state of Mass....nor the process of established legislation....but rather the will of activist judges who think they can *make* law rather than abiding by the current laws.
Constitutions are not enforced by the will of the majority. Constitutions are there to protect the rights of minorities.
You can thank "activist judges" and a written Constitution for every right you have.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:01:01 PM new
No reamond - what the Mass SC did had nothing to do with backing a law...reading a law the correct way. There was no law...then they decided that NO civil unions wouldn't fit the bill. So they changed the whole course of America ...and traditional marriage...and it's against the people's will.
No one will ever convince me that our government wasn't formed to DO the will of it's people....rather than the other way around...like it's being done now.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
cblev65252
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:08:49 PM new
Here you go, Linda. Does this fit you?
A Biblical Definition of Marriage
President Bush has asked for the public's prayerful guidance as he seeks to find a legal remedy for recent court decisions that he finds disturbing. If these advocates of "traditional" marriage actually consult their Bibles carefully, however, they may come away from a close reading of the sacred text with something less than a feeling of comfort.
If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
Perhaps a more contemporary standard measures up better against the ancient near eastern tradition than one might have expected.
Edited to add: Here is the link to the article which is on the Potestants for the Common Good web site: http://www.thecommongood.org/CGN/3_3/biblicalmarriage.html
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on May 21, 2004 03:15 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:16:35 PM new
Cheryl - I don't want to shock you or anything....but many who oppose gay marriages aren't religious but secular and they're not all right wing but rather a combination of all parties and religious and secular.
Maybe you'd like to answer why you think john kerry, howard dean and john edwards DON'T support gay marriages.....instead of turning this into another 'blame religion for everything thread'.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:25:24 PM new
If I remember correctly six out of the nine democratic nominees did not support gay marriage.
Your Mr. K did
Mosley/Brown did
Al Sharpton did
all the others didn't.
Was it because they wanted to take America back to bibical days? I doubt it. Was it because they felt since civil unions would have covered the concerns about equal right that was adequate? I believe so. Was it because they felt traditional marriage has ALWAYS meant marriage between a man and a woman since our nation was formed? Yes, I believe that too.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
cblev65252
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:27:34 PM new
Your dear President Bush is the one who is turning it religious by asking for prayerful guidance. Not approving something and changing our Consitution to outlaw it are two different things. Kerry never stated that he would change the Constitution to outlaw it. Just because you don't think someone's lifestyle is right doesn't give you or anyone the right to ban it. That does not make this country
FREE, IMO. What ever happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Does it only apply when it doesn't bother anyone else or when it doesn't go against the beliefs of others? And why, Linda, do you think I so strongly support Dennis? Because he believes in the rights of all people, of all colors, of all nationalities, of all religions and of all sexual orientation - yes, and that includes gays, transvestites, and everyone else you may see as deviants.
Cheryl
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:34:54 PM new
cheryl - You didn't answer my question about why you think they don't support gay marriages.....do you think all six of them are basing it one their religious beliefs? Why aren't the lefties here even willing to acknowledge that SIX of the demcratic candidates take the same position?
How do you defend their positions when you blast this President for holding the same position?
Anyone?????
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
cblev65252
|
posted on May 21, 2004 03:46:47 PM new
I never said I agreed with their positions. What I said was they didn't make the comment that they wanted to change the consitution in order to ban it. That's a Bush plan, not a Kerry plan. I don't agree with them, however, they are entitled to their opinion as are you and as am I. Like it or not, it is a religious issue even though it should be a human issue.
Cheryl
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 21, 2004 04:09:53 PM new
"How do you defend their positions when you blast this President for holding the same position?"
Kerry doesn't have the same position as George Bush. As Cheryl pointed out, neither Kerry or any of the other candidates want to ammend the constitution as George Bush does. Kerry has made it clear that he opposes amending the US Constitution, because he believes the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
John Kerry has also addressed what Cheryl has called the human issue. He supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples. He believes that they should have all rights and legal protections that all families and children need. Although I don't understand his reason for opposing marriage, I do see a significant difference between his position and that of George Bush.
|
cblev65252
|
posted on May 21, 2004 04:21:17 PM new
Helen
Even with both of our explanations, I don't think Linda will get it. I'm done trying to explain.
Cheryl
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 21, 2004 04:30:55 PM new
Your explanation is excellent, Cheryl!!!
Sometimes it's a losing battle though...I agree. At least no one has brought up Clinton and Hillary yet. Hahaha!
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 05:24:48 PM new
Kerry doesn't have the same position as George Bush.
Yes he does....he is also gay marriae and after the Mass. SC made they're statement, kerry publically said he disagreed with them.
You can bring in all the other related issues you wish to for comparison....but the fact is this is one issue they both agree on.
And so not to disappoint.... clinton did sign the federal marriage act....which states marriage is between one woman and one man.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 21, 2004 05:30:12 PM new
No...linda.
Kerry will NOT amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages...like Bush proposes. Kerry wants to leave the issue up to states while assuring gays that their rights will be protected and provided through civil unions.
Big Difference!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 05:33:40 PM new
I doubt you'll even believe a direct quote from kerry.....but for others who may.
[i]"I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples -- from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision," Kerry said last week after the court ruling.
When asked whether he might support Massachusetts' constitutional amendment, he said it was possible.
"It depends entirely on the language on whether it supports civil union and partnership or not.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 21, 2004 05:37:51 PM new
That statement does NOT change the fact that...
Kerry will NOT amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages...like Bush proposes. Kerry wants to leave the issue up to states while assuring gays that their rights will be protected and provided through civil unions.
The Big Difference is still there!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 21, 2004 05:48:02 PM new
Changing te U.S. Constitution is a separate issue - not what we've been talking about. Many who are against gay marriages have said they don't want to change the Constitution.
You're the one that's not seeing they are two different/separate issues.
John Kerry is against gay marriage. That's a fact. He disagreed with what his own state SC did. No changing his position.....least not for the moment....
he does have a reputation of being a flip-flopper.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 05:57:13 PM new
Linda if you think gay marriages are immoral and will further cause the decline of society and the sanctity of marriage.
How does divorce, adultery, spouses cheating on each other and sham marriages (like that of Britney Spears) support what you are trying to uphold. How do these things further the cause of what straights are trying to uphold?
Instead of trying to single out one group of people, Bush, the Pope and the rest of those trying to protect what they already have and deem so important should be speaking out against divorce, cheating and 1-day Vegas style sham weddings.
Instead of doing this, it is easier for them to chastise others because it goes against 2000+ years of tradition.
Re-defeat Bush
|
logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 06:06:16 PM new
If you want to talk about tradition,
Baseball was an all white sport until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.
The Civil Rights movement could not have started if it were not for Rosa Parks.
What do these things have to do with gay marriages you ask, nothing except that at some point in time, traditions are broken for one reason or another. Gays have always had to hide who they were. Over time they have come "out of the closest" and have slowly tried to be accepted. Now we are trying to have equal treatment in all areas of life.
How would you feel if you were denied seeing your spouse in the hospital as he was dying because you were not immediate family? How would you like it if you could not get covered under your spouses health insurance plan because you were not legally married? How would you like it if you lost your job because of your sexual orientation?
You would not like it one bit and be doing the same thing as what gay people are trying to do today.
Until you are discriminated against you will not know what understand what the "other side" is fighting for.
This is off topic, but has to do with tradition. One other "tradition" is the presidency. This position has always been held by a white male. How would you act, if a woman ran for president and all the male politicians call for a constitutioanl amendment just so a woman would not hold that position. Every woman in the US would be screaming discrimination. Well that is exactly what Bush is doing with his proposed constitutional amendment.
Re-defeat Bush
[ edited by logansdad on May 21, 2004 06:18 PM ]
|
logansdad
|
posted on May 21, 2004 06:14:26 PM new
Thanks Cheryl for quoting those bible passages. Those that want to follow the Bible can not have it both ways. They condone gay marriages because of the bible, but when you quote the bible and prove them wrong they come up with another excuse.
Re-defeat Bush
|
cblev65252
|
posted on May 21, 2004 06:19:40 PM new
I have a few gay couples as friends and it's great to watch them together. I tease them and call them old married couples. The way they act toward one another is no different than the way a man and a woman act toward one another. They argue about who's going to take out the trash or who's turn it is to cook dinner. One is generally neater than the other and one complains about picking up dirty clothes off the floor. It's heartless and cruel to deny them the right to marry. It's heartless and cruel to make them feel like outcasts in a country where they pay taxes just like everyone else. They are human beings, not monsters. They aren't devil worshippers or Satan's handymen. God loves them as much as he does the rest of us. So, judge them as you wish but remember you also have a judge. How kindly is He going to treat you when your time comes?
Cheryl
|
