Maxel
-
Posts
1853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maxel
-
-
Omaha-
You recently tried to embarrass me in another thread using Utah's definition of marriage- I come hear and see you debating JAG on the issue of marriage, heavily invoking Utah's legislation. What I'd like to know is why you're so fixated on using Utah's requirements for marriage as the litmus test for what marriage ought to be.
Same question to JAG, if he's the one who keeps bringing it up (I don't have time to read the history of your guys' debate).
-
I appreciate it.Maxel: I promised you links to studies and rebuttals against the study done in the 1970's in regards to the number of partners of gay men. One of these studies was done in 2008, and the others site lists numerous studies performed over decades. Please also note that the 1978 study was conducted in a way to only include self-identified non-monogamous gay men and women.
These two studies deal with the 'level of commitment' in a relationship. A committed relationship doesn't equate to a healthy one. In fact, in some cases (such as women abused as girls) an unhealthy relationship might serve to increase the level of commitment involved. (That's not to say that unhealthy gay relationships automatically lead to committed gay relationships- but only to show that commitment does not equal health or even justification). The main thrust of these reports seems to have been to 'prove' that homosexual relationships aren't inherently unhealthy because of commitment.
What these studies show is that a few incorrect assumptions are incorrect- they don't serve to equate the health of homosexual and heterosexual relationships (the second study makes that exact incorrect correlation, that commitment equals psychological health).
One question I do have for these reports is whether they documented if a couple ever had sex with third parties (threesomes/orgies). I know it's practiced by heterosexuals, and don't know the frequency among the gay community. It's not unreasonable to assume that theoretically a person may have a 'committed' relationship with one person, but have sexual encounters with others.
Furthermore, the studies say nothing about the percentage of committed homosexuals to committed heterosexuals- only that those studied were in committed relationships.
The article I quoted in the other thread concerning the amount of partners the average homosexual had cited "Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men & Women", not "The Gay Report". As far as I know, "Homosexualities" might suffer from the same methodological problems, or gleaned its information from "The Gay Report" itself (IMO not likely, since they were both released in the same year).Edit: This one too :) The Gay Report
No. I haven't, since I began studying this topic, associated heavy promiscuity with homosexuality (at least, not a greater amount of promiscuity than can be found among heterosexual sexual deviants). While I'm glad to see that the average homosexual has far, far less than 500 sexual partners in a lifetime, it doesn't change my opinion about the community at large. It wouldn't if it were proven that every single homosexual was completely monogamous.Since the gay culture has evolved greatly since the 1970s, I certainly hope these studies change your mind on the gay community in general.
Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the so-called "evolution" of the gay community means anything. What's happened in recent years is a dawning realization among gay activists that if they want their lifestyle to be accepted, they have to make it appear that the average gay man and gay relationship is virtually identical to a straight man and straight relationship. This means no more public adulation for the "bath" culture, and a stress for all monogamous homosexuals to publicize themselves and their lifestyle as the "norm" among homosexuals. And you admit that promiscuity is a very real problem in the homosexual community (blaming it on society's non-acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle; I've voiced the fallacy of your reasoning before). It's hard to accept all these reports at face value when you yourself admit to the problem they supposedly solve.
Finally, even if the gay community did become more monogamous, it doesn't change the basic facts of the case: homosexual promiscuity has never been anything more than an ancillary argument against same-sex marriage- just as heterosexual promiscuity can be nothing but an ancillary argument against heterosexual marriage.
For you and other homosexuals like you, I have a deep sympathy. However, I cannot ignore the powerful veins of bigotry in the gay-rights movement at large, nor can I ignore what is the common sense conclusion of same-sex marriage legislation.I realize these won't affect your overall view regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality, but hopefully they will help you understand that there are many many many of us who want nothing more than a committed relationship with the ability to protect our families.
-
GaySaint-
I have to take issue with a few items in your list of requests for us. I know, in part (and only in a small part) the pain you experience. However, when we discuss things as they really are, we need to be more concerned with the truth than with our feelings.
As an excommunicated member of the Church, giving advice to know if what 'certain leaders' say is "prejudice or doctrine" hits me as a vehicle for undermining the faith of the faithful- something you claim not to want to do.First, I would want them to understand. Even believing homosexuality is a sin, there are so many hurtful things members do to the gay members of their own congregations, and so much more that could be done to support those who deal with this. Remember that there are many of us among you struggling, and you cannot help if you don’t understand. Just one wrong (and often not doctrinally sound) piece of counsel could set someone on a path that will lead them away from the church. I know homosexuality is a difficult issue to study, but so much could be accomplished by people who are just familiar with the issue. Pray about it, even if it doesn’t affect you directly. Pray to know if what is said by certain leaders is prejudice or doctrine. If you don’t understand homosexuality, SAY so, but don’t just harm other people because you don’t agree with them.
The rest of this I can more or less agree with, with the caveat that you really aren't in a position to tell us what the doctrine is or isn't, and thus can't be justified in declaring whether counsel is doctrinally sound or not.
What is important has been revealed- that those who suffer from same-sex attraction, if they abstain from their sinful temptation, are just as worthy as any other member, and that no one will be unfairly denied a chance at exaltation in the hereafter.Second, acknowledge that the church doesn’t have all the answers. This one is really hard, because no one wants to punch holes in their faith, but the church itself acknowledges it doesn’t know the reasons people are gay, doesn’t know how to “change” gay people to fit into God’s plan that they have revealed to them so far, and doesn’t even know what will happen to us in the next life. There is nothing wrong with the fact that God wishes some things to remain quiet for now, but just such an acknowledgement (which I have received from many wonderful people here) goes a long way.
This claim is ridiculous. I can't speak for anyone else, but in our past discussion, you have been the one unable to find compelling legal support for government-sanctioned gay marriage (in fact, I've never seen what I consider to be a strong legal case for federally-sanctioned gay marriage that doesn't heavily rely on un-Constitutional precedents. State-sanctioned gay marriage arguments are better, but still unconvincing to me).Fifth, if your reasons for not supporting rights for gay couples are religious, say so. If you have secular issues with such rights, be fair in listening to both sides – and don’t be afraid to fall back on religion as your reason if those secular reasons don’t hold water. Don’t defend untruths.
You are aware that a religious argument doesn't hold any water in a legal debate- the encouragement to "fall back" on such a position makes me believe that you'd prefer us to never actually engage in debate, because you can't win outside of the exact same ideological argumentation- which, in these situations, almost invariably ends in a draw.
-
You do have a point here- apples and oranges. Do you have any examples of a gay pride/gay rights parade where the members behave themselves in a decent manner (including dressing in a non-overly-sexual manner)?I agree that Mardi Gras is an example of debase behavior. That was my point – that it isn’t just homosexuals who engage in such displays. I didn’t think it fair of Maxel to compare a pride parade to a “family friendly” alternative, when there were examples of heterosexuals (who are allowed to marry) engaging in behavior that he would consider sinful. So I’m glad you both (Maxel and Rameumptom) got that point.
-
Animal sacrifice was instituted in the days of Adam (Moses 5:5) and preceded the time of the Old Testament (excluding GenesisThe whole idea of animal sacrifice seems like something that would be part of a primitive culture...
).
Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the ends of the Mosaic Law- while the law of Moses required animal sacrifice, it wasn't unique to Moses' law. There are some things we find in the Old Testament that are still required of us- such as tithing- so I don't think a reinstatement of animal sacrifice would be a denigration of Christ's sacrifice or covenant.Let's not try to reinstate the Old Testament times over the covenant of Jesus.
And a thought about the "sons of Levi"- I always assumed it would be the literal descendants of Aaron that would offer said sacrifice. It seems that that final animal sacrifice will somehow answer the ends of the Aaronic Priesthood, after which it will be taken from the Earth and only the Melchezidek would remain.
-
I wish a candidate with a better record could be found (him posing nude is a huge letdown).
What's the chance that the Democrats pull out the nuclear option to try to pass healthcare reform anyway?
-
They hate the Christ.why do people feel the need to be so negative on a story that is to be uplifting and show the goodness in people?
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.
22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
-
If you honestly believe Mardi Gras is a celebration of the traditional family, then you do not know what Mardi Gras is.Please Google “Mardi Gras.” Let’s at least compare pearls to pearls and swine to swine.
As far as I'm concerned, those participating in the sex-glorification festivities of Mardi Gras are as bad as those participating in the sex-glorification festivities of gay pride parades.
Do you have a link to these scientists' opinions? I'd be interested in reading what they have to say.As to your studies of homosexual men and their partners, most scientists have pointed out flaws in the way this study was conducted (research was polled outside of gay bathhouses and clubs, where promiscuity was a major problem. It was also presented in such a way to the survey takers as to make it appear a positive to have more sexual partners. I would assume that if you went to a local bar in any big city, and asked similar questions of straight men there, you might have similar responses).
And as I said before, blaming society's "intolerance" is a horrible, self-justifying excuse. You can find plenty of groups that were met with rejection by society at large, yet didn't fall into the numerous evils- including promiscuity- that the current homosexual population has.And I’ll go back to this quote, from yours truly: Not allowing gays to marry doesn’t exactly promote monogamous gays. I don’t think it fair for you to deny us society’s accepted form of monogamy, only to then tell us the reason we don’t get it is because we aren’t monogamous.
I can't access his studies, so I can't offer an opinion as to what you say. I'll accept it at face value.For proof of what I am talking about, please google Dr. Ilan Meyer, whose study regarding how gay behavior is triggered by how society treats us (including depression and suicide rates) has been peer reviewed and never discredited. He is actually a witness in the current prop 8 trial.
To rebut, however, I quote the paper I quoted earlier:
"Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people's unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.
An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.
The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."80
The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders."
(Consult footnotes 74-81 of the article)
This isn't an open-and-shut matter- there's findings that support both positions.
-
Be careful with your accusations of hypocrisy, Omaha.I am continually surprised when someone who comes from a group who was once oppressed can so easily turn around and use the same rationale against someone they consider unworthy. You would think such hypocrisy would be easily recognized but it is not.
Were such actions justified before God? Am I attempting to drive homosexuals out of the country, or to hurt them?Maxel, you are aware that your ancestors, literal or spiritual, were likely considered degenerate and abominations by the people that drove the LDS Church out to Utah and then harassed once in Utah?
The answer to both those questions is "no".
The Lord has commanded us to live by His word and be obedient to His servants. Through the modern prophets, we have been warned again and again of the evils that befall a civilization that accepts homosexuality as a normal practice. It is my duty, as an American citizen and as a God-fearing Mormon, to raise my warning voice in my own sphere of influence, to combat the sophistry of the world with the word of the Lord.The early Church's marriage practices were one reason for this. If homosexuality is an abomination, I assure you God does NOT need your help in dealing with the situation.
If I opposed the Lord, He would crush me. If I stay within His program, however, He will turn my works to my own benefit, and bless me. If I died this instant, His work would go on without me- yet, while I am in this world, it seems good to me to fight this fight- although I know, in my heart, it is probably a losing battle.
You do not speak for the Lord. They who do speak for Him have made the matter crystal clear.Prejudice is prejudice, be it race, creed, or sex, and God opposes prejudice.
-
Omaha-Here are the requirements for marriage in Utah...
Using specifics, please show how Utah marriage "is about a positive union of the sexes to create and perpetuate moral, healthy life"
Does Utah require cohabitation?
Sex?
Love?
Health?
Morals?
Etc...?
And I would like specifics.
My definition was clearly a moral one, and will probably not be codified in legislation.
You rip my statement out of context, provide very limiting parameters which you are aware are not even intended to speak to the purpose of marriage (and is concerned with legality, not morality), then attempt to embarrass me by demanding I support my claim with what you've provided.
Surely you see where you've gone wrong.
Since you've decided to engage me in discussion, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering my first questions on this thread?
-
GaySaint-
I respect your decision to bow out. Since you have done so, I will not take the time to reply to your post (it is, largely, a restatement of issues already discussed), except for one very good question you posed.
That will change. Very soon, I fear. I know the prophesies of the endtimes, and I believe them. I know the day is coming where it will be called evil to worship the God of heaven and earth, and to practice sound natural principles. I have made a pact with my God that I would rather die by the sword than bend my knee to Baal- but before resorting to bloodshed, I will practice the teachings of Jesus wherein he taught not to return evil for evil, but to do good to those who persecute you.You happen to be in the moral majority now, but what will happen if that changes? Whose moral authority will you be willing to recognize then? What if someone claims their God is bigger than your God, and they put your lifestyle up for vote?
When I find myself in the moral minority, I will still act as I do now, and (if I am still alive) flee to Zion when the time comes.
No, I'm not interested- in discussions like these, my philosophy is to make a case before the whole community, so that it will truly stand or fall on its own merits. I appreciate the offer though.If you would like to hash out the nitty-gritty, I'd be more than willing - but let's PM so that I don't offend anyone unintentionally.
-
I was reading through the thread, and your last post caught my eye. I don't know if Rameumpton is done, but I'd like a crack at defending his position, if I may.
So would you say the gay movement is an evil institution that seeks to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity?
Additionally I would like to see some evidence for your assertions above.
-"In [gay pride] parades, they tend to flaunt their sexuality, often in extreme and disgusting ways."
Do a Google image search for "gay pride parade". Then do one for any combination of family, parade, and pride- or whatever else you want that you think will render images from marches sponsored by those supporting the traditional family.
The photographic evidence speaks for itself.
-"Studies show that the average gay man has over 100 partners in a lifetime. The average heterosexual male has only about 5 or 6 (fewer if the heterosexual is a traditional Christian)."
From the Catholic Education Resource Center. The numbers are taken from Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women.
This article is not very convincing, IMO. It 'proved' only that modern government, with all its bloated laws and un-Constitutional programs, would slightly benefit economically, and that the marriage industry would receive a "windfall of about $17 billion.. if gay marriage were made legal nationally... Weddings are a $70 billion-a-year business."You might be surprised to know that many economists advocate gay marriage for the same reason, in creates more stable economic actors.
Gay marriage can serve as boost to economy Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch
Yay, the marriage industry would grow by ~25% for one year!
And for Mr. Kostigen's main argument is (for him) a common-sense issue- "If you look carefully through the numbers, the thing that actually makes the numbers work in gay marriage's favor is the caring of one person for another. When people show they care, they spend -- on gifts, dinners, weekend getaways. On the other end of the spectrum, when people are in need and there is someone there to care for them, they are less reliant on social services."
He assumes that once society accepts gay marriage, gays will magically become more monogamous and spend more money on each other and their life together (a fact that, I believe, isn't wholly without merit). As an argument for same-sex marriage, however, it's shallow reasoning- there's no prohibitions on gays showing affection for each other now. In fact, pooling resources in a marriage actually saves the couple money- meaning they're paying less into the economy.
After reading your article, I'm not convinced that the meager economic 'boost' from allowing same-sex marriage is worth it at all- or that the author even proved a morally responsible point (one of the 'benefits' from same-sex marriage? More money pumped into government for divorces).
As far as the promiscuity goes, GaySaint has admitted that this is a very real problem in the gay community in another thread. He blames that fact on society's non-acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle- which is, frankly, a very shaky and weak assertion. As far as the "[desire] to defeat the marriage-based society", there are comments by prominent leaders of the gay community to that effect (I forget where I found the website that linked to talks by said leaders expressing such views- I'm still looking for it; have been for a few days). Looking outside the United States, the Feminist Initiative is just one example of a group attempting to abolish marriage.So would you say the gay movement is an evil institution that seeks to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity?
Additionally I would like to see some evidence for your assertions above.
In a letter from Einar Westergaard, a member of the Green Party's youth wing, via Stanley Kurtz:
"We are trying to achieve a sexual revolution and counteract the hierarchy that gives heterosexuality privileges and represses other forms of social life....The two-person standard is part of society’s heterosexual norm...(whereas it is our) aspiration to make the laws as norm-free as possible....Marriage is not the key to homosexual, bisexual, and transgender liberation. What’s essential is the battle for norm-free, sex-neutral legislation, and a society without heterosexual norms." (Emphasis mine)
Yes, she's part of a lunatic fringe group. However- she's right- if you want to erase something's importance, expand its definition until it means nothing. If you want to erase marriage's importance in society, expand its definition and related concepts (fidelity, procreation, etc.) until they're all but meaningless because their meaning is so vast. And I'm not convinced that her statements are so out of line with the real intentions of the gay rights movement.
This all seems like some solid evidence to me. Agree/disagree?
-
Before I get into responding to your post, I want to ask you if this post is the one you were talking about, wherein Just-A-Guy made a "hefty argument" in favor of gay marriage.
If it is, I'd like to point out something:
He only 'admits' that gay marriage might be reasonably extended to homosexual couples in a "society as degenerate as our own". I agree with him- it is only in a degenerate society (often wrought by ease and luxury) that even contemplates the issue. If anyone accepts that notion, the morally responsible reaction would be "how far have we come; how can we fix it?" instead of "oh well; let's just keep sliding down the path of corruption".
JAG's entire 'argument' (in support of gay marriage) presupposes that American society has degenerated, and that homosexual union is immoral (the third major immoral act listed, after fornication and divorce). If you want to accept that as a good argument in support of gay marriage- be my guest.
If that's NOT the post you were talking about, I apologize and ask you to link the post that you meant.
It is not I, but God who has declared homosexual acts as an abomination. If you want, I can quote you the scriptures and their interpretation from the modern prophets. A wholly moral practicing homosexual- if we define 'moral' as 'within the limits of behavior and thought required by the Lord to be in good standing before Him'- is an oxymoron, and such a thing cannot exist. That does not mean, however, that a homosexual cannot be a moral person in other regards- only that his practicing of homosexuality is immoral.I'm not entirely sure what place someone who is not homosexual has in judging those who are as immoral. This line of thought (correct me if I am wrong) tends to lead me to believe that you believe that there is no such thing as a moral homosexual.
I should note here that I am aware of the varying definitions applied to 'homosexuality'. I want to emphasize that only a person who acts on same-sex attraction- meaning one who entertains homosexual thoughts, or someone who engages in homosexual behavior- is under condemnation. Someone who suffers with the temptation but fights against it- even if the temptation is so strong that they aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex- is under no condemnation before God, so long as they fight against the temptations and earnestly seek His will. For more on this, you can consult this interview with Elders Oak and Wickman.
I agree with you here. Of course, this merely acknowledges that there is a war for the heart and soul of our nation, and that we are on opposing sides. I further submit that it is imperative that we "get it right", because moral degradation leads to weakness and, eventually, servitude to other nations.Of course, I have a differing of opinion, and would submit that the only "moral code" a homosexual who is in a committed, monogamous relationship breaks MAY be one with religious pretexts (and then, depending on what religion you believe, may not even break those moral codes).
Looking back, that's a logical conclusion on your part- I didn't explain myself very well. For that, I apologize.As to the AIDS question, yes, I assumed you were going to argue this from the launching point of promiscuity
I was actually thinking drug use. Since there's a higher percentage of those with emotional disorders in the homosexual population, my line of thinking was that there would also be a higher rate of communal drug usage- including drugs injected via hypodermic needles, another major source of AIDS.(perhaps I assumed because that is how all the studies justify the spread of disease. While it isn't just promiscuous people who get STDs, it is obviously more likely to get an STD if you are more promiscuous. How else would you describe the passing of AIDS between male homosexual men?
Although promiscuity is a much, much better explanation...
-
That was actually not my case, but a convenient straw-man. Furthermore, I don't believe I specifically mentioned promiscuity- unless you want to argue that the abundance of AIDS in the gay community is because of promiscuity.Maxel: Your argument that disease and promiscuity are reasons enough to deny same-sex couples the right to marry are very disheartening.
Quote notwithstanding, my intention isn't to promote monogamous gays. I don't care if a gay man has one, ten, a hundred, or a thousand partners- each sexual encounter is a sin, and the behavior and accompanying lifestyle is damaging, over time, to the community at large.Thomas Moore wrote, “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” To relate the quote to the issue at hand: not allowing gays to marry doesn’t exactly promote monogamous gays.I still maintain, however, that I am not an advocate of outlawing homosexual acts, public or private, on a federal level (and only very selectively on a state level). I think it's something best left to the communities to deal with.
I'm not saying that. The reason that I believe homosexuals should be denied society's sanction of marriage is because marriage is about a positive union of the sexes to create and perpetuate moral, healthy life- something that, homosexaulity, by its nature, can never be.I don’t think it fair for you to deny us society’s accepted form of monogamy, only to then tell us the reason we don’t get it is because we aren’t monogamous.
So societal pressure would affect the gay community?If homosexuals were pressured, as heterosexual society is, to marry and “settle down,” I think the logical conclusion would be that the rates of STDs in homosexuals would plummetHasn't the general consensus among society at large been, since even before the Stonewall riots, that homosexuality is immoral and ought not to be practiced? Yet many still practice it. I find the idea that the homosexual community, at large, would conform to society's norms a laughable idea proved fallacious by the reality of the situation.
And I've never had much of an opinion about the promiscuity of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals- in fact, the few homosexuals I've known have, on the whole, been less promiscuous than others in their same age range. The fact that you anticipate promiscuity as an argument against homosexuality, and then admit that it is a problem, speaks volumes. My argument regarding the widespread use of AIDS wasn't intended to say that gays are more promiscuous, but that the gay lifestyle encourages the spread far more, for more reasons than sex. Looking back I can see how one could easily interpret my meaning to be 'gays are more promiscuous', but that wasn't the intent.
I haven't heard that- I'd be interested in seeing those statistics. How much does the rampant spread of HIV in Africa- and the spread of HIV from parents to children- affect that statistic?(and I would be amiss if I didn’t point out that when worldwide statistics are taken into account, heterosexual sex accounts for the majority of HIV infection).
I should clarify: I don't believe all homosexuals are gay because of childhood abuse. I strongly believe that same-sex attraction can come from perfectly natural, biological impulses. However, there is a correlation.I also take issue with the statement that homosexuals are made that way because of abuse in their childhood.The link between emotional abuse (and emotional disorders) and homosexuality has been established in numerous reports. I haven't compiled a list before, so what follows is a quickie list. I readily admit most/all of these are from religious or anti-homosexual sources- I have taken care to select sites that cite research, but since I don't have access to the original reports, I can't verify the claims. Nor do I have the time to read every article in-depth to find suspicious data.
Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle: Under the section headings 'Physical Abuse' and 'Emotional/Mental Health Risks'.
Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause of Homosexuality: Includes a somewhat lengthy list of references and sources at the bottom
Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality
More can be found by googling 'emotional abuse homosexuality'.
Would you link said studies? I'd be interested in perusing them.This idealogy has been proven wrong time and time again, by studies both pro and anti gay.
I'm not concerned with how many children homosexuals are raising, but the means whereby children are 'obtained' (adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc.) and the sociological, emotional, and spiritual example being set for the children- examples that I think are harmful to the children themselves (largely in ways that can't be measured statistically, and in other ways that can).I also believe homosexuals raise children at a fairly consistent rate. 9 million children in the US are currently being raised in same-sex households.
As they should (not compromise). Some things shouldn't be compromised.I’ve already stated that I would love to see religious protections expanded as a compromise to the gay marriage issue. But it seems that the “religious right” would rather simply not compromise, instead holding on to the argument that "I'm a victim if same-sex marriage is allowed."As for the argument "I'm a victim if same-sex marriage is allowed"- that's a straw man of the better argument "Society and my children are the victims if same-sex marriage is allowed". I don't know any conservative (in possession of reasonable mental faculties) who says that they, personally, would be hurt by same-sex marriage legislation.
-As I stated before, our unalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the rights in the Bill of Rights itself are eroding in the face of progressive ideology and changing values.Same-sex marraige could be allowed, and religions protected, rather easily in my mind. What is religion's greatest fear here? Make laws that protect them from those fears, and we should be ok to move forward with gay marriage, right?-Religions have traditionally been institutions that safeguard the morality of society. They have the right and the obligation to be worried when they see trends they think are detrimental to the moral fiber of the people.
-Laws protecting religions now can be repealed in the future, after the country is more steeped in political ignorance.
We have to seperate the word "marriage" with the idea of two people cohabiting and entering into a covenant of fidelity to each other. The fact is that no group is guaranteed the acceptance and adulation of the rest of society.As to the rights of marriage, and marriage, itself, being a civil right, read California’s ruling in May that caused the whole prop 8 issue.
The fallacy of this thinking is that it refuses to accept the categorical difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions for the sake of political correctness.I don’t have a copy with me currently, or I would quote it, but they said something like “Marriage, in and of itself, is a civil right that cannot be denied to suspect classes. Gender identity and sexual orientation were adopted as suspect classes in California law, blah blah blah” – I’m paraphrasing of course.
One thing that's important to realize is that, ever since the end of the Civil War (and especially since the early 1900's), more and more progressive (i.e., 'non-constitutional'; 'against the philosophy of the Constitution's original intent') laws have been passed, and the Federal Government has enjoyed a slow and steady bloating and increased power- power that is anathema to the original intents of the Constitution's Framers.As to constitutional grounds for equal protection – I only know a small amount. It was Just-A-Guy who brought it up, and presented a rather hefty argument in favor of gay marriage (although he is totally against it himself). If the Good Faith Clause didn’t allow for marriage to travel from state to state, then why was it necessary to put such a restriction in DOMA?DOMA itself seems to have been a pro-active attempt to bar the (mis)use of the Good Faith and Credit Clause to force all states to accept legalized same-sex marriage in case Hawaii did so.
I have to run; next time I'm on I'll read what JAG said about these matters.
-
The idea that a Creator oversees the entire universe, that He has declared laws upon which governments must operate to give the people maximum freedom, and that a certain morality is required to maintain said freedom, is actually very "Founding Fathers"-ish.The problem with it is people think it is from our "founding fathers. It is not.
-
LostSheep:Hi, I'm trying to write an argumentative essay on why the words "Under God" SHOULD be in the Pledge of Allegiance. I was just wondering what you all think about this. Is it offensive? Or would taking it out cause more problems than leaving it in? Thanks. Just looking for some ideas.
Study the precepts of Natural Law, which is the framework upon which the Constitution was built. In a nutshell, Natural Law presupposes a creating entity- a God. Also, you can make the argument that ancient Israel's legal system was a great inspiration to the Founders (so much that the original conception of the Seal of the United States had, on one side, an image of the ancient Israelites following the pillar of fire that represents God). That second argument- ancient Israel's inspiration to the Founders- is ancillary to the first, and won't stand up to scrutiny unless you make a strong case for Natural Law.
-
Actually, I don't think the debate about whether same-sex marriage is detrimental to society is over. I don't want to go looking for the stats now, but (IIRC) the general statistical conclusion is that having a father and mother in the home is most likely to produce emotionally healthy children.As to the questions of the constitution and legality, I’ll leave that to Omaha and Just to discuss, as they seem more versed in the legal aspects of things, but I did want to offer my opinion that I do believe marriage to be a civil right, and not a natural right, of men. Because of that, I do think it can be withheld under certain circumstances – as you said it, “good reasons.” But I think the disagreement stems from what those “good reasons” are.
It seems that all but the “God said so” reasons can be argued or disproven (and arguments like “it will be detrimental to society” is either subjective, or easily countered with the question of “how, exactly?”), and since everyone’s personal opinion of God differs, I would be impossible to legally use this argument as a reason for denying homosexuals CIVIL marriage (church sanctioned marriage is another story).
There are other arguments as well, drawing on other sources. However, I submit that the major determining factor in the question "is gay marriage detrimental to society" is ideology, and neither side can claim to have a solid, scientific argument that wins the debate. And I don't believe that civil rights should be extended when the majority of the people are against it, and a constitutional case cannot be made to support said extension. (Also, I believe that such matters are best decided at the state level, not federal.)
You're probably well aware of the religious ones, so I won't get into those.If you believe homosexuality, and specifically, homosexual marriage to be a detriment to our society, would you care to elaborate as to how?
Society is best served when the commonly held ideals and standards, which are re-evaluated which each generation, are those which promote right and healthy living. Homosexuality is extremely unhealthy physically (AIDS, for example, hits the gay communities the hardest because of the nature of gay sex), emotionally (much of homosexuality in later life is connected to abuse in childhood), and ethically (part of the duty of every generation is to perpetuate the best of itself while letting the worst die- homosexuals cannot, for the most part, contribute to the perpetuation of the species). The only reason that the homosexual community has grown so large and vocal is the softness of our society wrought by technology. Take away our advancements, and the plight of the homosexual's case for legally-recognized marriage is worsened.
I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing this. While a majority of the gay community may not want to see religion affected, the reality is that religion will be affected.While I do agree that there WILL be some fridge groups who wish to abolish anything church related (homosexual and heterosexual), and other strictly homosexual groups who will push for special consideration for gays, I can honestly say, from personal involvement with groups such as Equality Utah, Equality California, and the Human Rights Campaign, that most of the ideas that “churches will pay once gay marriage is legal” is hogwash and completely unfounded hyperbole.
While in the midst of this battle, we already see homosexuals suing establishments for "unlawful" discrimination- and often winning. PC posted a few cases a while back on this thread, and I know he's posted more cases elsewhere.
The argument that the First Amendment will protect religions is ludicrous- and it is the only argument that can be made. Already those in power are seeking to erode the limits of government set down by the Constitution through an increase of the income tax (which of itself was unconstitutional until the 16th amendment, which I believe was unconstitutional itself), the confusing of 'civil' and 'natural' rights, and more. Wise men have warned us that, if we lose our Constitutional rights, it will be by degrees, not all at once.
I'm more worried about the ones who do care. Ones who use the legal system as their muscle, and thereby change the interpretation of law.Most of us don’t care what a church thinks of us.
It's a slippery slope, and it only takes a few bad apples to start sliding.
I was unaware of this, and didn't hear this come up in the discussions of the so-called unconstitutionality of Proposition 8. I still maintain that it was solely about the terminology- could anyone possessing common sense claim that there was no way to change standing law so that it recognized homosexual unions as 'civil unions' and heterosexual ones as 'marriage'? That the wording of the law (using 'marriage' instead of 'civil union') makes the entire law null and void should terminology be later redefined?I would also have to argue that Proposition 8 didn’t affect the rights of gays and lesbians in general. In the state of California, marriage ITSELF was ruled as being a civil right, so the removal of that one right alone contradicts your statement (although there are other examples of rights in California one cannot obtain without marriage).
I don't think this argument holds water- but if you have sources that shed further light on your claim, I'd willingly read them.
When I said "[t]he Church is not trying to force, through legal or other means, gays to not 'be gay' " the emphasis is on the word force. I never claimed it had no desire or interest in helping people turn from practicing homosexuality.Having been through church-sponsored reparative therapy, I also think it disingenuous to claim that the church has no desire to make people “not gay.”
Unless you were forced into reparative therapy, without wanting to go, my statement stands valid.
I'm unaware of anything in either the Consitution or the Bill of Rights that presents a problem to my case.I do wonder how much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (specifically, the equal access and protection clauses, as well as the Good Faith and Credit Clause Just-4-U brought up recently) you are willing to sacrifice in order to vote what you view as moral, however.
The Good Faith and Credit Clause's intent seems to have been prohibiting states from re-trying court cases already decided by another state. From what (brief) reading I've done on the Clause, any attempt to use it to force one state to recognize and submit to another state's legislation seems far-fetched and against its original intent. In fact, such a requirement seems to defeat the entire system of federalism and states' rights- if we make every state subservient to all the others, how could the system stand?
As for the equal access clause, I fail to see how they affect my case. Perhaps you could make an argument?
As for the equal protection clause- it seems its intent was to secure the natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution for ex-slaves in the South, which were severely limited by the Black Codes. I could see how it could be used to argue (weakly) for same-sex marriage, but to me that argument requires the 14th Amendment be severed from its original context and intent- which is extremely damaging to the Amendment itself, and bad form.
The idea that I would have to "sacrifice" any part of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights to deny same-sex 'marriage' is hyperbolic at best and disingenuous at worse (not to say I think you were being intentionally misleading).
-
From Rules for Radicals, page 20:
"Force those in a bad spot to become indebted to you, and perpetuate that indebtedness by demanding they divert their assets elsewhere. When your debtors pay you back (or try to), get angry, ignore facts, strut and posture, make it very hard for them to pay up, and then levy taxes on them for being so irresponsible."
-
I have a powerful urge to quote Justice.
A white policeman "acts stupidly" when he arrests a black man suspected of breaking and entering and refusing to cooperate. Yet justice will not be administered to these men who clearly broke a very serious law.
-
Actually, I am the dog, and Glenn is the lamb.I'm kinda seeing some similarity with Glenn, Sarah and your avatar.
I know what your thinking. Your asking yourself is he saying Glenn is the dog or the lamb? I'm just saying, there is no conection there.........is there........there's none..................right?
Nah, just kidding. I like boxer dogs, and I thought the picture was cute. Hence, it became my avatar.
-
I'm constantly amazed at the rest of the world's infatuation with Barack Obama. Methinks this musical might be about as good (bad?) as Rent or Angels in America or- heaven forbid- High School Musical.
-
I think it would be really funny to watch Glenn make fun of himself on SNL. I've never been a fan of Palin... The interview didn't get her my support, either. And, since she's never been a performer, I don't think she'd be that funny to watch.
-
You need to rethink this. The Church is not trying to force, through legal or other means, gays to not 'be gay' (Proposition 8 was about the legal definition of the word 'marriage', and had no effect on the actual rights held by gays, for good or for bad). Nor is any man attempting to block state-recognized gay marriage attempting to take away a person's gayness, or outlaw it, unless he actively organizes and campaigns to outlaw it.I can see that we have an obligation to state our position regarding morality but not to try to enforce everyone else to live by our rules.
We do not need a nanny state telling us what is right and wrong.
Actually, as citizens of the United States of America, we have an obligation (I'd say a moral one) to learn of and participate in the politics of the nation. We have a (moral) obligation to publicly oppose unlawful moves that would lead to the weakening and degradation of the American society, which the Constitution protects.We have no right to enforce our standards upon people to whom those standards mean nothing.
However, we also have the moral obligation to stay within the bounds set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights- bounds that do not exclude people organizing, voting, and suggesting policy based on their morals; bounds that do not exclude organizations urging its members to act in such a manner.
-
This is my major concern. Like the camel and the tent, I'm worried that the issue of gay 'rights' will be used as a battering ram to weaken the safety that religions in America have traditionally held. It's happening in plenty of other countries, and it can happen here, if we allow ourselves and our leaders to forget the strict bounds of the Constitution.They will, in all likelihood, get the legal benefits of marriage; yes.
Think that will make them content, as long as there are churches pronouncing them "sinful" and individuals unwilling to aid and abet those unions by--say--providing photographer's services to ceremonies solemnizing such unions?
I wish I could find it again... There was a great report, from a religious source, that chronicled the speeches and publicized sentiments of some of the leaders behind the scenes in the gay-rights movement. It was frightening to read their vicious opinions and sentiments, and to realize that these are the kind of people behind the charge. I'll see if I can find it...
Government Marriage Certification -- Being Salt & Light?
in Preserving Marriage between a man and a woman
Posted
Very easily.
Bad laws and bad leaders lead the charge into deprivation and degredation (Alma 10:27).Believe it or not, there is a proper place in government to create morally upstanding laws. In fact, every law created has to be morally justified- government itself has to be morally justified. America was founded on the principle of Natural Law, and the idea that Nature's God has set rules for what is and isn't good for governments and human beings to do.
Your claims fall flat.
All of the ones I posed; every one in the post.