North Carolina Upholds Traditional Marriage

North Carolina has joined every other state which allowed its citizens to have a voice on defining marriage and passed an amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman.  Yes, every other state.  The states in which same-sex marriage is legal it has been declared such in spite of the will of the people, not at their behest.  Which is why even though traditional marriage is already the law of the land was put into the constitution, to prevent lawmakers or judges form making legislation contrary to the will of the people.

In fact, even the polls which claim that the American public is becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage is a bit misleading.

(ChristianityToday) — In 31 states, voters have approved initiatives that define marriage as being between one man and one woman. While these ballots effectively prohibit same-sex marriage, they are worded in the affirmative (should the state define marriage as the union between one man and one woman?) not the negative (should the state ban same-sex marriage?).

The importance of question wording has been long recognized by pollsters. For example, the Pew Center for the People and the Press (Pew) asked “Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?”A majority (53 percent) said it should be “legal.”

But another Pew survey conducted just weeks earlier found less support for gay marriage when it asked, “Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?”

This seems to be asking the same idea, but it is not. This question is about “allowing” gays and lesbians to marry, not whether those marriages should be “illegal.” This change in the question wording dropped support for same-sex marriage from a majority to 45 percent (versus 46 percent who oppose same-sex marriage). An August 2010 AP-National Constitution Center Poll found nearly six-in-ten Americans think “couples of the same sex be entitled to the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex” and oppose having “the government distinguish between them.”

Such subtle differences are not lost on politicians. In 2008, then California Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the official description of Proposition 8. The original petition asked people to support a proposition that “amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Brown changed the wording. The wording on the ballot was titled: “Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

The ADF question does not ask about same-sex marriage. Instead, it asks what people believe marriage should be. The ADF asked each respondent whether he or she agreed with the statement: “I believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.”

A majority (62 percent) said they agree with this statement. One-third said they disagree. This result seems to contradict polls from Gallup, Pew, and other media outlets, which found growing support for same-sex marriage.

Th 62% of respondents who agree with the statement, “I believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman” is right in line with the ballot results whenever marriage amendments are put to a vote.  It should not come as a surprise that North Carolina voted to define marriage as one man and one woman by the same margin as the average with “about 61 percent of North Carolina voters casting their ballots in favor of the amendment, and roughly 39 percent voting against it.” — (ABC News).

Comments

  1. Too bad we didn’t do this with rights for racial minorities. We wouldn’t have any of those pesky mixed-race marriages either. Why did those people need that special right to marry someone of another race anyway? Who needs love?

  2. Firstly, the term “traditional” marriage is part of the problem. Those who want to destroy marriage say it’s just “traditions” that we want to hold on to. No, the term should be “REAL” or “TRUE” marriage.

    Jason,
    thanks for the homosexualist soundbite. There is no such thing as “mixed race” marriage. There is only one race – the human race. Those who wanted to prevent people from marrying due to skin color were indeed bigots and racists to base marriage on skin color.

    Love does not make a marriage. Opposite-sex people make a marriage. With homosexualists like you, who say love makes a marriage, you end up with any mixing of people or people/animals. You have no moral leg to stand on to deny any unions marriage if you once claim same-sex people can marry. Hey, why can’t a person marry self? Father/daughter, mother/son, sister/brother, man/corpse (as in Egypt).

    • Love doesn’t make a marriage!?! That’s a new one on me.
      And let me address your wide eyed, hysterical horror stories:
      People can’t marry animals because, among other things, animals can’t provide informed adult consent. “I do” is part of the ceremony.
      Familial marriage is also properly prohibited because 1) it has genetic consequences for children and 2) it has too great an association with an abuse of parental power. But suffice it to say no one is advocating for father/daughter or father/son marriage. That’s just an anti-gay scare tactic. And you might notice that fathers and daughters do have different gender so there’s no Biblical law or gender barrier that prevents Lott’s daughters from raping him for for fathers to marry daughters.
      Why can’t a person marry self? Because everyone agrees that’s nonsense. And because one person is only one person, unless it’s a Trinity.
      The man/corpse thing was a hoax. Check your facts. But again, we go back to consent. So if the corpse doesn’t say “I do” then they aren’t married.

      The line is two unrelated (family) consenting adults. It would be nice if the line was true love, but that is unfortunately too hard to measure. But if you like mixed-gender, loveless unions, then go have one. Don’t ruin it for adult, consenting, loving couples.

      • Jason,
        Since when does love DEFINE a marriage? Generations have married people they didn’t even know until the wedding day!!!!

        By what right do you say someone (animal) has to consent? Does the animal consent to be a pet? Can’t a dog bark to say “I do”? You just arbitrarily decide what moral is or is not! What is your moral standard to say consent is necessary? Just your say-so? By what right can you say I’m wrong to say consent ISN’T necesssary?

        Same-sex fake marriage was properly prohibited because it is a confusion of nature, an abuse of human sexuality, a perversion, etc. Yet you don’t think that’s right. So you arbitrarily come up with YOUR opinion as to why incestous marriages shouldn’t take place. So if a brother and sister consent, are in love, for some reason can’t have children, how can you deny them marriage?

        It is not ‘anit-gay” scare tactics (nor “wide-eyed, hysterical horror stories”), nor did I state anyone was advocating incestuous marriages (although there are those who are); rather my point is that if you change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, then you cannot logically deny any other union, be it incestuous, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy, etc. Otherwise YOU become bigoted against those people’s desire – after all, isn’t it just about “love”?

        And can’t a person consent to have sex as a corpse before they die?

        Your comment about what the Bible does or does not allow just demonstrates your ignorance of the text, but that is another debate for another time.

      • Jason

        The majority of marriages around the world are arranged, and have been so for millenia (opposite sex ones at that!). But to Glen’s point, love isn’t a required condition for marriage. The state doesn’t ask at the time of the license application if you’re in love with the other party.

  3. I wish the government weren’t involved in any marriage.

  4. @ Glen

    (1) Meta-Ethic Similarity
    If I am not mistaken, in Meta-ethics, “Divine Command Theory” falls under the category “Ethical Subjectivism” for good reason. You can only feel less subjective than Jason because you are depending on the subjectivity of those who wrote your favorite book — a “favorite” which itself is a subjective choice. Hindus use the Ramayana to discuss their ethics, Muslims the Koran etc but how we really see that as any less subjective than you or Jason’s choice.

    Now, you may argue why your trust of the Bible is far more rational than the trust of other authors, but that is a seperate conversation.

    (2) Divide and Conquer : A government technique
    Again, if the government had nothing to do with defining “marriage” (not in their domain of the Constitution, is it?), then these two groups wouldn’t be at each other’s necks. People could call their relations what they’d like and draw up contracts as individualized as they like. You guys wouldn’t be arguing with each other.

    The government makes us fight unnecessary fights.

  5. Sabio,
    The Judeo-Christian God is the only logical God, as well as the only logical explanation for everything in existence. He is the ultimate truth. Whether you believe in Him is your choice, but He exists nevertheless.

    The point is that God is a moral standard outside of ourselves. Without a moral standard outside of ourselves, then it is every person’s arbitrary decision as to what morality is. You have no moral right to say my moral viewpoint is wrong.

    The government never defined marriage – it was defined by God at the beginning, and society has kept that definition for thousands of years. To kowtow to 2% of the population and redefine what marriage is so as to include sexual deviancy and perversion, is irrational. Biology 101 proves that same-sex behavior is detrimental to the human body and is an abuse of human sexuality. So redefining marriage to permit this violation of biology is also irrational.

    The government is not defining marriage – they are only asserting the truth of a definition. This prevents government sanctioned abuse of those who refuse to accept this redefinition.

  6. @ Glenn
    You have given me enough cues to know that our conversation will be fruitless. Thanx. That saved me time.

    • Sabio,
      When you have no moral foundation to back your claims, of course it will be fruitless. I am a rational thinker and you want to present irrational claims based of personal beliefs and opinions rather than a moral standard outside of yourself. And that is the problem with all those whose god is themselves.

  7. Glenn and JB seem to be all for property-based, loveless marriages, so long as it’s one man and one woman. I personally see adult women as people who can and should be allowed to make their own decisions, no matter what a strange man or the woman’s parents have to say. So I do in fact reject chattel marriage that you are defining as “traditional”. Because, say it with me, there’s no consent. My rules are consistent and affirming of individual rights and of love.
    I’m glad you’ve identified the fallacy of this “traditional” marriage concept. When you advocate for “traditional” marriage, maybe you should be clear if you mean using women as collateral in business transactions. Then you can explain to us again what “sanctity” means.

    • Jason,
      You fabricated what you claim is our position and then proceeded to knock it down – that’s called a strawman argument. I don’t know of anyone who is FOR chattel based marriage or even love-less marriage. The only point made was that “love” does not define what marriage is.

      YOUR rules for marriage is to define it as you wish with anything goes being the result.

  8. Marshall Art says:

    The fallacy, Jason, is that you are trying to say that Glenn and John are defining marriage in a manner that removes love from the picture. They are not. They mere point out that YOUR definition does not align with history. We all hope that love is a main ingredient. But one can’t ignore that it hasn’t always been a part of the equation. What has been the part of the equation is one man/one woman, and as such is a more accurate understanding of the term.

    I would also point out that when God got around to handing down His Law, He prohibited both homosexual and incestuous couplings. Sameness is the point here. In the former, the gender is the same, and in the latter, the sameness is familial. This contrasts with bestiality, which is the other extreme of their being too extremely different species. Standard man/woman unions as has always been the ideal in all cultures are neither too much the same or too different.

    It must also be restated, and ad nauseum since the supporters of same-sex marriage refuse to deal with it, that the people have the right to determine what definition is worthy of their support via state sanctioning and licensing. That does not preclude two dudes from committing to each other.

  9. Glenn…

    Generations have married people they didn’t even know until the wedding day!!!!

    John…

    The majority of marriages around the world are arranged, and have been so for millenia (opposite sex ones at that!).

    Are you all actually endorsing this? Just because “it’s always been done that way” does not make that way moral or wise. If your parents and grandparents jumped off a bridge, would you do so, too?

    I’ve another question for you, John. You say…

    The states in which same-sex marriage is legal it has been declared such in spite of the will of the people, not at their behest.

    Are you endorsing letting the majority decide the laws as a just way of deciding what should and shouldn’t be legal in our pluralistic society? Because, if so, you should be aware that in ten years or less, your position in opposition to marriage equity will be the minority position.

    According to the latest Gallup poll, fully half of US citizens support marriage equity (“gay marriage” rights). According to this latest poll, 50% are in favor and 48% opposed to “gay marriage.”

    You all have lost this argument at the national level and I’m relatively certain that within the decade (and certainly within our lifetime), marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all. So, I’d go softly on the trumpeting of majority rule there, if I were you, recognizing that your position is quickly becoming the minority one.

    • Dan

      Refer to Marshall’s comment as he seems to be able to understand mine and Glen’s point.

      But as to the nation supporting gay marriage, as I addressed in the post, it all depends on how you ask the question. When the question is asked: Do you agree or disagree: marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman, the results are in the 62% range agreeing.

      If, as you say the country is more supportive of gay marriage, why doesn’t it pass when put to a vote? It only shows support when asked by pollsters. Why do people overwhelmongly vote for one man one woman marriage when behind the security of a closed voting booth? Why?

    • Dan,
      As usual, you read what you wanted into the statement I made. I know John responded, but I want to also point out that you seem to always jump in just to start an argument rather than look at the argument presented. As did Jason, you built a strawman and then knocked it down. You seem to practice eisegesis with everything you read.

      It’s not a matter of majority rule, it’s a matter of factual evidence being that the majority of people know what marriage is and don’t want judicial fiat to make it something different so as to lead to more social decay.

      You keep using the phrase “marriage equity,” and yet same-sex fake marriage has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with redefining what marriage is and forcing every one to accept what even most homosexuals aren’t even interested in.

      By the way, majority rule is not proof of truth. The truth will always be that marriage is for opposite sex couples, and truth will always be that same-sex sexual behavior is deviant, unnatural, perverse, and against God.

  10. Dan Trabue says:

    For a few obvious reasons…

    1. The votes have tended to be in more conservative places, whereas that poll was a national one.

    2. The poll represents a changing trend. You all are losing/have lost this argument. In the past, most people agreed with you, but that’s changing. The changes haven’t reached the places (yet) where these votes have happened, that’s all.

    3. If you look at this and other polls, you see that older people are the ones who tend to be opposed to marriage and older people tend to vote more, making it more likely (right now) to pass these sorts of laws. In ten years, the children of those adults will have rejected that position as immoral, unjust and illogical. Then these laws will be overturned.

    So, I repeat my questions:

    Will you support the majority decision when you are no longer in the majority?

    Do you support arranged marriages, as has been the traditional way of doing marriage throughout much of history?

    If your parents and grandparents jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

    • Dan

      No need to repeat questions which have already been answered. You’re as bad as my children.

      But Ohio, Kansas, Oregon, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, and California are not exactly conservative strongholds. The point you refuse to accept is the change has come from a change in the wording of the question. It used to be asked in the manner I mentioned in my last comment. It has recently been framed as are you in favor of denying rights to gay couples, etc. Unlike you, I don’t put my finger to the wind to determine what is moral and what isn’t.

  11. Glenn…

    but I want to also point out that you seem to always jump in just to start an argument rather than look at the argument presented.

    You all seem very unclear on the concept of Questions. I asked you a Question. The question was not an accusation, rather, it was a Question. The question was not a strawman (questions can’t really be strawmen, now can they? Since you have to actually state a position in order to make a strawman argument. Asking a Question is not a statement – does that help?). It was a Question.

    The thing is, I DON’T KNOW your position on arranged marriages. You both seemed to speak of it favorably, as a wise old tradition throughout history in many cultures. Thus, since that SEEMED to be what you were suggesting, I asked a QUESTION, in order to clarify your position.

    It is a question that remains unanswered.

    • brainless

    • Dan,
      Just getting back on e-mails, so I’m catching up.
      Dan, you phrase your “questions” so as to be accusations, and then you claim innocence. No, there was NO favorable mention of arranged marriages. Any one who wasn’t looking to cause trouble would have plainly understood the point about them as being proof that “love” doesn’t define marriage. I know you aren’t that stupid.

  12. As to “majority rule not equaling truth,” well, of course it doesn’t. I never said it did and I’m glad to clarify that I don’t think that is the case. Obviously I don’t, since I think majority rule in NC has made a moral mistake.

    I raise the QUESTION because I was wondering if John (and you?) would be trumpeting the triumph of majority rule when you are no longer in the majority on this point. And that day IS coming (by this latest poll, it’s probably already here). You all have lost the argument in the greater culture. You’ve lost the youth on this point and so, it’s just a matter of time ’til the older folk die off or give up or change their mind on this matter.

    For what it’s worth, the reason you are losing/have lost the debate is because you are coming across as grumpy, immoral and irrational. Sometimes, you are even coming across as hateful and abusive (see my own latest post if you’re interested). Because of the way you are coming across, people are seeing those behaviors/attitudes/approaches and are rejecting them as ugly and irrational.

    One man’s opinion for your consideration. I know you don’t like me, but if you’re interested in trying to turn the tide on this question, you might want to consider my suggestion, just out of self-interest, if nothing else.

    John, do you truly think the tide is not changing on this question and that in a few years, you will no longer be in the majority? (Note: that is a question, not a statement, not an accusation, not a strawman…) I would just refer you to polls from 1996 up until today. You’ll see a steady decline in your position and a steady increase in the support for marriage equity as the most rational and moral and just solution in our nation.

    • Dan

      I’m not going to answer stupid questions.

    • Dan,
      As to “majority rule not equaling truth,” that was in response to your claim that in the future the majority will support same-sex fake marriage. You are WRONG in your belief that the NC decision wasn’t moral truth. We have NOT lost the argument in regular culture – we have only lost to the ignorant and brainwashed. Your claim that we come across as “grumpy, immoral and irrational” is itself irrational. WE hold the moral high ground because we agree with God, let alone nature. You claim “hateful and abusive” as victimology whenever we demonstrate your complete folly in your claims and beliefs.
      And I don’t listen to the polls, which are provided mostly by liberal media and grossly manipulated to brainwash the populace the way the Nazis did. Oh, and I also don’t care how you feel about us – you are a fool, and I’m not here to convince fools, since a fool is unteachable.

  13. It is moments like this that make me smile.

    70 years ago, there would never have been a vote on whether homosexuals could marry. Even 40 years ago, virtually nobody accepted homosexual attraction, let alone homosexual relationships! Today even many conservatives resign themselves to begrudging acceptance of same sex relationships, and we are actually voting on whether or not they can not just exist, not just be together, but actually have their unions acheive equal status!
    I’m not concerned about the results of the vote. Enough people thought this was a question worth asking that it made it to the ballot. Conservatives in North Carolina were sufficiently concerned about the approaching tide of public opinion that they amended their constitution to prevent something that was never permitted to begin with.
    The beginning of the end of institutionalized scientific ignorance was the Scopes trial. Religious people all over America celebrated the verdict of that trial. The question at the time was whether or not a teacher was even permitted to teach evolution.
    We have many reasons to celebrate right now. The victory is in the necessity to assert a dying tradition as humanity continues to march forward. The victory is what the pressing need for an amendment says about the future.

    In 20 or so more years, regardless of your moral opinions on same sex coupling, you will be on the wrong side of history. A few decades after that, Dan Trabue will be on the right side of Christianity. So will John Shore.
    I’m smiling today, and so is Dan. We know what the past and the present says about the future.

  14. @ George & Dan: Very well said.

    I agree. I think my grandkids (not born yet) will look back with embarrassment at the people who use to think homosexuality was a sin, just like we look back now at the racial Christian rhetoric of old. I am also very glad that many Christians are nowadays fighting strongly to shake off this repugnant treatment of homosexuals just as many Christians fought in the 1800 & 1900s against their fellow Christians’ bigotry.

    • Sabio, I’m really getting sick and tired of your ilk comparing sexual behavior to skin color. It is NOT bigotry to say homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral, let alone sin.

  15. Marshall Art says:

    “In ten years, the children of those adults will have rejected that position as immoral, unjust and illogical.”

    This seems to unfortunately be the case. But if it turns out to be so, it will be not because they see people like me as wrong. That is, how they see me won’t be any more based on reality than how Dan and those like him see me. So if kids in ten years reject our position as immoral, unjust and illogical, it will be a result of the having been corrupted by people like Dan and those he enables, not because our position IS actually immoral (how can opposing immorality be immoral?), unjust or illogical. Sabio’s grandkids might indeed look back with embarrassment at people like John, Glenn and myself. The will be because Sabio didn’t raise his own kids well and they aren’t raising (or won’t raise) theirs well, either.

    A topic regularly discussed is whether or not morality is invented by man or discovered by him. Is morality fixed and eternal regardless of man’s presence. John, Glenn and I (to name a few) believe this to be the case. Thus, should kids in ten years believe the lies peddled by Dan and those he enables, should all the world in ten generations believe them, they would all be wrong. The idiocy is in suggesting that the NC situation is merely a case of the majority determining morality. This is not the case. Of those who chose to vote, the majority recognized the actual definition of marriage and believes their state should as well.

    “For what it’s worth, the reason you are losing/have lost the debate is because you are coming across as grumpy, immoral and irrational.”

    It’s worth nothing because it is so stupid. But it does suggest a certain reality, which is that logic, reason and fact are not helpful for Dan and those like him (and those they enable) to win a debate. Demonizing the opposition as grumpy, immoral and irrational is not even a default position anymore. It is employed right away.

    It also is curious to suggest that “our side” is actually losing when, as we see time and again, when the people are allowed to decide through actual votes, “we” win by 60-70%.

    Finally (for now), asking a question can certainly be a straw man when there is no intelligent reason to ask the question in the first place. There is nothing in anything that either John or Glenn has said that would lead an honest person to ask if they support arranged marriages or forced marriages. To ask the question suggests the possibility, as stupidly slim as it is if it exists at all, that they actually would.

  16. Marshall said, “…will be because Sabio didn’t raise his own kids well”

    I will continue to do my best to raise my children in ways you find deplorable.

  17. And that, John, is why you all are losing this argument. You won’t respond to rational questions and, instead, you call names. This suggests to many people that you aren’t interested in reasonable dialog and that you are not respectful with those with whom you disagree. It suggests an inclination towards demonization and demagoguery rather than rational debate.

    It shows nothing of the compassion or respect or kindness that people see in Jesus’ teachings. Opposition to something as common-sense-reasonable and moral as committed loving marriage undermines your argument. I don’t care if you answer my questions or not, I was just curious – especially about whether you will continue to trumpet majority rule when you are no longer the majority.

    For my part, I am more than glad to say that, up until recent times, my position on this issue has been the minority position. This is one reason I support a more Representative Republic approach than simple majority rule-democracy where the representatives operate out of respect for human rights and responsibilities.

    But nonetheless, we have been quietly, rationally making our argument: Marriage is a good thing for all people, it’s moral and just… and that argument is winning the day. Soon, the majority will vote out old laws like NC’s.

    • Dan

      You think asking if I’m for arranged marriage and me not dignifying that asinine question with an answer is why I’m losing?

      • I DON’T think you’re for arranged marriages. I never said you were.

        You brought it up, and mentioned it positively and I ASKED if you were for arranged marriages. It was a question, do you see the difference between me making a claim and me asking a question?

        You (collectively) are losing because a good many of you engage in conversation in an abusive, denigrating, bullying sort of way, implying (or outright saying) that if we disagree with you we disagree with God and that we’ll just have to take it up with God while we’re burning in hell if we want to disagree. You raise questions by your comments but then are unwilling to address them and belittle people or call them names when they ask legitimate questions that have only arisen because of your comments.

        You preface a lot of what you say on this post with the suggestion that democracy/majority rule is going your way on this vote. I ask a reasonable question: If and when (“when,” really, since it seems a foregone conclusion) you are no longer in the majority and the laws change, will you still be supporting majority rule? I’m just curious.

        • What I note is that when the people are allowed to vote they vote for traditional marriage in overwhelming majorities. The states which allow samessex marriage do so in spite of the will of the people, not at their behest. If and when the majority of the voting populace vote for same sex marriage, I will still take the moral stance and support traditional marriage.

  18. “You (collectively) are losing because a good many of you engage in conversation in an abusive, denigrating, bullying sort of way, implying (or outright saying) that if we disagree with you we disagree with God and that we’ll just have to take it up with God while we’re burning in hell if we want to disagree. You raise questions by your comments but then are unwilling to address them and belittle people or call them names when they ask legitimate questions that have only arisen because of your comments.”

    Because certainly Dan or anyone who agrees with him or comments on his blog would ever engage in being “abusive, denigrating, bullying” or ” belittle people or call them names”. Nope it just never happens. Must be nice to be in such a position of superiority.

    • I do strive to avoid name-calling, Craig. I prefer to deal with BEHAVIORS and COMMENTS rather than people as a whole. I recently made an exception in my current post where I called a pastor who advocated “punching” or “pushing” effeminate boys to “make them” more manly – I called that person a buffoon and stupid. But that was an extreme exception and I did so deliberately because he was advocating violence against children and that is stupid and immoral as hell.

      By and large though, I strive to disagree with OPINIONS when I disagree. So I might strongly denounce THAT opinion as graceless or irrational, that is not name-calling. It is a statement of fact, “I find that opinion to be graceless, irrational, ugly-as-hell…” because I DO find “that” opinion to be thus. There’s a big difference between that and refusing to answer a question by calling the person “brainless…”

      See the difference?

      Not to say that I never make mistakes and name-call myself, but I generally try to apologize for that sort of behavior.

  19. Where I suppose Sabio, Jason, Dan and I differ from Marshall, Glenn, and John is on the question of whether homosexuality is immoral and/or unethical.
    If it is not then the question of whether or not opposition to same sex marriage is unjust and illogical seems to follow.
    I still fail to see any reason to assume that homosexual behavior is unethical. By some subjective moral standards there are those who feel it is immoral, though reality tends to disagree with them. Society has been trending over the centuries to be increasingly logical about what makes something “moral”, “immoral”, or “amoral”; and this has led to a change in the way society views several issues that were previously miscategorized by subjective moral frameworks.
    As is always the case, those on the wrong side of reason use the one thing they do have to defend their position…religion. More than likely, just like it has happened before, it is religion that will end up making the most headway in the battle for human rights. People like Dan Trabue, John Shore, and others like them will allow Christians in 40 years to say that Same Sex Marriage was championed by Christianity, and that Christians on the other side were in the minority. Which, by the time this issue has become not at all an issue, will most certainly be true.
    Some of the old guard will change their mind, just as many have about whether to allow homosexual behavior to be legal. Many of the elders who passionately fought reason to the end will be gone. The next generation will be the ones who affect change. History is the greatest spyglass to the future.

  20. For the liberal homosexualists here who keep making claims of bigotry, here’s a good response:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/05/09/conservatives_and_gays/page/full/
    As Prager points out, we are not against people who are oriented towards homosexual behavior, we are against redefining of marriage and the forcing of acceptance of homosexual behavior.

    • No one is forcing you to accept anything, other than basic human rights and dignity. That is non-negotiable, as well it should be.

      But no one is forcing you to attend a gay wedding or to marry a man or anything you don’t believe in.

      • Dan, as usual you are lying through your keyboard. No one denies basic human rights and dignity to people who practice homosexual behavior, but “marriage” isn’t a right for those not qualified, and to qualify for the proper definition of marriage one must marry a member of the opposite sex.

        I can give you at least a hundred examples of people being punished by fines, prison, job loss, etc for nothing more than refusing to give recognition to same-sex unions. THAT is forcing acceptance. And you know that.

  21. “No, there was NO favorable mention of arranged marriages. Any one who wasn’t looking to cause trouble would have plainly understood the point about them as being proof that “love” doesn’t define marriage.” – Glenn

    What’s better?
    a) “traditional” but loveless arranged marriage
    b) “non-traditional” loving same-sex marriage

    Maybe they’re both good or they’re both bad, but just relative to each other, what would you rather see?
    If you answer that loveless arranged marriage is best, then you have said that women are property, adults can’t speak for themselves, and you’ve shown yourself to be incapable of understanding morality.
    If you answer that loving same-sex marriage is best, then you’ve shown that love is in fact more important than gender-mix in a marriage.

    • Jason,
      You pose a red herring. The claim made was that love defines marriage. Examples of marriages without love were given to demonstrate that love does not define marriage. That does not even hint of approving arranged marriages.

  22. Glenn,
    Here is a perfect chance to redeem yourself after our last argument. You claim, verbatim:

    I can give you at least a hundred examples of people being punished by fines, prison, job loss, etc for nothing more than refusing to give recognition to same-sex unions.

    I don’t want a hundred examples. I want examples of people being put in prison for specifically “nothing more than refusing to give recognition to same-sex unions.”
    You have those examples- as you say. Please provide them.

    Before we start I’ll even let you apologize for being wrong in the heat of the moment by saying “prison” when you meant “jail”. It is only fair. People imprisoned or jailed for “nothing more than refusing to give recognition to same-sex unions”

    Ready? Go.

  23. Dan,

    suffice it to say that I’ve been on the recieving end of your “slips” enought to be quite familiar with how you respond. Further, you give thise who agree with you a degree of latitued that you don’t give others at your blog. I will admit that you have bugun to occaisionally nudge your buddies (and to be fair you’ve deleted a few comments), but you still allow pletny of the same behavior you decry from others to slide by.

    It does seem that you are suggesting that opinion polls are to some degree a demonstration of what is right. I’ll stick with the electoral polls, while you are free to base your position on one opinion poll with a spread within the margin of error. Hardly as definitive as you’d like it to be.

    You say, ” You all have lost this argument at the national level and I’m relatively certain that within the decade (and certainly within our lifetime), marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all.” , while it is being reported that P-BO supports “full equality” in marriage. Yet, in your case, this is demonstrably not true. You have previously provided a list of those who you feel are not deserving of this “right afforded to all” , and I suspect P-BO has a similar list of folks to whom he would deny “full equailty” to.

    Finally, when did marriage become a right?

  24. I didn’t say marriage is a right, Craig. But treating people equally and fairly is. That is, it’s a right to NOT be discriminated against based upon color, religion, ethnicity and orientation. IF we create one set of protections and benefits that apply to straight people and another set of laws that say gay folk aren’t entitled to those same protections and benefits, then that is discrimination. Just as if we were denying marriage benefits to people of color or people of faith (or no faith).

    As someone said earlier, perhaps the best thing to do would be to get gov’t regulation out of the marriage business altogether, that would be an equitable solution. But in the meantime, if we’re offering these benefits/protections to one group of people, we ought to offer them to all folk as a matter of justice and morality.

    • Its good to know Dan that you don’t think pedophiles and brothers and sisters who have relationships because its their orientation should be discriminated against.

  25. sigh. No one is advocating HARMFUL marriage arrangements. Comparing marriage between consenting healthy adults and pedophiles is sick and another one of the many reasons you all are losing this debate.

    • Why are mother son (or daughter) relationships harmful? They don’t need to have children, they could sterilize. Is that OK then? Will you stop discriminating against them then?

      • I’d suggest that many if not most experts in the psychological field could tell you that parent-child relationships – even between adults – are not mentally healthy ones. We’ve covered this ground before. IF you believe that parent-child relationships are healthy and good, you can advocate for them. I don’t believe so, based upon the evidence that I’ve seen.

        The difference between us, John, is you’re asking us to make laws based upon your hunches about what God approves of, even though there is no evidence that faithful loving healthy adult relationships between gay folk is harmful. You’re asking us to take your word on something approvable over what is obviously, visibly, measurably good and healthy.

        We’re saying “no thanks, we’ll pass on using your opinions as a basis for law.” and that is another reason why you’re losing this argument. It’s immoral on the face of it.

        • I have to call shenanigans now. You have explicitly said in the past the reason you discount large portion.s of the old testament as hyperbolic story telling is based on your hunches about God.

          But I can make the case that even “loving” homosexual relationships are harmful emotionally and physically. So I can use those medical reports to say they are harmful and should be abstained from.

          You are the biggest selective double standard using liberal I have ever encountered.

  26. Dan,

    So, when you say, “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all.”, what you really mean is “… a right afforded to all, except those relationships I (Dan) deem harmful.”.

    When you also say, “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all.” did you actually mean “…marriage is a right…” or “I didn’t say marriage is a right”.

    It seems quite clear that the phrase “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right…” actually means “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right…” . I guess it actually could mean the opposite of the words you used, but there is really no contextual reason to suspect that.

    For the record, no one is comparing marriages between “healthy” adults and pedophiles. What we are comparing is your use of the words “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all.”,and your stated position that you would not actually “give” that right to all.

    • That “right” to “the adult of their choice” tune changed pretty quick, and for one of the same reasons some people object to homosexual sex too. The hypocrisy is deep on this one.

    • Craig…

      when you say, “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all.”, what you really mean is “… a right afforded to all, except those relationships I (Dan) deem harmful.”

      No, not “Dan.” It is a right afforded to all with the exceptions that we, the people deem harmful. For years, “we the people” have deemed marriage between gay folk harmful, but they did so based on prejudices/biases/cultural traditions, not on evidence. Now that we’ve been pushing we the people to look at the actual evidence (where is the harm?), your side is losing because there is no evidence to support your views other than your cultural traditions and prejudices.

      Does that clear that up?

      Craig…

      When you also say, “…marriage to the adult of your choice will be a right afforded to all.” did you actually mean “…marriage is a right…” or “I didn’t say marriage is a right”.

      “Rights,” in our society, are what we, the people, decide they are. I stated just what I meant: “Marriage will be a right afforded to all…” by we, the people. We have agreed that there are certain inalienable rights that are self-evident. Included in those are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those rights END at harm. You have the right to swing your fist all you want. That right ends at someone else’s nose.

      You have the right to marry who you want, we have agreed, but that right ends at harm caused to others. You don’t have the “right” to kidnap a woman to wed because of the harm involved. There IS NO HARM involved in healthy adult gay and straight marriage and much good can come of such marriages, so I am an advocate of marriage as a way to push for a healthier society.

      You have NO right to say to Jim and Jane, “You two can’t get married because you’re of different races,” and you have NO right to say to Jim and Juan, “You two can’t get married because I think God disapproves of your love for each other…” You are free to marry who you wish and others should be, too, within the realm of not causing harm to others.

      I’m not sure where you are getting confused, but I hope that clears it up.

      • Dan, I can make the case that homosexual sexual relationships are harmful, physically and emotionally. But that wouldn’t change your mind one bit. You always have an excuse like “but that’s those individuals…” an excuse you wouldn’t allow for others to make.

  27. Marshall Art says:

    Dan says he favors a representative gov’t over majority rules. But a representative gov’t represents the majority or it is not representative at all.

    Sabio said to me: “I will continue to do my best to raise my children in ways you find deplorable.” I have no doubt of this whatsoever.

    Jason wants us to consider two “evils”:

    “What’s better?
    a) “traditional” but loveless arranged marriage
    b) “non-traditional” loving same-sex marriage”

    Even relative to each other, the choice is a bad one and the example worse. How about this one, relative to each other:

    What’s better?

    a) stabbed to death
    b) choked to death

  28. “I didn’t say marriage is a right,”

    Except you actually did.

    Yes the hypocrisy runs deep. Because you know that when libs say “all” they don’t actually mean “all” in the sense of “all”, they mean “all” in the sense of “all but the ones I don’t think worthy”.

    But it’s good for a laugh when you get such a blatant contradiction.

  29. Marshall Art says:

    George makes some subjective assumptions. Before getting to them, I didn’t see where anyone referred to homosexual relationships as “unethical” specifically, though I could have just missed it. For my part, I maintain that they are clearly immoral and abnormal.

    The subjective assumption comes in when deciding that OUR sense of morality is subjective. That only sounds silly because it is. Does morality exist regardless of whether or not we do and is to be discovered, or is it merely human invention? We work under the first understanding.

    But our position is not beyond reason in the least. Indeed, there is very little reason behind support for homosexual behavior and “marriage equity”. It is entirely emotion driven and emotion and reason do not necessarily go together.

  30. John,

    I thought so, but just had to second the hypocrisy runs deep line.

  31. Dan,

    You seem oblivious that you have said both that marriage is a right, and that you have not said marriage is a right. Obviously, marriage cannot be both a right and not a right at the same time.

    Perhaps you could clear up where the “harm” standard comes in, I don’t recall anything in the Constitution that cites harm as a limiting factor on rights.

    Further, if one is referring to the constitution “we the people” do not decide what “rights” are. The Constitutional rights are endowed by our creator, not bestowed and removed by the populace.

    Even further, I would argue that marriage is a privilege not a right. I’d be happy to see something that demonstrates otherwise, but to say that government sanction of marriage is a right is a stretch.

    I guess before this goes further, you need to choose your position on whether marriage is a right. You’ve stated both that and the opposite as true. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone who is taking both sides.

  32. Glenn,
    I truly hope that John comes into this conversation to chastise you for your comment.
    If I came into this blog and made a similar statement and offered similar evidence I would be verbally drawn and quartered- and rightfully so.

    First, prison is prison. Jail is jail. To further complicate things- police holding cells are police holding cells. They are not the same thing. Not even close. To say that they are makes me a former prison inmate because I was arrested at a peaceful demonstration and released without charge. It’s not quibbling. It is an obvious and simple point of fact.

    You cited four examples. One in the UK that you cited three seperate times, one in Sweden, one in GA and one in TX. The final link to the DMV story in CA makes no mention of preaching about homosexuality.
    So you have four examples, right? How many of them would you say were the result of the accused doing “nothing more than refusing to give recognition to same-sex unions”? Not one. Is that quibbling? Not if we accept that words have meaning.

    Not one of these examples you gave- and you only gave four examples- resulted in jail time. Not one. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. Four different people (or groups of people) were arrested for crimes ranging from not having a permit to “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.”. In only one of the cases charges were brought to trial- and that guy never spent any time in jail.
    At least one of them spent time in a holding cell- 7 hours. One of them was released from custody enough times to be arrested four times in one day. How long could he have possibly been “in prison” for if he got arrested four times in the same day?

    So, not to quibble, but would you now like to amend your previous statement to say

    I can give you at least a hundred examples of people being punished by fines, prison, jailarrest, job loss, etc for nothing(well, something a little) more than refusing to give recognition to same-sex unions and/or preaching against homosexuality in public.

    If your whole statement is wrong- it is not quibbling. Anyone who reads those links will be as sure as I am that you don’t have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

    • George

      You’re right, its getting a little out of control and we should take a deep breath. But realize Dan has built an atmosphere that gets people in this frame of mind. You have seen it before, and will likely see it again.

    • George,
      So, if you are put in jail, you have not been imprisoned? You are not a prisoner? Arguing whether it was a “prison” or a “jail” totally avoids the issue that one is arrested and placed in a cell with varying imprisonment times. For doing nothing more than speaking against homosexuality. And the one in CA was about reading Scripture in regards to homosexuality in addition to scripture in general.

      I told you that I didn’t keep examples of the cases that ended up imprisoned. I used to have a blog where I posted every singe example as it came across the news, but I closed that blog down the end of the year. I don’t really want to take the time to search the net; if you want to deny such has happened, so be it – you can also deny the holocaust.

      When one preaches against homosexual behavior, he is de facto preaching against homosexual unions (I did not say “marriage”). If there is no union of two people sexually, then homosexual behavior does not exist. The unions they preach against are inclusive of one-night stands all the way up to state-sponsored “civil unions” or fake marriages. You cannot preach against homosexual behavior without also preaching against all types of homosexual unions.

      Crimes of “no permit” were false so they could have something to charge them with. Any speech against homosexuality is deemed “threatening, abusive or insulting, etc”.

      Now, you don’t want to accept that people have been imprisoned because I don’t have ready access, but you did not address any of my other charges of job loss, fines, indoctrination classes, etc. THOSE are proof of my statement that we are being FORCED to accept homosexual behavior or be punished.

  33. Should I now expect all those people “quibbling” about the deinitions of words Dan uses to claim that I’m being pedantic?
    I suppose you can’t expect people to concede that words have specific definitions in a post about the importance of the definition of marriage. Oh well….

  34. George,
    In my experience with Dan, and I suspect others will agree, unless you get definitions precisely nailed down it becomes difficult to have a conversation. In this case Dan has stated with certainty that marriage IS a right, and that he has NOT said that marriage is a right. Until we can reconcile his actual position any further comment is fruitless. Also, Dan has said that marriage is a right for “all”, while maintaining that he would deny this right to some. While it may seem like quibbling, I can see no way forward until Dan clearly stakes a non contradictory position.

    Sorry if this is a problem.

    • I’m sorry if I have been imprecise in my word usage. Let me put it this way:

      I believe (along with the founders of our nation) that there are some truths that are self-evident. Included in those are the notions of human liberty – the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      I’d add as equally self-evident the right to self determination. That is, as human beings, we ought to have the right to be self-determining in what we do, who we associate with, whether and where we worship, etc.

      Included in that list of things we can do because of the right of self determination is the right to marry who we wish – that we aren’t forced to wed against our will and two rational adult people can choose to marry each other if they mutually wish.

      Thus, while there is no enumerated “right to marry” that I know of in our Constitution, we have the right to self-determination and that would include the right of two people to marry each other if they so wish, regardless of whether others approve.

      And so, I believe you can agree with me that, while it IS TRUE that there is no enumerated “right to marry,” because we have a right to self-determination, people can decide who they marry.

      Is that clearer?

  35. We are commenting in a post about how the very definition of a word- in this case “marriage”- has a specific, unalterable meaning. I’m of the opinion that that word has taken on new meanings over centuries of cultural evolution- you and others are of the opinion that it is unalterable.
    To come into that post and make a statement that is only factual if we accept plastacine definitions of words like “prison”, “nothing more than”, “recognition”, and “union”- yet simultaneously argue that “marriage” has a fixed, unalterable definition is to pull a Humpty-Dumpty level act of wordsmithing.

    Dan is in a bind because he did not choose his words wisely. He has implied at different times that marriage is a right and a priveledge. He is being told that he doesn’t get to redefine the word “all” to suit his argument. I agree- even though I fundamentally agree with Dan on the greater issue at hand.
    You, on the other hand, get a pass to use the word “nothing” as elastic as you please, “prison” gets to mean “detained pending charge”. John is noticably quiet- so is Craig.
    I get your greater point- even though you disingenuously present it. People have been arrested for-and in one case charged with- openly condemning homosexual behaviour. I don’t agree that people ought to be arrested for publicly expressing an opinion- and I bet many liberals agree with me. Given your examples, so does the justice system. So it seems silly to say that it is an epidemic or a real issue.

    To address your other points, that people are fired for expressing distaste for homosexuality- what precisely is wrong with this? Workplaces are hardly places for political or religious sermons. Are you saying that employers have no rights when it comes to employee behavior in the workplace- especially if the behaviour is consistent with religious beleifs? I don’t think John would want to defend that- but I’ll be happy to have that conversation with you.
    Should people be fined for expressing personal beleifs? Maybe. There is no context for me to make that judgement. Should people be required to take “sensitivity training” in response to inappropriate behavior? Again, maybe. Context is key.

    None of this gets you off the hook for changing “prison” to “imprisoned” in an effort to double down when you get caught being dishonest. It doesn’t excuse you for stretching definitions to suit your ends in a post about how we ought not stretch definitions to suit our ends.

    • George,
      People in California had their stance on Prop 8 exposed to the public. Bosses who didn’t want to appear politically-incorrect fired their employees for what they expressed off duty and out of the work-place. THAT is egregiously unfair, and certainly unethical.

      • Not to mention frank turek was fired from I believe Cisco when an employee didn’t like his stance on same sex marriage, not that it ever came up at his job.

        • Glenn…

          One of the truths that is self-evident is that homosexual behavior is unnatural, perverse, deviant and also sinful. It is a self-evident truth that marriage is between members of the opposite sex.

          1. Your definition of “unnatural” does not appear to line up with the dictionary definition. If it naturally happens, it is natural, by definition.

          2. Your definition of “self-evident” does not appear to line up with either the dictionary or simple rationality. Self-evident to whom? It MAY be self-evident to you and those in your cultural tradition and with your cultural biases, but it’s not self-evident to everyone.

          In fact, I’d suggest that it is clearly self-evident that people committing to a marriage relationship to honor, respect, love, care for, support one another is self-evidently very good. By all evidence, these are good behaviors, good attitudes, this is morality. You’d have to present some evidence other than “cuz I think it” to support such an amazing claim that honoring, respecting, caring for, loving, etc in a marriage relationship is somehow bad.

          I’d remind you that the Bible (and good reasoning) tells us that against such things, there is NO law.

          In short, you’re appealing to subjective and rather whimsical/emotional/cultural set of claims, not fact-based ones, Glenn. You’re welcome to your opinions, but you don’t speak for everyone.

          • Dan,
            Your entire diatribe about “self-evident” is merely YOUR opinion, not based in any fact.

            It is self-evident to any intelligent person that same-sex sexual behavior is abnormal, unnatural, not according to design of the human body, not according to biology 101, is harmful emotionally, physically, psychologically, etc. And it is 100% fact that it is a sin.

    • George

      I am kind of just letting the discussion take its course

  36. John…

    But realize Dan has built an atmosphere that gets people in this frame of mind.

    Wow, the power you give into my hands, John. I can build an atmosphere that changes your frame of mind? I guess that means I control you a little bit, huh?

    You sure you want to give me that sort of power over your mind? (this is all said tongue in cheek, in case you can’t tell).

  37. Dan,
    One of the truths that is self-evident is that homosexual behavior is unnatural, perverse, deviant and also sinful. It is a self-evident truth that marriage is between members of the opposite sex. But that is a self-evident truth you refuse to accept.

  38. Is that clearer?

    Nope. You’ve managed to employ multiple contradictions in the space of one thread. Either “all” means “all” or it doesn’t. Either marriage is a right or it isn’t. You certainly haven’t laid much of a constitutional basis for your opinion.

    George, as far as the jail/prison discussion. It seems to me that the point was/is that people have been deprived of their liberty/jailed/imprisoned for how they respond to homosexuals. While I grant a technical distinction, it seems that in common usage the terms are pretty interchangeable. As opposed to asserting that “all” means “not all” for example.

  39. Marshall Art says:

    “In fact, I’d suggest that it is clearly self-evident that people committing to a marriage relationship to honor, respect, love, care for, support one another is self-evidently very good. By all evidence, these are good behaviors, good attitudes, this is morality.”

    This is a very subjective and self-serving position to take. (Subjective for Dan and self-serving for homosexuals who buy into it.) As Craig properly inferred, however, Dan does not necessarily hold this to be true for everyone at all. How big a group of people, composed of any amount of either gender, would it be morally permissible to enter into such a commitment? Could there be, say, seventeen men and women “committing to a marriage relationship to honor, respect, love, care for, support one another”? If not, why not? Would that not also be “very good”?

    “I’d remind you that the Bible (and good reasoning) tells us that against such things, there is NO law.”

    And I’d remind YOU that the Bible tells us that “good” is what GOD has decided is good/moral behavior and His law guides us to understand what that is. YOU, Dan, wish to define what is good by YOUR standards, not God’s. God has called homosexual behavior an abomination to HIM. Therefor, it cannot be a good thing against which there is no law if God has indeed called it an abomination to HIM (as well as mandated a law to prohibit it). To suggest then that it is a good thing simply because the sinful behavior is engaged in between two people who “honor, respect, love, care for, support one another” is subjective (worse than that, actually) and self-serving. It pleases YOU and those who take part in the behavior. It doesn’t please God. You make a complete mockery of Biblical teaching with such low and depraved interpretations.

  40. Marshall, be wary of speaking for God what God has not claimed. You, sir, are not God and it borders on blasphemy to claim to speak for God what God has not said.

    I’m speaking of rational, compelling evidence to support an argument, Marshall. Your entire case is, “I THINK that God thinks this behavior is bad, thus, it is bad…” But what you personally (or 1,000 or 1,000,000 people like you think) is simply not compelling.

    On the other hand, I can see the pair of lesbian grandmothers living in a marriage relationship, enjoying life, doing good, raising children and grandchildren, loving, respecting, supporting one another and, in that context, I can see no visible, rational evidence that this marriage relationship is bad in any way at all and you have offered nothing but your opinion about what God thinks.

    Not compelling. The actual evidence on hand, however, IS compelling. It has nothing to do with what I personally want, I’m going where the evidence leads, rather than hewing to ancient human traditions. I don’t support slavery or sexism, either.

    If your ancestors all jumped off a bridge, Marshall, would you do so, too?

    • Dan, everyone knows how YOU claim to speak for God saying HE approves of homosexual behavior. You twist and contort Scriptures and blaspheme God. YOU will pay eternally with your perversion of God’s word.

      WE speak for God when we use HIS word as it is written. So yes, we can speak for God in this matter.

      YOU are a fool.

      • I do find it amusing that Dan chides us for “speaking for God” then proceeds to speak for God.

        • That’s two of you all claiming that I have presumed to speak for God. Where have I done so?

          I think perhaps you are having understanding my actual words, because I have not made that claim, so if you would provide the quote where you THINK I have presumed to speak for God what God hasn’t said, I could clarify the misunderstanding.

          • Dan

            Every time you say God is approving of homosexuality you are speaking for him. And in spite of the Bible’s clear teaching against it no less. I am fully aware of your methods making the passages mean the opposite of what they say, but none the less, when you reference the bible when speaking of homosexuality you are speaking for God in the same way you accuse us of doing so.

  41. Craig…

    Either “all” means “all” or it doesn’t. Either marriage is a right or it isn’t. You certainly haven’t laid much of a constitutional basis for your opinion.

    Well, I’ve tried to make myself as clear as possible, I’m sorry you can’t understand my point. As to the constitutional basis for our opinions, well, no one here has laid out a constitutional basis for their opinions.

    Speaking only for myself, I’m not a constitutional scholar, I’m simply offering my opinions for what they’re worth. I find them to be rational.

    I think we clearly do have a right to self-determination.

    Do you disagree?

    I think we have a right to privacy.

    Do you?

    I think the right to self-determination and the right to privacy imply a right of two rational adults to marry each other if they want.

    Do you?

    Where exactly are you not agreeing/following what I’m saying?

    As to questions about polygamy, I’d say it might be hard to make either a biblical or Constitutional declaration that it objectively is wrong and/or not within our rights.

    My fear is that it tends to be (it seems to me, but this may be just my prejudice showing through) very negatively patriarchal, with men being the ones marrying multiple women, usually in the context of a very oppressive religious systems. In short, I fear harm is generally implied in polygamy, but I have no data to back that up.

    As I said, it may be pretty difficult to make either a constitutional or biblical argument against it.

    Do you think you can make a constitutional or biblical argument against polygamy?

    (Actually, we could probably set aside the question of a biblical argument against it – it just doesn’t exist. The Bible does not condemn it, it offers multiple instances of it in those ancient cultures, and implies by acceptance that it is acceptable. There simply is not a single biblical argument against it, right?)

  42. “On the other hand, I can see the pair of lesbian grandmothers living in a marriage relationship, enjoying life, doing good, raising children and grandchildren, loving, respecting, supporting one another and, in that context, I can see no visible, rational evidence that this marriage relationship is bad in any way at all and you have offered nothing but your opinion about what God thinks.”

    So, if these wonderful folks are already living in a marriage, then what’s the problem?
    Are you now suggesting that this one marriage is representative of all such arrangements?
    Are you suggesting that public policy be determined by this one marriage?
    Do you suggest that anyone should find your (possibly imaginary) perfect gay marriage should provide a compelling reason for anyone else to base their decision on?
    Are you suggesting that (scant) anecdotal “evidence” should be in anyway compelling?

    “The actual evidence on hand, however, IS compelling. It has nothing to do with what I personally want, I’m going where the evidence leads,…”

    Then please present it, it would be helpful.

    I think the right to self-determination and the right to privacy imply a right of two rational adults to marry each other if they want.

    So, to demonstrate that you have not made a constitutional case, you choose to make a constitutional case.

    I understand that you have an opinion, it’s just not supported by the constitution or any law of which I am aware.
    One could use your argument to support any number of behaviors, that doesn’t make those behaviors right.

    However, IF, I was to grant that your constitutional case is compelling, you are still left with your selective application of your position.

    The fact remains that you have repeatedly said that you are interested in “marriage equity” for all, yet you just as clearly do not actually mean all.

    The fact remains that you have argued that marriage for all IS a right, while simultaneously arguing that it IS NOT a right.

    You are arguing that marriage is a right protected by the constitution, yet you also suggest that would be fine without any government involvement in marriage.

    Maybe if you could answer a few questions it might help.

    When you say “all” do you actually mean “all”?

    What rights are enumerated in the constitution?

    Who grants constitutional rights?

    In what states is it illegal for to gay people to marry?

    P-BO has clearly stated that marriage law is an issue for states to decide (not a federal issue), if the right to marriage is in the constitution, why is P-BO choosing to cede this power to the states?

    “…but I have no data to back that up.”

    Unfortunately, you have provided no data to back up any of your opinions, that’s why they are so uncompelling.

  43. I think perhaps you are having understanding my actual words, because I have not made that claim, so if you would provide the quote where you THINK I have presumed to speak for God what God hasn’t said, I could clarify the misunderstanding.

    • Dan

      You have so many times made claims that God is OK with loving relationships including same sex ones, to pretend you have not is an outright lie. Now we have made similar claims in the opposite direction and you want to say we are wrong to speak for God. When will you just have an honest discussion and quit speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

      • I repeat:

        I think perhaps you are having understanding my actual words, because I have not made that claim, so if you would provide the quote where you THINK I have presumed to speak for God what God hasn’t said, I could clarify the misunderstanding.

      • “On the other hand, I can see the pair of lesbian grandmothers living in a marriage relationship, enjoying life, doing good, raising children and grandchildren, loving, respecting, supporting one another and, in that context, I can see no visible, rational evidence that this marriage relationship is bad in any way at all and you have offered nothing but your opinion about what God thinks.”

        Craig…

        So, if these wonderful folks are already living in a marriage, then what’s the problem?

        The problem is injustice. We are granting privileges and benefits to one group of married people and not to another. That is discrimination and I can see no rational support for such discrimination.

        Do you have any rational support for such discrimination?

        Craig…

        Are you now suggesting that this one marriage is representative of all such arrangements?

        No, no more than my 26-year-marriage is representative of all straight marriages. What’s your point?

        Are you suggesting that, if all marriages aren’t happy and successful, we ought to discourage marriage?

        I’m sure you’re not. The thing is, I think most of us can agree that healthy marriages are a good thing and we ought to encourage them, even if some marriages (half of straight marriages!) end in divorce and some are abusive.

        I see no rational support to encourage healthy marriages amongst one group (straight people) but not another (gay folk). Do you?

        Craig…

        Are you suggesting that public policy be determined by this one marriage? Do you suggest that anyone should find your (possibly imaginary) perfect gay marriage should provide a compelling reason for anyone else to base their decision on?

        No, I’m saying that IF we think marriage is a good thing (and a healthy outlet for sexual expression) to encourage amongst straight folk, then there is no compelling reason not to encourage it amongst gay folk.

        Can you think of any rational reason to encourage it in one group and not the other?

        Craig…

        Are you suggesting that (scant) anecdotal “evidence” should be in anyway compelling?

        Answered.

        Craig (quoting me)…

        “The actual evidence on hand, however, IS compelling. It has nothing to do with what I personally want, I’m going where the evidence leads,…”

        Then please present it, it would be helpful.

        The evidence is that promiscuity tends to be unhealthy. It leads to STDs and I think the evidence shows, other unhealthy results.

        Do you agree with me that the evidence supports that promiscuity is unhealthy?

        If we can agree that promiscuity tends to be unhealthy, can we also agree that a healthier place for sexual expression is within the confines of a healthy, loving, committed marriage relationship?

        If so, then is there any rational reason to support such relationships in one group (straight folk) but not in the other (gay folk)?

        Craig…

        I think the right to self-determination and the right to privacy imply a right of two rational adults to marry each other if they want. So, to demonstrate that you have not made a constitutional case, you choose to make a constitutional case.

        I don’t even know what you mean here.

        I stated I think it obvious that we have a right to self-determination and to privacy.

        Do you agree?

        I stated that these rights imply that two rational adults have a right to marry each other if they so choose.

        Do you agree?

        If not, why not?

        Craig…

        The fact remains that you have repeatedly said that you are interested in “marriage equity” for all, yet you just as clearly do not actually mean all.

        I mean “all” with the always-present exception of where it causes harm. Obviously, bedding down children causes harm, even if one were to call such abuse “marriage.” I think in our society, most of us find polygamy and incest – even in the case of adults – to be reasonably considered “harmful,” and not the product of healthy, mentally-well adults.

        This may be harder to prove, but it’s how it seems to most of us (I’m willing to bet you would agree – I’d hope so, anyway).

        For increasingly fewer of us, there is no similar reason to find gay relationships harmful and so, we want to encourage healthy relationships in that group, just as we do in the straight group.

        Craig…

        The fact remains that you have argued that marriage for all IS a right, while simultaneously arguing that it IS NOT a right. You are arguing that marriage is a right protected by the constitution, yet you also suggest that would be fine without any government involvement in marriage.

        I don’t think I have done that, Craig.

        What I’ve clearly stated (and clarified my earlier, vaguer statement) is that we have a right to self-determination and privacy.

        Do you agree?

        Further, I think these rights imply that two rational adults have a right to marry each other if they so choose.

        Do you agree?

        If not, why not?

        Marriage is NOT a “right” in the sense that we can just say, “Okay, I’d like to invoke my ‘right’ to marriage – give me a husband, please…” In THAT SENSE, it’s not a “right.”

        But, in the sense that the right of two rational adults can commit to one another in a marriage relationship is implied in our right to self-determination/privacy, yes, there is THAT right.

        And I WOULD be fine if gov’t got out of the marriage business. Then people could STILL exercise their right to self-determination and privacy and wed who they choose without gov’t getting involved and that would still meet the goal of honoring these rights.

        Do you agree?

        Craig…

        Maybe if you could answer a few questions it might help. When you say “all” do you actually mean “all”?

        I’ve answered each and every one of your questions. I’d appreciate if you would do the same for me. I’ve even bolded my questions I’m asking of you (some are repeats, one response would suffice).

        When we are talking of rights and we say “all,” we always have exceptions. “All people have the right to self-determination…” precludes those who have forsaken their rights by, for instance, committing crimes and getting sent to prison. It precludes children, at least to some degree.

        When we say all people have the right to choose who they will wed, we DON’T mean, “Well, I’d like to marry Brad Pitt, so bring him on.” It does not mean that we can force people into marriage. It does not mean that we can entice children or the mentally ill into marrying us. It means all folk have the right to enter into consensual healthy marriage arrangements, with the reasonable caveats that oppressive, unhealthy, forced marriage arrangements are not included in that right.

        Do you agree that this implied right does not include unhealthy or oppressive or forced arrangements?

        Craig…

        What rights are enumerated in the constitution?

        I don’t know. Do you know?

        “The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.”

        Craig…

        Who grants constitutional rights?

        We, the people. What do you think? Or, more specifically, we the people recognize and legislate rights that are inherent to humanity via our constitution.

        Craig…

        In what states is it illegal for to gay people to marry?

        Several.

        Craig…

        P-BO has clearly stated that marriage law is an issue for states to decide (not a federal issue), if the right to marriage is in the constitution, why is P-BO choosing to cede this power to the states?

        I don’t know, you’d have to ask him.

        • Dan, you are more intellectually dishonest than anyone I have ever had comment here.

          • John, you’re making a charge here (that I’ve claimed to speak for God) and you keep making the claim. I’ve asked for you to quote the place where I’ve done so and you can’t or won’t provide the quote. I’m telling you that you have obviously misunderstood my actual words. I’m telling you, man to man, that I HAVE NOT SAID THAT, I have not made the claim that I am speaking for God.

            I have fairly consistently said, “This is MY OPINION…” or, “IT SEEMS TO ME…” I do that specifically to remind people that I am NOT speaking for God what God has not said.

            You will also note that my complaint is not the general “speaking for God,” but “speaking for God WHAT GOD HAS NOT SAID…”

            Thus, I have no problem if someone claims that God wants us to “love our enemies,” because that is a direct quote from Jesus and it is not really contested. I have no problem with someone making the claim that Jesus warns us not to “lay up treasures here on earth…” because that is a direct quote and it isn’t contested usually (although some few in a more conservative world might question it literally).

            My problem would be going from what is explicitly said to OUR INTERPRETATIONS of what that means. The Bible literally says that “men shall not lie with men. If they do, kill them.” I don’t contest that. But to go from that to saying “THAT MEANS that God hates gay people,” or “THAT MEANS that all gay behavior in all contexts is evil,” or “THAT MEANS God hates homosexuality…” That is moving from the text to OUR INTERPRETATION and when we preface OUR INTERPRETATION with “This is what God wants/thinks…” then we have presumed too much.

            I’m equal opportunity with this, too. I think Jesus’ teachings are abundantly clear: Blessed are the peacemakers, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. I think it is abundantly clear that given Jesus’ teachings, Christians should not engage in the killing of our enemies, even in wartime.

            Having said that, even on so obvious a point, I will not say, “GOD SAYS Christians should not go to war…” I will just say it seems obvious TO ME. Thus, I am speaking for myself, NOT for God. Specifically so.

            And so, I would just repeat the intellectually honest question: IF you have a QUOTE of mine that leads you to think this, would you please provide it and then we can talk?

            Lacking any quote, all I can tell you is that you have misunderstood me and I have not claimed to speak for God what God has not said.

            • Dan

              Lets sol e this right now. Does God approve of homosexual sexual relationships?

              • God has not said, I can’t speak for God. I’m not sure where you’re missing my point.

                My opinion is, given the evidence…

                Given that those things that are good, noble, pure, loving, faithful, compassionate, etc, are GOOD things and against them, there is no law;

                and

                Given that marriage seems TO ME to be the healthiest way of expressing one’s sexuality;

                I think marriage is a good thing, whether for gay or straight folk and I think God smiles on such behavior, that God blesses such loving, committed, faithful behavior.

                That is MY OPINION. But I’m not God and I don’t speak for God.

                God has not told me (or anyone else) specifically what God thinks of marriage between gay folk. I just see no rational reason to conclude that God would be opposed to committed, loving marriage relationships to express their sexuality. In MY opinion.

                As Paul stated (in a bit more cynical and pedestrian reference to marriage), “it is better to marry than to burn with lust…” I see no rational reason at all to conclude this is not every bit as true for gay folk as it is for straight folk.

                Do YOU, John, have any rational reason to suspect otherwise?

              • Yes, the bible says God says otherwise. And I don’t have the liberty to go against clear teaching.

              • Yes, I know you hold that opinion, John. I disagree and think your opinion is wrong. I think you misunderstand the “clear teaching.”

                Beyond that, is it possible that this is the difference between you and me, John, and why you “read into” my words that I’m speaking for God when I have never said that: That, for you, “I think this is true…” equals “God thinks it…”?

                That is not an accusation, John, it is a question.

                For me, I hold my positions pretty firmly, I think they are true and I’m relatively confident that I am understanding things aright. NONETHELESS, it is ALWAYS a given for me that IF something is MY OPINION on a matter than I can not demonstrate objectively, then that opinion is prone to being mistaken – even the positions I’m confident upon.

                Is it possible that, for you, on the positions you’re confident on, you’re confident that your opinions are one in the same with God’s?

                And for that reason (ie, because you think when you reach a position that you think is Godly, it is not possibly wrong), when I state MY OPINION strongly, you’re assuming that I’m approaching it the same way as you are, and think that my opinion can’t possibly be wrong – is that why you have concluded that I’m presuming to speak for God?

                Just wondering…

              • I think I’m just going to let you talk to yourself for a while. I don’t like talking in circles and that’s your method of discussion ie, pretending this is all new conversation. You talk in circles until the other person gives up.

  44. That should have said, “having TROUBLE understanding…”

  45. Dan,
    “Do you have any rational support for such discrimination?”
    I guess without having any idea what special rights and priveledges you are talking about I’d be hard pressed to come up with an answer that would satisfy you. AlthoughI guess you could be referring to the “marriage penalty” in the tax code. I am unaware of any priveledges that accrue to ONLY married couples that can’t be accessed through other means.
    “Are you suggesting that, if all marriages aren’t happy and successful, we ought to discourage marriage?”

    Nope, I’m also not suggesting that it is possible to draw a conclusion about “gay marriages” based one one anecdote. Nor do I understand how this one story passes for evidence.

    “I see no rational support to encourage healthy marriages amongst one group (straight people) but not another (gay folk). Do you?”

    Not unless you are prepared to sanction ALL healthy marriages, no matter who engages in them. Nor have you defined healthy, nor provided any rationale why the law should determine the health of anyones marriage.

    “Can you think of any rational reason to encourage it in one group and not the other?”

    I can think of a number of rational reasons, but none that will satisfy you.

    “Do you agree with me that the evidence supports that promiscuity is unhealthy?”

    Yes. But I’m not willing t make the leap of logic with you. You are assuming that the ONLY thing preventing gays from promiscuity is the lack of federal sanction of “gay marriage”. You assume despite evidence that if “gay marriage” is snactioned than gay promiscuity will go away. You ignore the evidence I’ve given you that a majority of gays define monogamy much differently than you do and that they don’t see marriage as an impediment to continuing a promiscuous lifestyle.

    “Do you agree?”

    I agree that we have limited rights to self determination and privacy. However I see no support for the leap of finding a right to marriage in the constitution.

    “Do you agree?”
    I agree that you can make the argument that two rational adults can marry, I just don’t think that you can arbitrarily limit them, based on your position. Further, as before given the lack of a workable general definition of “rational” for this purpose I don’t see how you can codify your position.

    “I mean “all” with the always-present exception of where it causes harm.”

    Then you really don”t mean all then, do you?

    I am glad that you are prepared to state with such certainty that ANY and ALL relationships of multiple spouses or between adult siblings or parent/child are harmful and unhealthy. Personally, I think they are sinful and against God’s plan for humans. But I’m not omniscient enough to pass judgement on the health or harm of these relationships.

    “I don’t think I have done that, Craig.”

    I guess your argument is with your own words as quoted above, not me.

    “But, in the sense that the right of two rational adults can commit to one another in a marriage relationship is implied in our right to self-determination/privacy, yes, there is THAT right.”

    But that right exists now. There a many churches who will marry gays, there are some states that will sanction such marriages. So, it would seem that you have what you want.

    ” It means all folk have the right to enter into consensual healthy marriage arrangements, with the reasonable caveats that oppressive, unhealthy, forced marriage arrangements are not included in that right.”

    Well since spousal abuse is liiegal, and I’m not sure that it’s the fed’s job to regulate what marriages are oppressive, or unhealthy, and since we still have freedo, to practice our various religions here, I fail to see how you can make a case that arranged (or forced) marriages should be prohibited in ALL cases. Nor do you provide any foundation for making such judgements.

    “Do you agree that this implied right does not include unhealthy or oppressive or forced arrangements? ”
    First I’m not sure I agree that there is an implied right as you have suggested. Second, NO ONE is suggesting that unhealthy, oppressive, or forced marriages are a good thing.

    “We, the people. What do you think? Or, more specifically, we the people recognize and legislate rights that are inherent to humanity via our constitution.”

    Actually, that would be wrong. “We are endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights…” .

    “In what states is it illegal for to gay people to marry?”

    “Several.”

    Maybe you could actually answer the question I asked.

    “P-BO has clearly stated that marriage law is an issue for states to decide (not a federal issue), if the right to marriage is in the constitution, why is P-BO choosing to cede this power to the states?”

    “I don’t know, you’d have to ask him.”
    Actually I’m asking you why you would disagree with P-BO who taught constitutional law. You are clearly attempting to apply the federal constitution to an issue that is one decided by the states. Are you suggesting that the federal government violate the 9th amendment?

    Anyway, now you can’t say I haven’t answered your questions. If you have anything that’s not the same old stuff, ask. If you don’t I’m with John. It’s like we’re having 2 completely diferent conversations here.

  46. I’m sure someone has the link to Dan’s “God blesses gay marriage” comment. I don’t have the time or desire to find it.

  47. Marshall Art says:

    Lacking the time to read all comments since my last, I will respond to Dan’s response to me and if I’m repeating anything already said on the subject, so be it.

    First of all, I have no problem speaking for God when what I speak is merely a restatement of what is said in Scripture. Indeed, no teaching of Scripture can occur without doing so. ANY teaching risks such a lame accusation leveled when the truth conflicts with personal preferences. As such, God prohibits homosexual behavior and does so with absolutely no exceptions listed in any way. I know your arguments against this fact, Dan. They contain holes you’ve never filled with anything akin to an intelligent response or taken any steps to provide evidence that your position is even possible. Thus, as for “rational, compelling evidence” for MY position, one can’t have more so than “Thou shalt not”.

    As to your anecdote (and for all others, this is obviously a religious argument between us)

    “On the other hand, I can see the pair of lesbian grandmothers living in a marriage relationship, enjoying life, doing good, raising children and grandchildren, loving, respecting, supporting one another and, in that context, I can see no visible, rational evidence that this marriage relationship is bad in any way at all and you have offered nothing but your opinion about what God thinks.”

    we see immediate problems. First is the fact that only one of them is an actual grandparent, unless both of them produced children before (or worse, during) their “marriage”. So we have at least one divorced woman (or at least one, or at least one who had sex outside of marriage) who is now living in (another) sinful relationship. (What good they do while in that relationship does not mitigate the sin they continue to commit.) Thus, it is “bad” on several levels depending upon which logical assumptions are true. (If they’ve adopted their children, that’s a different issue, but I believe it is wrong as well—I will not address them at this time)

    I don’t need to offer any opinion of what God “thinks”, since what He wants is so clearly and plainly revealed in Scripture such that honest people can easily understand it. And Scripture clearly and plainly reveals to us that God finds homosexual behavior to be an abomination to Him and that those who engage in such will not have a place in Heaven.

    Rather than admonish those who stand by and for the truth of what Scripture says, you best come up with a real defense for your position that so drastically and demonically contradicts it. In the meantime, I will continue to speak for God and relate to all what He has clearly revealed to us in Scripture. It gives us enough that we need not imagine what He might be thinking on this subject.

  48. Marshall Art says:

    Speaking of state licensing, Dan asks,

    “Can you think of any rational reason to encourage it in one group and not the other?”

    Yes. It is the reason it was done in the first place. It was meant to tie the father to the child he produced by having intercourse with its mother, and to tie him to the mother as well. By encouraging this union, it benefits both the woman and the child they produce together, as well as the man. Homosexual relationships cannot produce children, and thus there is no compelling reason for the state (the people) to encourage their union. This incredibly weak crap about promiscuity is irrelevant, as two people committed to each other are either committed to each other or not regardless of whether or not the state recognizes their union.

    There is also the very important aspect of there being two unique genders and that neither can ever fully replace the other, and in the life of a child, this is especially important. To have two loving parents of each sex (preferably, both involved in the child’s existence, and both loving each other as they promise to do), the child learns about the important roles each gender plays in the family, and the proper dynamic between the genders in a manner that can’t be done without one of each guiding him in the home.

    The compelling and rational reason for traditional marriage being maintained as it always has been by state sanctioning and licensing and, of course, tax law, revolves around the child. Many people may want to have children. Now, with the moral decay that has led to cultural acceptance of this immoral behavior, children are becoming accessories. Many who want to have children do a great disservice to children by adopting them to fulfill their fantasies. They aren’t concerned about what is best for children.

    There are those times when a child, an orphan, might be in need of any level of a stable home life. In such cases, even a single parent might be a step up. But this is only when no other man/woman parental situation has become available. We’re talking extremes here.

    Without children in the mix, there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize ANY union and least of all a homosexual one. More to the point, without children in the mix, there is no need by the couple for state recognition if they are truly committed to each other. Promiscuity is a result of poor character, not the lack of a license to wed.

    And to show your two-faced character on this issue, you have no standing to determine if a polygamous or incestuous union is harmful simply because it is polygamous or incestuous, you incredible bigot. If there is merely ONE where there is absolutely equal degree of consent by all parties involved, they should be allowed as well if two of the same gender is so allowed. Just because YOU haven’t seen any examples, does not mean they don’t exist or won’t exist at some point in the future. You have no logical argument for drawing a line anywhere if you you redefine the word “marriage” at all.

    One final thing, I believe I’ve pointed this out before, but perhaps not here at this blog. Dan doesn’t “speak for God”. He worms his way out of this accusation by pretending he accepts that he might be wrong but it is based on how he is reading the Bible. It doesn’t matter how much you show him that his interpretation is outrageous and preposterous (to say the least), he will hope that we can “agree to disagree” and say all is well if we all mean well and “are trying to seek God’s will”, no matter how far from it his interpretations plainly are. I hope this clarification helps those he accuses of speaking for God. It’s a sin to be certain of what we know about Him.

  49. George:

    Here is an example of social punishment for merely expressing your view on this issue

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/16/Pacquiao-banned-LA-Mall

Any Thoughts?

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: