Jump to content

Gay rights vs. religious beliefs


fgoodwin

Recommended Posts

Dan writes "Actually, what it looks like Merlyn just admitted is that the segment of society that denigrates gays and finds homosexual relationships to be less "pro-family" than heterosexual marriages are enncouraging gays to enter sham marriages. Hmm. I wonder if that could be the same segment that "defends traditional marriage"? Nah, must be a coincidence."

 

That would be only about 70% of the US population.

 

packsaddle - DNA as a metaphor. The traditional family is one of the main building blocks of our society. Add in churchs, schools, other social groups.

 

Merlyn, I don't know where anyone said there would be immediate detrimental consequences to traditional marriage from gay marriage. The results from incest may take years to become noticeable. One of the threats we are concerned about is the expansion of the definition of marriage as I mentioned previously. It may not have happened yet, but are you promising me it never will? There are a lot of issues that are going to come up. Can gay couples adopt? Can they be foster parents? Are they more prone to abuse, as some studies have shown? What about the implications for businesses and their insurance plans? No, I don't know all the answers. I only know we are toying around with the building blocks of our society.

Thankfully, legislatures in 37 states have passed legislation banning same-sex marriage, and voters in 20 states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. 7 more states will vote on the issue this November. Mass. will most likely be voting on it before long. Hmmm... looks like I'm not in the minority.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"That would be only about 70% of the US population."

 

Actually, a poll by ABC news in June 2006 shows opposition to same sex marriage to be down to 58% nationwide. At the rate that percentage is dropping, I predict we will see it enter a minority within a decade.

 

"Can gay couples adopt? Can they be foster parents? Are they more prone to abuse, as some studies have shown?"

 

Excuse me? More prone to abuse? What kind of abuse? What studies?

 

"Mass. will most likely be voting on it before long."

 

Doubtful. After three attempts, the legislature has still not approved the ammendment for the ballot even once, and it has to pass twice before it even gets on the ballot. And even if it does get on the ballot, in Massachusetts, the percentage of those apposing same-sex marriage is about 38% (as of May 2005). So I can't say I'm too concerned about the marriages of my gay friends being dissolved.

 

"Hmmm... looks like I'm not in the minority."

 

You would be if you lived in Massachusetts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BrentAllen writes:

Merlyn, I don't know where anyone said there would be immediate detrimental consequences to traditional marriage from gay marriage. The results from incest may take years to become noticeable.

 

Bad analogy; the "results" of incest can be genetic problems that take years to become apparent. Gay marriage is simply a legal contract between other people. If you can't even come up with a genuine problem with gay marriage in MA for the last 2 years, or gay marriage in the Netherlands for the last 5 years, your scare stories are just that - scare stories with no basis in fact.

 

One of the threats we are concerned about is the expansion of the definition of marriage as I mentioned previously. It may not have happened yet, but are you promising me it never will?

 

If it happens, it will be due to the legalization of interracial marriage, not gay marriage. After all, interracial marriage was another big change, and it's only been about 45 years since Loving v. Virginia.

 

More seriously, gay marriage is not responsible for more of your scare stories about how other things may be changed, no more so than interracial marriage is responsible. And yes, people DID ask back when interracial marriage was an issue if that meant marrying animals was next. Scare stories never change.

 

Loving v. Virginia established that marriage was a right under US law, and you need more than scare stories of what might happen (or, even lamer, what other people might argue next for marriage) to deny people rights. Under your standard, interracial marriage would never be approved because it might lead to horrible consequences. For that matter, using your standard, almost nothing would ever be changed, because any action could result in dire (but completely vague) results.

 

You keep implying that gay marriage would result in something bad happening - so what is it? You say people might argue for the legalization of polygamy, but that's happening now, and started before Massachusettes legalized gay marriage. Your other examples are the usual hysterics over gay marriage.

 

However, I have found a list of 12 reasons to oppose gay marriage:

 

1 Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2 Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3 Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4 Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5 Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6 Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7 Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8 Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9 Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10 Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11 Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12 Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If it happens, it will be due to the legalization of interracial marriage, not gay marriage."

 

Wrong. Interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman. That has been the definition for several hundered years. Gay marriage changes the definition.

 

It's obvious I'm not going to change my position, and you aren't going to change yours. I live in a state where gay marriage isn't allowed, so I am happy. You live in a state where gay marriage isn't allowed, so what are you going to do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, some clarification by the legal eagles, please. If a couple is married in MA, and take a driving trip to FL, and one gets sick (or something similar) on the way down. They end up in a clinic in south GA. Will this legal marriage be recognized by the state GA?

 

Also, I think the original thread topic has become lost along the way. My church supports gay marriage and is a welcoming congregation. The CO of this unit supports it and is also welcoming. And in the immediate area, there are several other churches that support it, not sure about those outside the area. So when religion is split on the subject of gay rights, and tide seems to be in favor of those who are welcoming, this issue seems to finally be one of who has the most votes, and not some clear religious doctrine. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed says "If gays marrying gays becomes the norm then our society will die out. Maybe not in two years or two decades, but it will die out. Why? Gays can't procreate."

 

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

 

First, gay marriage is never going to be the "norm", if by norm, you mean the majority of marriages, because gays only represent about 10% of the population.

 

Second, gays can procreate. Just not with each other. Many gays are still managing to have their own biological children.

 

Third, so you think being married or not is going to change whether or not gays can/do procreate? Oh wait, it will; they will be MORE likely to have children because their families will then be protected by the legality of marriage.

 

Fourth, in case you hadn't heard, the world is overpopulated and there are many, many children waiting to be adopted by loving parents. Even if every gay person decided NOT to have any biological children, the world would still be overpopulated.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, heh, Dan I remind you and everyone else that a gay marriage is the ONLY marriage in which BOTH partners can have children. Gay women that is. A quick visit to a sperm bank and, viola!, two pregnancies. This male dominated forum should check their prejudices at the door, all of us.

 

But your ending premise is correct, or to put in the words of Paul (Population Bomb) Ehrlich, people can be made in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read all of this and wanted to respond to keep the thread going.

 

As long as politicians are deciding moral issues for us, the longer it will take to get to real issues like the Economy/Bankruptcy, War, Hunger and Health Insurance.

 

 

Gay-Rights is a moral issue. A Church should decide if they want to marry people of the same sex. Abortion is a moral issue. A Church should decide if they want abortion. If someone doesnt like the morals of their Church, then they should go to a Church that marries gays and aborts babies.

 

 

Q. Should marriage involve groups of people marrying each other and wouldnt it be confusing?

Answer: Well, it is already happening. People are marrying and divorcing at record rates and yes, it is very confusing and yes, lawyers are making fortunes over it.

 

 

I draw the marriage line for consenting adults at four. I get offended if someone nudges it on up to five. Although if my wife decides on three, then I draw the marriage line a little closer to two. I cant answer for her but I hope she agrees.

 

 

Has any society survived homosexuality?

Answer: 100% of all past societies have failed but nobody knows if it was due exclusively to homosexuality. According to the mountains of sifted rubble, mankind has been pretty inventive.

 

Q. Are all Gays dishonest?

A. The evidence is inconclusive. The researchers are having trouble tracking down all of the dishonest ones.

 

Q. What reasons do Gays have for being dishonest?

A. Does the term Whipping Post ring a bell with anyone?

 

Q. Pedophilia, Pornography what is the problem?

A. Sex in any form has no place in Scouting. A person must be able to relate in a healthy way to Scouts and other adults if they cannot, then they need to move on.

 

Q. Do heterosexuals engage in dishonesty and sham marriages?

A. No. Just kidding.

 

Q. Are girls of 14 getting married in our world today?

A. Yes, having babies, getting married, all the same things that Romeo and Juliet worried about. It has nothing to do with people dying early and girls reaching early menarche. The same can be said about the use of hormones today.

A. The idea of writing a story that all can relate to is considered to be an act of genius.

A. I personally believe that at age 14 a persons ability to relate and act as an adult is limited. Getting married and having babies at 14 probably means that someone else will do the adult things for them.

 

Q. What did the APA say about homosexuality in 1950?

A. The 1968 DSM-II Manual, Seventh Printing, Page 44

302.0 Sexual orientation disturbance

This is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. This diagnostic category is distinguished from homosexuality, which by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior, and with other forms of sexual behavior which are not by themselves psychiatric disorders, are not listed in this nomenclature.

(*I realize this A. is not from 1950 but this is when I first began studying the psychological literature.)

 

Q. Will society die out if gays marry? Remember, they cant have babies.

A. Doesnt anyone remember that condoms would keep the world from over-populating argument?

 

 

Ok, so I know a homosexual. That sounds like the start of a joke but it isnt. I know several homosexuals in my Church. Some have been together for years. As I have gotten to know them, their relationships are disturbingly like the rest of us. They still give me a feeling of disorientation because I have stereotyped them in my mind. I dont know that I will ever see them as normal but in so many ways they are.

 

 

I now believe that they need to get married, openly. They need this for no other reason than to confirm that they are a loving family unit and to get whatever benefits allowed them. I wish I could take pictures and send them with this as an attachment because I think most that are against their unions would reconsider. These people that I commune with are not a threat. If they are wrong, then let them stand before God and let God judge. I dont want a hand in it.

 

I drive an old beat-up Toyota PU. I got it second hand and have traveled near one quarter of a million miles. I need a new tail-light cover. Does anybody have one?

 

I hope this helps. FB

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packsaddled asked " OK, some clarification by the legal eagles, please. If a couple is married in MA, and take a driving trip to FL, and one gets sick (or something similar) on the way down. They end up in a clinic in south GA. Will this legal marriage be recognized by the state GA?"

 

No, probably not. That is one of the big fears for gay married couples in Massachusetts. No other state has to respect their marriage. So, if they ever move out of MA, their marriage will not be recognized by their new state. If they ever have a medical problem while traveling, they will not have any protections given to married couples concerning spousal rights to make medical decisions, have access to medical records, or even unrestricted visitation in other states.

 

Even the federal government does not respect the marriages of gay couples from Massachusetts, since they cannot file their federal income tax as married couples.

 

Of course, I believe similar circumstances existed for interracial couples when their marriages were beginning to be recognized by only a handful of states, before a federal ruling was handed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this will clarify things, but I need to say it. The excuse that Gays bring to the table that they have to be alowed to be married because of the health issues is completely false. If our gay married couple from Mass. wants to go to Florida and is afraid that other states won't recognize their union, why are hospitals always brought in the mix. Very few governmental unit hospitals exist today. (with Cook County hospital a notable exception). If our married couple has done the prudent thing, something I would encourage all married couples to do, gay or straight and that is have a "living will" with them and then the issue of marriage is moot. The Living Will designates who has the power/authority to make medical descisions whether or not there is a marriage or disputed marriage involved.

 

Next the visitation thing. I am not sure where people who say you must be married to visit someone in the hospital live, but it must be somewhere I havent been. I have been in hospitals from Key West, Florida to the big island of Hawaii and I havent been in one that has a rule against unmarried co-habitants visiting each other. The American Hospital Association long ago put into its rules for Accreditation that hospitals were supposed to allow the "significant other" of the patient special access. Whether its the mother of the child, the spinster sister of the spinster sister or gay partner, it all means the same so lets get off the issue you have to be married to exist as patient and visitor in a modern hospital. The rules of hospitals have changed tremoundously over the past decades and it would be great to have society's arguments catch up to them.

 

Then again I am not sure how Bob and Bob getting married effects me nor do I see how it effects society. Bob and Bob are living together and have lived together since civilization was formed. Having the church Bob and Bob go to and the government say yeah, you guys can live together don't change that Bob and Bob live together. Maybe we could move off this emotional hot button and on to greater public policy such as what to do about people who want us dead and our civilization eliminated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The excuse that Gays bring to the table that they have to be alowed to be married because of the health issues is completely false. If our gay married couple from Mass. wants to go to Florida and is afraid that other states won't recognize their union, why are hospitals always brought in the mix. Very few governmental unit hospitals exist today."

 

What makes you think this only applies to government hospitals?

 

"Next the visitation thing. I am not sure where people who say you must be married to visit someone in the hospital live, but it must be somewhere I havent been. I have been in hospitals from Key West, Florida to the big island of Hawaii and I havent been in one that has a rule against unmarried co-habitants visiting each other. The American Hospital Association long ago put into its rules for Accreditation that hospitals were supposed to allow the "significant other" of the patient special access."

 

Tell that to Bill Flanagan, who (in 2000) was denied to be at the beside of his dying partner by the University of Maryland hospital.

 

Tell that to Eric & William, when Eric was told by the nurse in the private hospital ICU where he was admitted (in 2003) that she would not share his medical information with his partner nor would she allow him visitation because "he wasn't really family".

 

Why are gay couples worried about this? Because it has happened in the past, and continues to happen today. I have heard horror stories from couples to whom it has happened. If you want to believe that it is "completely false", then go ahead. I know differently.

 

Yes, in 2001, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations defined family as: The person(s) who plays a significant role in the individuals [patients] life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual (Joint Commission Resources JCR, 2001 Hospital Accreditation Standards, p. 322). However, that is very vague, and highly open to the interpretation of the hospital staff. It does stop the discrimination from happening, because they don't have the legitimization of marriage to back it up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DanKroh,

The psychologists who have done research into the pathology and treatment of pedophilia. Including myself. That explains a lot, the conditions related to pedophilia are what you say they are because you say they are, theyre your findings, you and the Psychiatric profession no disrespect intended. Discussing this with you will be as fruitful as discussing whether the Bible is the word of God with some of our other forum members. It is because I say it is and I say it is because that is what I believe so it must be true. Why is it that the psychiatric profession no longer feels homosexuality is a sickness? Did they misread the signs? Misdiagnose the illness? Make a mistake? Could that be true of their position on Pedophiles? Nope, no way, KID CARD trumps open mindedness. Im curious though about your reference to the age of menarche. Do you hold that the age or the normal age has changed due to environmental or social influence? Seems like you were saying that in Shakespeares time the norm was different than it is today.

I am totally in favor of gay rights Dan, never said I wasnt. My position is that I dont want their views forced upon me. I dont want Gays or Blacks or Catholics or Jews or White Supremacists or Democrats or Republicans or anyone forcing me to associate with someone I chose not to associate with. My problem is not with the equality of gays it with the acceptance of gays at the price of my personal liberty.

LongHaul

P.S. I wrote this last night but didnt get a chance to post. Since then Fuzzy Bear has posted and I see that the APA didnt find homosexuality to be a sickness as of 1968, AH! the 60s and the changes it brought. Thank you Fuzzy Bear. Dan being in the profession could you find or tell me where to look for a copy of Fuzzys book circa 1950? Id really like to know if the definition has changed or if homosexuality as a sickness was just something else I was taught as a child which was BS. I know that definition would have been wrong but I would like to know if it was indeed the 50s definition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...