Homosexual marriage II

[Nurvingiel]

This discussion, while excellent, seems more suited to the Theology thread.

[inked]

So do I, Nurv. I suggested it way back in #476 !!!!

[katya]

You didn't join our discussion over there though, Inked. I guess it probably wasn't that interesting though.

[GrayMouser]

So, how's the old "allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy the institution of marriage" thing going?

Not so well, apparently, if we look at Massachussetts:

The predictions:

"This is only the beginning, if we allow this [ same sex marriage ] to happen we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is marriage between a man and a woman" - Brian Camenker, President of the Parents' Rights Coalition, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

"Taxpayers and businesses should not be compelled to subsidize either homosexual unions or non-marital heterosexual partnerships, both of which undermine the institutions of marriage and family." - Acting President of the Massachusetts Family Institute, Dan Englund, as quoted by MassNews, March 2000

"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage." - Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) during the July 2004 U.S. Senate debate on the "Federal Marriage Amendment".

"the sexual revolution led to the decoupling of marriage and procreation; same-sex "marriage" would pull them completely apart, leading to an explosive increase in family collapse...." - Charles Colson, Christianity Today, June 2004

"We must aggressively combat the homosexual effort to destroy the tradition of marriage. This nation is on the precipice of moral devastation." - Jerry Falwell, July 14, 2003

"Pro-homosexuality activists try to portray the success of their cause as inevitable. But it is not. The churches can stand against the tide of relativism and libertinism in our culture. And they can help to reverse the tide, restoring marriage to its proper place of honor" - Former President of The Institute on Religion and Democracy, Dianne Knippers, as quoted on the website of Concerned Women For America

"....a person can use his or her right to object out of conscience and refuse to comply with this crime [ gay marriage ] which represents the destruction of the world." - Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, in a May 3, 2005 interview with Fides new service.

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." - Judge Roy Moore, Feb. 15, 2002

"Marriage is the union between a man and a woman is a truth known to each one of us already, and any attempt to allow same-sex marriages is a detriment to the family unit and hurts our state and nation." - Texas Governor Rick Perry, in an August 2005 mass email to supporters

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It [ same-sex marriage ] will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." - James Dobson, Focus on the Family, October 2004 speaking at a rally for OK GOP Senate candidate Tom Coburn

"It seems the more people consider the long-term impact of homosexual marriage on the family and society, the more they oppose homosexual marriage," - Dr. Ron Crews, President of The Massachusetts Family Institute, quoted in a January 7, 2004 "Coalition For Marriage" press release

"Any redefinition of marriage must be seen as an attack on the common good....I would hope that those who promote same-sex unions will not be so naive as to fail to recognize the impact that redefining marriage will have on American culture....Strengthening marriage in the face of widespread cohabitation and the galloping divorce rate needs to be the concern of every citizen. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." - Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, October 2, 2003

The results:

Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-..._b_267259.html

stats:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...blowchart.html

Hey, look at all that red at the top and blue at the bottom of those charts.

[Grey_Wolf]

One thing Ive often thought about when it comes homosexuals wanting to adopt children.

The fact that kids will always be kids - and bullying will not go away - is a matter for some concern, dont you think - most kids are born of heterosexual parents - and what's to stop some kids in a class from bullying other kids just because their parents are two men or two women?

Kids bully other kids for a multitude of reasons and the fact that these kids' parents are both of the same sex might just trigger a flood of abuse.

Or do you think that it will become so natural that kids will not reflect on it much less humilitate, hurt or insult another kid because of it.

This is not meant as a prejudiced statement and i hope it is not taken as such.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

what's to stop some kids in a class from bullying other kids just because their parents are two men or two women?

The same preventive strategies that are applied to all sorts of bullying - teacher intervention, bystander training and whatnot.

[Grey_Wolf]

So you think by t e l l i n g a kid that you are not s u p p o s e d act this way - that he or she will a c t u a l l y listen?

[Jonathan]

Schools are applying more elaborate anti-bullying recipes than that.

Trying to stop bullying by diligently eliminating any factors that a kid could be taunted for (like, having gay parents) is not the right way to go, imo.

[Grey_Wolf]

ok - lets hope for the best then.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

So you think by t e l l i n g a kid that you are not s u p p o s e d act this way - that he or she will a c t u a l l y listen?

No but if the teacher takes a c t i o n then that just m i g h t work. Nothing is effective without consequences and discipline.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Nothing is effective without consequences and discipline.

Except anarchy

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

So you think by t e l l i n g a kid that you are not s u p p o s e d act this way - that he or she will a c t u a l l y listen?

Maybe not. But when church leaders and politicians and parents are saying bigoted hateful things about homosexuals as in Grey Mousers quotes above, then you can be sure their kids are going to be more likely to discriminate themselves against kids from gay marriage families, most likely by bullying, because theyve been taught that its not "normal" and therefore wrong. So if you want to limit the bullying we should probably start by not preaching hate...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I hafta say, the way they're hammering the "US divorce rate in 1940!!!!" thing sounds like they're trying to indicate, not just a lack of significant change, but a major decrease in divorce rates, which isn't the case; we're talking going from 2.3 to 2.0 per thousand. Clearly, for whatever reason, Massachusetts simply has exceptionally low divorce rates. Apparently, in 1994, their divorce rates were at 2.4; it doesn't seem too much has changed.

[Count Comfect]

Yes, but not too much changing is also pretty good evidence that gay marriage doesn't destroy marriage, no?

[Grey_Wolf]

Well - since we are discussing gay marriages - Im just wondering - this might seem imbecile to you - but I got to ask - Hetero people do not need a special festival to define themselves - why do gay people need it? - is gay people merely defined by the fact that they are gay? or should the definition be refined? What Im getting at is this - gay people is ordinary people with a particular sexual identity - but, really, is that all they are? Should a person be merely defined by his or hers sexual disposition? A gay postman, a gay bankclerk, a gay policeman, a gay librarian. What about just a postman, bankclerk, policeman or librarian?

I do realize that the whole thing about homosexuals is that they have forever, apparently, been confined to the so-called "closet" - but why should gay people be any different than other people? Is it because many gay men are very feminine - and in a predominatly masculine country like the USA - this is frowned upon.

I sincerely hope that Im not stepping on too many toes because of these questions.

Just want honest answers to honest questions.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

Well - since we are discussing gay marriages - Im just wondering - this might seem imbecile to you - but I got to ask - Hetero people do not need a special festival to define themselves - why do gay people need it?

They do not 'need' them. There is a movement among homosexuals of living a certain lifestyle and having a desire to blatantly shove that lifestyle in other people's faces to make them 'accept' it. I know several gay people who consider things like gay pride festivals (not the idea of showing support for homosexuality, but the blatantly sexual nature of the festivals as they exist) to be disgusting and to contribute to the problem of negative stereotypes.

is gay people merely defined by the fact that they are gay? or should the definition be refined? What Im getting at is this - gay people is ordinary people with a particular sexual identity - but, really, is that all they are? Should a person be merely defined by his or hers sexual disposition? A gay postman, a gay bankclerk, a gay policeman, a gay librarian. What about just a postman, bankclerk, policeman or librarian?

Here you run into the issue of personal choice. I know many people whose lives are extremely defined by the fact that they're gay. They choose to go around speaking in a high voice with a lisp, make effeminate gestures, and they very much define the way their life is lived by the fact that they're gay.

In my opinion it's not much different from some other guys I know who are straight and like to spend all of their time talking about the last girl they had sex with. The main differentiation in acceptance is the fact that the majority of people in the world are heterosexual, and thus this behavior has been accepted and even condoned for far longer than it has been seen and condoned from homosexuals.


You wont know some people are gay unless you get to know them very well because they are private people. I've met people I never suspected were gay till I happened to meet their boyfriend/girlfriend. Those are the people you wont see at the pride parades. Some of the men don't even own a pink shirt, which is only significant in that pink is considered a 'badge' color for homosexuality in men. Those are the people who are, like you said, just a postman, just a librarian, or just a policeman... and you'll never know they're gay just from meeting them for five minutes.


I hope I have answered your question somewhat, but the truth is that... well, just like you said homosexuals are people too . It's impossible to throw out a blanket assumption and be correct... i.e. "Gay people have lisps!" or "gay people are all about having sex." That would be like saying that all straight guys like sports, which is not true.

[Tessar]

I felt like I needed to add on a little post-tag...

People who believe that things like pride parades and festivals (again, as they currently tend to be structured) are important for 'gaining acceptance and equal rights' are deluding themselves. As far as I'm aware black people did not gain acceptance and fight racism by prancing around in bikinis. There are, frankly, far more effective methods of fighting hate and bigotry .

That's like saying that your neighbor hates dogs so you make sure your dog poops on their front doorstep every single morning. I mean with a plan like that how could your neighbor fail to come around and eventually love and accept dogs?

[Grey_Wolf]

Thanks, Tessar, for your excellent answers on my many questions.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Yes, but not too much changing is also pretty good evidence that gay marriage doesn't destroy marriage, no?

Sure, I'm fine with that. I just don't care for the way it was presented in the article.

Excellent post, Tess.

[Butterbeer]

er... you guys STILL discussing this?

How long has it been, now?