Marriage Laws and Religious Liberty

Advertisements

50 Comments

  1. April 9, 2009 at 4:50 am

    Thanks BB it’s a great video. Short and to the point.

  2. April 9, 2009 at 5:55 am

    the truth

  3. { Lisa } said,

    April 9, 2009 at 8:26 am

    PF,

    Wow you really are not educated are you? Let me suggest that you crawl out of your little tin can there and think outside the box.

    “Three claims, three lies”?

    These are things that can and will happen if the gays get their way. And that is exactly what you (gays) want. To destroy Christians in all area’s of life. It’s not enough for you to have your “relationships” with same sex people, you have to call it Marriage (which is between a man and a woman only BTW). Not only that but you want to control what doctors do and force them to preform abortions even if it is against their religious convictions. Ministers/pastors will be forced to preform same sex marriages or be accused of hate crimes and discrimination.

    You wasted a lot of time picking through that video….FYI lots of advertisements are done through actors and actresses. That doesn’t make the advertisement false.

    so next time why don’t you come up with something better than your little ill mannered rant.

  4. April 9, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Apparently, you can’t tell my site from another site.

    Do you deny those claims are lies? Can you prove they are true? You have done nothing but be insulting and display your innate homophobia in this little rant.

    Good for you.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 11:05 am

    Personal Failure,

    The idea that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic amounts to verbal terrorism. By “homophobic” is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favor of gay marriage.)

    Not only that, but it is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself.

    Are you having difficulty defending your beliefs today pf?

  6. April 9, 2009 at 11:19 am

    I’m not sure how you’re defining “phobia”, but I’m arachnaphobic- I have an irrational, unsupportable fear of spiders. I have never been hurt by a spider, and in fact could easily defend myself from anything that much smaller than me, yet there it is.

    Homophobics are not evil or twisted, but they are irrational- as is easily demonstrated in Lisa’s rant. “Ministers will be forced to preform (sic) gay marriages!” Not in Vermont, where they are specifically given the choice, as they should be. “Doctors will be forced to preform (sic) abortions!” Really? Like dermatologists? And cardiologists?

    I note that neither you nor Lisa has any defense of the content of the ad, only further hysteria and semantic disagreements.

    Trouble defending your position, Ange?

  7. April 9, 2009 at 11:27 am

    So, what exactly would you not have a choice about? Marriage between same sex individuals is a civil and/or religious institution as the case may be. As a civil institution it does not imfringe upon the rights of clergy to refuse to marry a couple same sex or otherwise. For the record, chruches can already do that for couples of different sex, sometimes on the basis of interfaith marriage. Nobody’s ever considered that religious discrimination, as it isn’t. It only prevents them from marrying in said church, not marriage legally. This would be no different, as you well know.

    What is interesting in your above rant is making this about bieng against christianity. Are you so small-minded that you cannot comprehend that same-sex couples want the benefits of marriage as well as the recognition?

    It being legal to be homosexual is not enough. To think that it should be is bigoted.

  8. Lara said,

    April 9, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    FYI – It is not personal care physicians who will be forced to perform abortions, but it is rather abortionists who perform abortions. If someone has a problem with performing abortions, they simply don’t go to school to be abortionists. And part of being a doctor means putting the patients bests interests first. Meaning roughly that you don’t put your own interests first. Not sure how the two issues (gay marriage and abortion) are related, but there you go.

    And my aim, and others in support of marriage equality is not to destroy the Christians way of life. You want to live in your “perfect” families and raise your perfect christian children and teach them the way of god and jesus, you can continue to do so. You can keep right on going with it. But please, there are some people in America (gasp) who aren’t christian and don’t follow your moral code. We should not be descriminated against based on religion. Jefferson, Madison, Hancock, Hamilton, the founders of our nation and framers of the Constitution were all either agnostics or deists. Hmm, not christian. There goes your argument that this is a christian nation. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

    And please, for the sake of decorum, don’t stoop to calling anyone stupid. I respect your ardent belief in your god, but I think you have misread many of the passages of the bible and are using it as a reason to justify your otherwise unjustifiable fear of change. I am not saying that you are stupid or uneducated, simply that I think the overall message of the bible is love and acceptance, not hate.

    America is a nation where everyone can be themselves. But currently not everyone is allowed to be themselves. We are still discovering what freedom really means. Freedom was originally only for wealthy land holding white males over 21. Then it became something that land holding white males over twenty one enjoyed. It evolved to any white male over twenty one. After the civil war is was granted (but not always) to males over twenty one. In the early 1900’s it was extended to any man and woman over twenty one. In the 1960’s it was finally in all parts of the nation in all aspects of life given to males and females of both colors (as long as they were straight) granted.

    Now it is time to further those rights to people in the grey area’s of sexuality and orientation. We want our freedom too.

  9. { Lisa } said,

    April 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    PF,

    I think the point is that, that video is representative of what is and will happen. The one example does not the point make, it is one example. It doesnt matter if an actor portrayed a real person or not. The point is that the homosexual agenda is to destroy marriage any way it can as well as take away our freedoms along with it.

    And FYI a phobia as a fear of something and ahem, I am not afraid of gays. That almost makes me snicker. I do not think that it is moraly right to engage in such behavior. That does not make me afraid of it.

    Do you think that rape is wrong? Are you afraid of rape? What about incest? are you afraid of that as well? I could go on but I think you get my point.

    Just because I do not agree does not make me afraid. That is just one of those things that people like to say because they really have nothing else to say.

    I love how both you guys used the word Rant because I did:)

    EC,

    From my stand point yes I am making this about christianity because I am a christian and it goes against what I believe. And? What exactly is your point? Are you christianaphobic? weather or not we say it is about religion you people (gays) will have something to say about us. Beetle never uses religion as the reason yet here you two are, ranting and raving about homophobics and spiders and such…

    No matter what you say there is no study, no research, no proof that your lifestyle is good, beneficial or right.

    Have a great day:)

  10. Leigh said,

    April 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Hello Lisa and Beetle, I wanted to say two things. The first is that you are aware that you are speaking to straight people, correct? Straight people who support gay marriage? And one of whom is married in what you cutely refer to as a “traditional” marriage. I’m not sure why you keep calling everyone gay, is there a point to it? Or are you assuming that everyone who dislikes the above commercial is gay?
    The second is, no one is taking away anything from you. You can continue to have services in your church, which doesn’t have to perform same sex marriage if it doesn’t want to. I have yet to hear from any homosexual that they want to force churches to do anything of the sort. No one wants to take away what you feel, no one wants to take away any rights. You tread in scary territory when you start bringing up doctors being able to refuse things due to their faith and how that can take away rights of others, so let’s not go there. Let’s just all freaking calm down, because no one wants to take anything from anyone, no matter what that commericial says, which is what everyone is getting all upset about. Everyone is yelling so loud no one hears what the people are saying.

  11. April 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    I’m afraid you’re missing my point. As a happily heterosexual man, I find it fascinating that you make the illogical jump to conclusions that I am of the homosexual persuasion. Now, as for you leaping to this being about Christianity because you are Christian, the point was that you said that “(they want)To destroy Christians in all area’s of life.” This is completely incorrect. Homosexuals want to get married for the recognition as well as for the legal and financial benefits of doing so. That has absolutely nothing to do with your religion.

    As for your allegations of Christaphobia, I’ll tell you I am neither afraid of Christianity, nor do I feel Christians have no right to believe what they wish. I do, however, expect them to leave me be and not preach to me unless I am putting myself somewhere where I should expect it, i.e a church, a pro-Christian rally, or a Christian website.

    I would also point out that I never mentioned spiders or homophobia. Beyond that, there’s no research that proves the homosexual lifestyle is bad, harmful, or wrong. So what’s your point? You are inconsistent in what points you are arguing and completely ignored my entire post other than that I mentioned the word Christianity. You clearly didn’t read the context.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Did I miss something? I don’t particularly care whether my readers are gay or not. Why do we all seem to be running on a theme here that I think people who disagree with me are homosexual?

  13. { Lisa } said,

    April 9, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    oook I am quite lost as well…

    I assumed you were gay ok sorry about that so lets get past that part k?

    If you will read all the posts then you will know who I was addressing and what they said:)

    Marriage between and man and a woman is time tested and proven to work, it is what is best for everyone including kids. Gay “marriage” is not what is best for kids nor is it time tested. Although there are plenty of studies to prove that gay relations are associated with negative outcomes. Yet no studies to say otherwise… you cant say the same thing about hetero marriage can you?

  14. April 9, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    The union of a same sex couple will never be a marriage. The law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is. All society would be doing is playing a word game, stretching the term marriage so that it no longer picks out a particular human reality.

    You make a good point BB. Not all people who suffer from a same sex attraction actually want “gay marriage”

    Homosexuals want to get married for the recognition as well as for the legal and financial benefits of doing so.

    People with a same sex attraction can get married they just can’t marry someone of the same sex.

  15. April 9, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    Lisa, kids being raised by their biological parents is certainly the natural order of things. Having kids and families are a great benefit to society, this is why governments protect marriage and families and give benefits.

    I wonder how a same sex “marriage” would benefit society?

  16. rubyeliot said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Leigh:
    I have yet to hear from any homosexual that they want to force churches to do anything of the sort.

    I’m so happy to hear that you haven’t heard this from any of your friends. During prop 8, my married neighbor told my mom that she thinks religions should be forced to perform same-gender “marriages.” She is a very nice lady, and was completely sincere. In fact, she told my mom that my dad should have to perform these kinds of marriages even if he disagrees with them.

    Please do not use your personal references as a general guideline for possible future outcomes.

    Despite the incident with my neighbor, I realize that the kind of outcome she expressed would occur in the future. We really have no idea how neutering marriage will affect other facets of life. Laws can change quickly.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Leigh, unfortunately, you are incorrect. There are many examples of people being forced to do what they do not wish to do because of the advances in the gay marriage movement. It has to do with suspect class status and the laws surrounding discrimination and hate speech. There is currently a thought in some courts that espouses the idea that those who choose to take up the gay lifestyle are part of a suspect class, which is is a protected or special status. Because of that idea, there have been some pretty outrageous rulings lately that trample the religious rights, free speech rights and parental rights of citizens who do not enjoy the protected status.

    eHarmony is the example that comes to mind at the moment but I’ll forward you others. eHarmony dating company was sued and forced to provide dating services for homosexual couples: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/eHarmony.html

  18. rubyeliot said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    EC:

    Beyond that, there’s no research that proves the homosexual lifestyle is bad, harmful, or wrong. So what’s your point?

    What is your definition of bad or harmful?

    While i agree there is nothing wrong with same sex attraction, the behavior, specifically gay sex, causes all sorts of physical health problems regardless of whether protection is used.

  19. rubyeliot said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Sometimes people try to use the argument that there is nothing wrong with same gender relationships as a reason to neuter the institution.

    Government recognition and benefits are not part of the core meaning of marriage.

    The recognition and benefits exist to encourage the core meaning of marriage. Marriage merges the two different genders into a cohesive whole. In marriage–no gender is marginalized.

    This union also ensures that if children result, they:
    a. can exist
    b. are born into the environment proven to help them the most: a home with a mom and a dad.

    Government has plenty of reasons to support this kind of institution. So EC and Leigh, please explain, why/how removing the gender requirement in marriage benefits society.

  20. John Anderson said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    I disagree with the existence of marriage laws. Marriage laws are an infringement into personal choice of life style and create an unlawful class of citizens. I believe that all marriage laws should be repealed, and defining of marriage left to private organizations and private individuals.

  21. rubyeliot said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    BB,

    Just another comment about e-harmony. They are a Christian-based site aren’t they? and the technology they designed was specifically designed for heterosexual couples.

    So it was like a women’s fashion organization getting sued for not providing specific clothing for men.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    I love Mr. Bean, did you guys catch the speech he made defending freedom of speech in the UK? It’s exactly this issue played out a few more years.

    “Mr. Bean” argues for freedom of speech vs. homophobia hate speech limitations in the UK: http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue5248.html

  23. April 9, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    You make a good distinction there Ruby. Same sex attraction is not immoral. Taking part in homosexual sex is a serious problem. Diseases like syphilis are on the increase within the homosexual community. The “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” Report Warns Syphilis is Still Ravaging the Homosexual Community

  24. James R. said,

    April 9, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Yeah, the UK has a lot of problems with the gay marriage laws and special protection status. A hotel was sued for denying a homosexual couple a double room recently: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5032750/Homosexual-couple-sue-Christian-hotel-owners-for-refusing-them-a-double-room.html

    Whether you agree or not with the choice the couple made, that was their choice to make. It ought to be covered by conscience laws and freedom of religion type laws. Unfortunately even here in the states, when special protection status comes up against constitutionally protected freedoms, the freedoms lose out.

    I appreciate this ad. It really voices some sincere concerns that need to be addressed.

  25. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    John, the problem with taking the government out of marriage completely, is that society benefits from the institution of marriage. Whether society scraps marriage altogether or whether it promotes gay unions and marriages equally, the net result is the same. Marriage as an institution is destroyed.

    https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/get-the-government-out-of-marriage-king-solomons-baby-dilemma/

  26. Raytmimer said,

    April 9, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Secular Heretic has a great post on his blog about a girl who was kicked out of school and denied the opportunity to study because she did not affirm the homosexual stance:

    “EMU requires students in its program to affirm or validate homosexual behaviour within the context of a counseling relationship and prohibits students from advising clients that they can change their homosexual behavior.

    What type of a university is this? Same sex attraction is a disorder and there are many people who need help in being cured of it or at least given strategies to lead a healthy life free from homosexual behaviours.

    As a councilor, it would be important to try and help these people. Telling them that homosexual behaviour is something good only makes their problems worse. Julea Ward has done the right thing in refusing to affirm homosexual behaviour as good when it is not. Julea has a moral obligation to inform them of the dangers of homosexual behaviour.”

    http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4899

  27. rubyeliot said,

    April 9, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Just looking at the physical risks, why would anyone encourage a person to act on same sex attraction?

  28. { Lisa } said,

    April 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    What about the kids’ parents who are not allowed to take their child out of school on the days they are doing some gay promo day? Isn’t that us being forced to do something we don’t want to do? I think so.

    I mean if public schools were to have a christian day then there would be some people taking their kids out of school for that and no one would say anything but let them try to brainwash our kids and we better not dare to stop them!

  29. { Lisa } said,

    April 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Secular,

    I would love it if someone would do a study on that. A long one that lasted say, 20 years. 1000 gay couples on a private island with no religion and no laws… come back after 20 years and see what is going on.

  30. Lara said,

    April 9, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    I’m not telling anyone else who they can and cannot marry. Please, don’t tell me who I can and cannot marry.

    In response to people saying that having a man and woman as parents is the best situation for children:

    Nobility, and the upper classes, and royalty in Europe used to have their children all raised (male or female) by an all female staff of wet nurses and maids. Most times children never saw their fathers.

    In both native american tribes in the americas, the pacific islands, and most parts of africa, it was the community of women who raised all the children collectivly, and the men never went near the children until the males were of age to hunt.
    (Side note: please don’t use the argument: look what happened to the africans, because that civilation failed because of european colonization, most wars there today are the results of european colonialism.)

    There are many cultures where marriage is non-existant. Many cultures where a child is not raised by a man and woman.

  31. April 9, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Raytmimer “Secular Heretic has a great post on his blog about a girl who was kicked out of school and denied the opportunity to study because she did not affirm the homosexual stance…’EMU requires students in its program to affirm or validate homosexual behaviour within the context of a counseling relationship and prohibits students from advising clients that they can change their homosexual behavior.'”

    Now read the rest of that story. It’s not as black and white as it’s presented. (“It is not true, as Ward’s lawsuit alleges, that EMU or the ACA prohibit counselors “from advising clients that they can refrain from homosexual conduct.” What the school and the association say is that counselors may not offer such advice unless the client expresses a desire to make such a life change.”)

    rubyeliot “Just looking at the physical risks, why would anyone encourage a person to act on same sex attraction?”
    What about the lesbians?

    { Lisa } “I would love it if someone would do a study on that. A long one that lasted say, 20 years. 1000 gay couples on a private island with no religion and no laws… come back after 20 years and see what is going on.”

    Except that it would study a world that doesn’t exist. The real world isn’t all-gay, no religion, no laws. Gay people do have children, do go to church/mosque/temple and do follow laws. Once a year, they even have a parade.

  32. April 9, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Pah! I have mentioned before that I dislike the lack of preview, right?

  33. Lara said,

    April 9, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    I’m gay. I have a moral code and a religion. I try to refrain from lying, and am monogamous. I do not steal, I do not manipulate, or judge people. I try to love all people equally. As a child I did as I was told by my parents. I do not hit or hurt people. I try to live by the dictates of my religion. And I am studying to become a lawyer, so I obey and respect the laws of the lands, most especially, the Constitution, which is a living constitution, and can be changed as times change. I think I’ve brought this up already, but to judge people in the eyes of the law and discriminate against them on suspect classifications is a violation of the 14th Amendment as applied to the states through the due process clause in the 5th Amendment. Suspect classifications are any immutable qualities. Such as race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, or sexual orientation. The 14th Am. forbids any laws which restrict the rights of people based on a suspect classification.

    Yes, we are born gay. We can’t change that.

    True, if we wanted to, we could live a lie and marry someone straight. We don’t want to. We want the choice to marry the person we love. It would be wrong to get to the alter and “promise to love and honor” a person that we don’t really love.

  34. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    “Yes, we are born gay. We can’t change that.”

    Lara, science does not back you up on that, though I respect your moral code and religion, there is no evidence that same gender attraction is genetic. At best there’s the possibility of a genetic component. The study on twins shows that most clearly. When you have a set of twins where one is gay, the other is also gay in only a small fraction of cases. They share all the same genes. If it was genetic, it would show there most clearly.

  35. beetlebabee said,

    April 9, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Sorry Modus. I’ll see what I can do to fix it up.

  36. { Lisa } said,

    April 9, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Lara,

    Until several years ago homosexuality was a sickness and the only reason they took it out of the “book of illnesses” is because of the harassment (by homosexual activists)towards the people that decided what went in/out of said book.

    So in reality it is still a sickness.

  37. Koen said,

    April 10, 2009 at 12:57 am

    As European from a country where same sex marriage has been made legal for more than 10 years now I cannot but agree with the video.

    Here in Belgium we were just like you at first.

    Believing we were doing the right thing by granting gays the same rights as straights. How wrong we were.

    True, nobody could have predicted the mobile abortion vans nor the forced abortion lotery where every tenth foetus is aborted (with a live audience on national television which… well… is actually an improvement on the shows we had before).
    And nobody really did take the visionaries serious who claimed that given an inch the gays would take a mile. Sadly they aren’t here to thank for they were the first against the wall when the Gay Party took over. And now, when the few straights left finally realise how gullible and naive we were in all of our compassion, it is too late. The pink flags fly from almost every window. Children from the age of 5 are indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle and forced to march in flamboyant gay parades every Sunday. What about church you ask? Church what a strange strange word… rings a bell somewhere yet….can’t quite place it.

    Wait.

    What was that?
    Someone’s knocking on my front door.
    Dear God let it not be the Gay Police… I cannot take another Pink Patriotism Torture Session

    Oh how dark the clouds and how strong the winds…

    Never forget!

    Remember poor little Belgium!

    Rememb

  38. Lara said,

    April 10, 2009 at 8:01 am

    Koen – Thank you for that portrayal of Belguim. I’m going to be studying abroad there in November. Now I can’t wait to get there! Because obviously the goal of the gay population is to strip people of their rights….

    *sarcasm* No. That is not an acurate portrayal of Belguim. But thanks for trying. http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:qwEuoFqWfR8J:www.eurohealth.ie/countryreport/word/belgium.doc+belgium+live+tv+abortions&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    that is a more accurate description of the health practices of Belgium.
    (my school requires we do extensive research into the nations we will be studying. I will be in Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland next semester, and none of those countries engage in any anti-straight activities.)

  39. denelian said,

    April 10, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    let’s consider “tradition” marriage.
    old testament. incest – lets see, Eve was MADE from Adam. one can assume that they had identical DNA except for the XX. but even if not – who did THEIR children marry?
    you either postulate a) each other or b) aliens of some sort
    then, after the Flood – who did Noah’s GRANDCHILDREN marry? again – either each other, or aliens.
    how many wives did David have? Saul? Solomon?
    when one speaks of Paul (ya know, the who wrote, say, Corinthians I and II) he pretty much said marriage was only for those too weak to avoid the temptation of sex.
    then we have marriage as it was practiced here, in the US. you know, where women literally could not own her own property (it was all her husband’s). could not get a job without permission (from her husband), and even if she were allowed to work, all of her wages were paid TO HER HUSBAND.
    THAT is “traditional” marriage.
    that’s what you want?
    no divorce, no matter what your husband does to you? in most states, a husband was literally allowed to do anything to his wife short of killing her – and even then, all he had to do was claim she was having an affair, or she *might* have been having an affair, and no one did anything about.
    that’s what you want?
    a man could be married, have a mistress, visit prostitutes, and the wife had no recourse. she couldn’t use birth control at ALL (comstock laws were only part of this) and could be jailed if she had a pamphlet about birth control because it was “pornography”, while her husband – the man with the mistress and the prostitutes – kept a copy of the Kuma Satra in his study, legally.
    that’s what you want?

    “traditional” marriage, as citied by “traditional marriage proponents” only existed for a short period, aprox. 1950-1965.
    in the meantime, other “traditional” marriage include such things as polygamy, polyandry, forced childhood marriage, gay marriage, group marriage, celebate marriage… all on this continent in the last 500 years. most Native American cultures not only *allowed* marriage between two gay people, but *encouraged* it, because this insured that there was always a couple that would have the resources to take in orphaned children.

    “traditional” marriage? really?

  40. { Lisa } said,

    April 11, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Denelian,
    ok we are looking at some pretty extreme examples here. We are not talkin about the examples in which man screwed things into some twisted version. We are talking about real Marriage here where the man and woman are loving and committed to raising thier children together. Just because there are bad versions out there doesnt mean we should toss it out as the best choice.

  41. denelian said,

    April 11, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    but you are talking about a thing there never really existed in the mainstream. until the 1920s women were PROPERTY. period. they might be property that had some wants that they could articulate, but thats about it.

    “traditional marriage” has *always* been an issue of A) property and B) control. women were owned by their husbands. children were owned by their fathers. and unless they ran away and were able to avoid the lawenforcers that would drag them back, they had *NO* say, except in the case of male children who grew to adulthood and were able to stand against their fathers.
    the whole “Husband and wife raising their children together” has ONLY happened SINCE the 1950s and has NEVER been the norm.

    just because you want something to be so, doesn’t mean it is. everything i cited, above, in the category of “bad marriage” (with the single sole exception of the Native American example) was picked from the Bible as an ENDORSED MARRIAGE EXAMPLE.
    according the Bible, women have no say in who they marry, when they marry, where they marry to, how much is paid for the marriage, or ANYTHING. according to the Bible, if a woman is raped, her rapist may EITHER marry her or pay her father for raping her – and if it happened in a city, she can be killed for not screaming loud enough.
    this is why Biblical precedents are tricky – the people portrayed in the Bible are *not* “polite society* and i can guarantee there isn’t a one of them that you would want to know in real life.

    that aside, your “Real Marriage” is a fantasy, a thing that has never existed as any sort of norm. why should i take your definition over the one i was raised with on the reservation? because you are white? because you are Christian? because you are cis-gendered? because you have privilege?
    i was raised (and i am 32 an straight) in the belief that a marriage was a social contract between two people who loved each other, and that the content of that social contract was to include each other into their families while making a third family – maybe that family only consists of those two, or maybe they have bio children, or maybe they adopt, or maybe they add more adults to the marriage. the whole point was creating a family, but it wasn’t a “nuclear family” – another social illusion that has never really existed and was never the norm. just a group of people who love each other like family, with the legal rights and obligations of family.

  42. April 12, 2009 at 12:55 am

    Hi denelian,

    What do you think a marriage is rather how do you define what a marriage is?

  43. ruby said,

    April 12, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Denelian,

    You are also focusing on laws around marriage. But you are ignoring what marriage is. The combining of each gender: one man and one woman, to create a new unit of society.

    Even in your examples of polygamy, and incest, the marriages contained one man and one woman.

    You may have an argument with native americans, but are talking about all tribes? or was there one in specific? I’d like to know the specific tribe.

  44. ruby said,

    April 12, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Modus,

    So because lesbians don’t have as many obvious health issues, young men should be encouraged to have sex with other men?

    What is your recommendation?

  45. April 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    Well, ruby, if they get married, then they’ll stop having casual sex. Eventually, they’ll stop having sex entirely. Then one’ll build a boat and the other, I assume, will start collecting trains.

  46. beetlebabee said,

    April 15, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Modus,
    on the contrary, I believe it is the sound of America waking up to the reality of the gay agenda. We are seeing in greater numbers, evidence of these agenda points coming to fruition and people are speaking out in opposition to it. It’s about more than just love, that sorry story we’ve been repeatedly told. It’s much more about control of ideas, as illustrated by your sources’ repeated demagoguery of the motives behind the marriage movement.

  47. beetlebabee said,

    April 15, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Before, people said, oh, well, that’s EUROPE. We’re not Europe. or Oh well, that’s Canada……WE are not Canada…..

    Now they can’t say that. We’ve followed the paths of both Europe and Canada and we’re seeing the same struggle against freedoms, civilization and religion here in the United States. It’s an eye opening ad, and quite effective in it’s message.

  48. April 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    “It’s an eye opening ad, and quite effective in it’s message.”
    Only if you choose to remain ignorant of its distortions and half-truths, then it’s still effective, but not in the manner intended.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: