Prop 8 Video by the Family Research Council
Culture, Politics — By Dustin R. Steeve on October 9, 2008 at 1:05 pmWhile speaking with people about the issue of same-sex marriage, I often hear people claim that they see no harm in voting to allow same-sex couples to marry since they, the voter, will not be affected. When I hear this, I become concerned for my fellow citizens. I become concerned because I believe they have been deceived into thinking that good work being done by our families to raise children is unimportant to our society. People have been deceived because the implications of a law normalizing same-sex marriage have largely been kept quiet. However, make no mistake, the normalizing of a poorly constructed ideology framework for the family is truly the motivation for people wanting proposition 8 to fail.
The Family Research Council has produced a great video addressing what has already happened in Massachusetts as a result of laws legalizing same-sex marriage.
I have a lot of thoughts on this issue which I will address in a later post. However, the salient facts are that, in the state of California, same-sex couples who enter into a civil-union obtain the exact same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples. In fact, some would argue that same-sex couples have more benefits especially when it comes to areas like adoption where same-sex couples often receive preferential status. In light of this, it is clear that the strategy being played out in California is akin to the one played out in Massachusetts. If proposition 8 fails, the next move that the same-sex lobby makes is into the classroom. Please watch this video and consider whether it would be good if this happened in California.
Find out what you can do to help people think well about and protect marriage.
Tags: california, family research council, gay marriage, prop 8, proposition 8, same-sex marriage
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
74 Comments
“Like it or not, we really aren’t animals.”
Of course we are. Dictionary.com describes an animal as “A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.” Biologically we meet all the criteria for animals with nothing else to distinguish us. Genetically humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than horses are to zebras. We just happen to be particularly intelligent ones. But do not let that fool you into thinking humans are somehow special.
“Like it or not, the world isn’t even close to overpopulation.”
Again, not true. Wikipedia states that “As of October 2008, the world’s population is estimated to be about 6.7 billion (6,700,000,000)… The world’s population, on its current growth trajectory, is expected to reach nearly 9 billion by the year 2042.” And of course, the bigger the population, the faster the rate of increase.
“Like it or not, the Earth’s resources are nowhere near being stretched to the limit.”
Oil, coal and natural gas are still our main sources of fuel, and there is a finite supply. Google the Global Reserch Project for details on how close we are to using them up. Also see http://overfishing.org/ http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278&gclid=CKm9veqHypYCFShUEAodcVgAyQ
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
to learn about the effect that overfishing, global warming and deforestation is having on our planet to cope with the demands of current levels of human population.
“Like it or not, the homosexual behavior of animals occurs whenever there is a severe imbalance in the population of the sexes, or NOT normal.”
Yet again, not true. The examples I gave at the above link show animals who have a distinct preference for homosexual sex, without population imbalances or ‘prison sexuality’. I will provide the link again here for convenience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_animals
“Defending homosexual behavior as normal based on behavior in the animal kingdom has no logical basis.”
The point I was making is that since animals engage in homosexual activity, attacking homosexual behaviour on the grounds that it is ‘unnatural’ has no logical basis.
It must be nice to just cover your ears and close your eyes and just pretend things aren’t happening. Unfortunately that doesn’t make problems just go away. All I am hearing from you is stubborn denials of readily available and verifiable facts just because you don’t want to accept them.
What you are presenting are not facts but opinions. Much of it is based on desire rather than reasoning. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can understand that humans are not animals, and attempts to dehumanize us and equate us with animals are not logical. But now I see that you are not really opposed to religion, just Christianity.
“What you are presenting are not facts but opinions.”
Have I not sourced my comments? The population of the world is a fact, not an opinion. I have also cited research which records observed homosexual behaviour in animals. These are facts, not opinions.
For example, you claim the entire world’s population could fit inside Texas with everybody having a house on a quarter acre of land. Let’s see…
According to Wikipedia, the surface area of Texas is 696,241 square kilometres. This is 172,044,898 acres (rounded up), or 688,179,592 quarter acres (rounded up). 6,700,000,000 people could not fit in Texas with a quarter acre of land each. Not even close. If this in incorrect, please show me exactly where.
“Much of it is based on desire rather than reasoning.”
I think this is untrue, and that you are accusing me of this simply because I am disagreeing with you. If not, please show me the flaw in my logic.
“Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can understand that humans are not animals, and attempts to dehumanize us and equate us with animals are not logical.”
So you are saying it is ‘just obvious’ that humans are not animals? I’m afraid this is a perfect example of an observation based on desire rather than reasoning. What is obvious to one person is not to another. It is entirely subjective. What is needed are hard facts and indisputable data – data which modern biology can provide. For example, when the chimpanzee and human genomes were compared, it was found that 98.77% of DNA base pairs of humans and chimpanzees are the same. See here for more details: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm
What exactly leads you to conclude humans are not animals? What evidence? What reasoning? What logic? ‘It’s just obvious’ I’m afraid simply does not cut it.
I was trying to recollect an article from National Geographic that I had read one day about population and required land area. I may have misquoted the size of the housing plots or the ratio of people per housing plots. But the article was definite that the full population of the planet could fit into an area the size of Texas. Even at the world’s current population, the density would be around one and a half times as dense as Singapore or Hong Kong. So my memory of the article is a bit faulty. Let’s swap areas then. The total land area of Australia would be large enough to afford every single person a quarter acre for house and garden for up to around 7.6 billion people. How does that make opinion that the world is over-populated or nearly over-populated into a fact? How does that make the opinion that anthropogenic sources are the major causes of global warming fact? Back in the seventies people were talking about finite supply of oil. If I remember correctly, they said we should be running out by about 2020. We aren’t close to that happening even though our consumption hasn’t abated. How does that make the opinion that the world’s resources are overstretched into a fact?
All of that is dogma, not fact. Your comment –
– more dogma from the religion that says mankind is a parasite on the Earth. The opinion that humans are just another animal? More dogma from the same religion. The opinion that human behavior can be justified or rationalized from animal behavior? Just more dogma. And you come here and say that Christians are just trying to enforce our religious views on others who may well not share them. I say that is what you are trying to do, and all Christians want to do is keep you from enforcing your religious views through political mandate. That’s what Proposition 8 and your opposition to it is all about.
smmtheory, it’s funny, but you seem to be asking for facts, but then refusing to follow the links when I produce them. I am providing links to professional, reliable websites written by people with far more authority to speak on such matters than me, who give ample evidence to back up my statements. That’s why I provide these links. Rather than following them and questioning what you find, you are simply refusing to look and then claiming that my arguments are unsupported ‘dogma’ (and therefore, presumably, wrong). Just because you refuse to educate yourself on certain matters does not mean that there is no evidence for it.
Even logic must tell you we cannot continue growing forever. We only have one planet. The resources are finite. Sooner or later we will run out of space. Surely that’s just logic (again, correct me if I’m wrong). At what point do we stop reproducing like rabbits? And isn’t it better to do so BEFORE we reach critical mass rather than blunder onwards ignoring the peril until the last possible minute?
As for everyone fitting onto Australia, that may be so, but how do you propose we feed such a vast mass of people? Great swathes of land are required for farming, and much of the Earth’s land surface is covered with desert, rocky mountain thick forest or simply rocky, unfertile ground. It’s not as if everyone could move to Australia and live perfectly contentedly without ever visiting the world outside it.
“more dogma from the religion that says mankind is a parasite on the Earth.”
I don’t think I ever stated my religious beliefs. I certainly do not belong to any religion which considers humanity a parasite. I just advocate some consideration for the generation that will follow us long after we die – the children of the future who will have to deal with the consequences of our indulgence if we continue to live as though the future isn’t worth worrying about.
“The opinion that humans are just another animal? More dogma from the same religion.”
Again, not dogma, but scientific fact. And you STILL have not presented any evidence to the contrary.
“The opinion that human behavior can be justified or rationalized from animal behavior? Just more dogma.”
I do not believe human behaviour can be justified from animal behaviour. I believe animal behaviour can help us to understand human behaviour (consider Pavlov’s Dogs and their effect on behavioural psychology), but morally speaking, I have never said human behaviour can be justified from animal behaviour. As I believe I said in my last post, I was simply attacking the notion that homosexuality was ‘unnatural’, because if it occurs in nature then it clearly is not, and such an attack has no merit.
Why is it that you people always think that because somebody disagrees with the (supposedly solid) evidence that you believe we haven’t followed links you and yours provide over and over and over again in the hopes that one day we’ll magically ’see the light’? I know the arguments that you and yours make. I still disagree with them because the interpretation of those collected odds and ends of factoids are arguable.
Logic leads me to believe that God knew exactly how much Earth was needed for the entire history of mankind and planned and provided accordingly. “Critical Mass” is subject to interpretation, not to mention that mankind is fairly inventive when it comes to meeting challenges. I don’t think “running out of space” will ever happen.
Are you blind? If everybody lived in Australia what the heck do you think the rest of the globe would have on it besides critters and plants? Even greater swaths of land than what we farm is unused for farming. Large swaths of land are deemed too sacred for mankind to use because the critters are deemed by some to be more important than men.
What children? How are we going to have any children if we stop reproducing “like rabbits” as you would have. That’s the logical outcome of normalizing homosexual behavior, no children. People want to be normal after all, and if homosexual behavior is considered normal, then heterosexual behavior begins to seem abnormal.
“I know the arguments that you and yours make. I still disagree with them because the interpretation of those collected odds and ends of factoids are arguable.”
If you disagree, please state exactly where, why and how. What I’m getting at the moment is just breezey statements dismissing evidence for no good reason.
“Logic leads me to believe that God knew exactly how much Earth was needed for the entire history of mankind and planned and provided accordingly.”
A couple of posts ago, you were accusing me for favouring dogma over facts. Can you not see that that is exactly what you are doing here? When scientific fact and religious dogma disagree over a point, you are favouring religious dogma.
“I don’t think “running out of space” will ever happen.”
Are you aware that in China, for example, there is a ‘one child per family’ rule because the country is so overpopulated? In India, the world’s second most overpopulated country, the pressures of feeding and providing for all those people has led to a 35% poverty rate. It feels futile, but here’s another link for you to follow: http://www.geocities.com/soc2504groupproject/overpopulation_in_india_and_chin.htm
Wake up. Overpopulation is not something that may or may not happen in the future – it IS happening now, in certain parts of the world. It is only a matter of time before the rest of us run out of space too. And you bury your head in the sand about this because you simply believe God has it all planned out? Please! That is a perfect example of the perils of trusting religious dogma over evidence.
“If everybody lived in Australia what the heck do you think the rest of the globe would have on it besides critters and plants? Even greater swaths of land than what we farm is unused for farming.”
You would turn the whole planet into one giant farm for humans? Tear down the forests, dam all the rivers and turn the whole planet into one great big farm?
For one thing, the planet’s ecosystem exists in a delicate balance. Tear down all the forests for farmland, and how do you propose we breathe, since trees are so vital in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen?
For another thing, you seem to have no respect for any animal which we currently do not eat. I would not tear up the habitat of an endangered species for farmland just so human beings can have a few more children. Other animals live on this planet, and we have no right to blindly run every other species to either extinction or a lifetime of being farmed for food. It is attitudes like yours that make me truly shudder for the future of the planet.
To quote Wikipedia: “The forests are being destroyed at an extremely fast pace. Almost 90% of West Africa’s rainforest has been destroyed. Since the arrival of humans 2000 years ago, Madagascar has lost two thirds of its original rainforest. At present rates, tropical rainforests in Indonesia would be logged out in 10 years, Papua New Guinea in 13 to 16 years. Several countries, notably Brazil, have declared their deforestation a national emergency.”
And you think humans should reproduce MORE?!!?
“That’s the logical outcome of normalizing homosexual behavior, no children.”
No it is not. Only a small percentage of people are homosexual (somewhere in the region of 5 and 10%, depending on who you listen to). Legalising gay marriage will not make same-sex marriage compulsory. Heterosexuals will continue to marry just as they ever did. Heterosexual and homosexual are not two opposite, exclusive states, with people choosing which is correct, and the other, by default, wrong. Gay marriage is not the start of some great take-over bid by homosexuals. It will simply allow gay people to marry the ones they love, just as heterosexual people can.
What scientific “fact” disagrees with the dogmatic point of believing that God always has and always will provide?
Are you aware that in China, the one child policy does not apply to the ruling class? It was NOT to combat over-population that the rule was implemented, it was about control of power.
“What scientific “fact” disagrees with the dogmatic point of believing that God always has and always will provide?”
It is a fact we live on one planet with a finite amount of space. It is a fact that the current human population is around 6.7 billion. It is a fact that it is increasing at a rate of 100 million a year. Finite space, growing population… the logical conclusion is that we’ll run out of space. This is a conclusion reached based on facts.
You however assume there is a God who will simply (and mysteriously) take care of it. Firstly, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that God even exists. That’s why people have to have faith in Him – literally. Secondly, if there is a God, there is no evidence that he is aware of, cares about, or has provided for, this inevitable crisis. You have taken all these steps on your own. This is religious dogma.
Of course, you may believe in whatever you wish. You can believe the moon is made of cheese if you like. The problem comes when you consider this to be indisputable fact, and any evidence which contradicts it to be ‘dogma’ or ‘factoids’.
“Are you aware that in China, the one child policy does not apply to the ruling class? It was NOT to combat over-population that the rule was implemented, it was about control of power.”
To be honest, no I was not aware. And I’d like you to source that please, so that I can read up on it, because I find it rather difficult to believe.
I knew that the one-child rule is stricter in some areas (urban ones, mainly) than in others. Some rural areas, for example, will allow a second child if the first is female or disabled. It is a general rule open to a little tweaking here and there rather than an absolute inflexible law. But to state it has nothing to do with overpopulation is amazing to the point of unbelievable.
One planet is a fact, that is true, but that fact does not suggest any particular conclusion. Surface area of the planet may not grow, but living area is not limited to surface area. Suggesting that it is overlooks the tendency of mankind to build upward (as in high rise buildings) and make more proficient use of the surface area. Even assuming a density of 4 persons per acre (of surface area only) suggests that the earth can comfortably support at least 125 billion people and that includes plenty of area for growing crops, room for animals to roam, and all. Even that overlooks the tendency of mankind to congregate in areas toward a density in the range of 25-30 persons per acre, and even Beijing isn’t that densely populated. 125 billion people is twenty times the current population. Do you often complain about being crowded when you’re standing alone in an empty 10 by 10 room?
That’s where the facts lead me. The world is not over-populated, not even close, and won’t be since mankind is creative enough to make better use of the space should the need arise. IOW, God already handled it.
“One planet is a fact, that is true, but that fact does not suggest any particular conclusion.”
I think it does. Limited space and growing population = shortage of space.
“the earth can comfortably support at least 125 billion people and that includes plenty of area for growing crops, room for animals to roam, and all.”
With respect, are you just making these figures up? What has led you to the figure 125 billion? How much unused potential farmland is there? How much farmland does it take to feed 125 billion people? What facts have led you to this figure?
Total land surface of the planet at 1/4 acre per person. 1/4 acre is enough for each person to be self sustaining with respect to food given a vegetarian diet. But people don’t live that way – separately on their own 1/4 acre of land. They congregate amongst themselves becoming families. For modeling purposes – assume 4 person per family/acre – still self-sustaining, and now you can throw in small animals for adding meat to diet. It gets better. Say 4 families creates a community and decides to live on one acre and farm 3. Now they are making an excess of food and can have larger animals for meat. Now say 4 small communities of 4 families decides to combine and they live on 4 acres with 12 for farming. It’s still a 1/4 acre per person, but they’ve reduced their living space footprint to a concentrated area and expanded the availability of cropland. Given ever increasingly proficient means for farming and further combinations of families into smaller living space foot print, eventually leads to land not needed for growing food. It can be set aside for other uses, even recreation. And all that at ONLY 4 persons per acre! Imagine how much available land there would be if the living area were reduced so that people were living in an area with a density of 8 persons per acre (a medium sized city equivalent) but sustained by the land from 4 persons per acre.
Well it’s nice to hear your calculations, though you still have not sourced them. For example, http://robinrobertson.com/environment.htm states that “90% of all corn grown in the U.S. goes to livestock; 80% of all grains and beans go to feed these animals… It takes 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat.” That’s a lot. If we all became vegetarians we would save a massive amount of farmland, but you are right – most people are not.
Also, your model – if it works at all – only works in theory. In practice there are many other factors to consider. Such as economy. Who produces food, and how much do they charge for it to poorer nations? And geography. Not all land is farmable. In fact, most of it is not. Mountains, deserts and forests make up much of the total surface are of land on Earth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/globalfoodcrisis/ comments on the global food crisis, which is happening right now!
The USA is a particularly rich and comfortable nation. However, please do not assume that the rest of the world is living in as much ease and plenty as the USA.
The main source of any food crisis is not lack of farmland. There is more than plenty of farm land to feed the current world’s population and more, even considering differing levels of technology. The main source of food crisis is despotism. And as long as you have people trying to run the lives of everybody else, like instituting One-child rules, mandating the use of food crops for bio-fuel, taking farmland from prosperous farmers and giving it to political cronies, there will be food shortages and crises. The answer is not controlling and limiting lives.
You are blaming everything all on despotism? That sounds like a very convenient answer to me. The one-child rule for example. How can you blame that on simple politics? Of course China is overpopulated. You can’t just dismiss blame everything on the fact that they have a Communist government. Not everything bad that happens in China is the fault of Communists. That is simple paranoid witch-hunt mentality. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating Communism, or saying it’s a good system of government, but if there is an earthquake in China, that is hardly the government’s fault. The country is overpopulated, and that is hardly the government’s fault either. They introduced the one-child rule to help deal with this crisis. How can you just write that off and say, “Rubbish, it’s all the government’s fault!”? What has led you to believe this Chinese government conspiracy theory?
You’re trying to read too much into what I was saying. But the Communist Chinese government CAN be blamed for practices which lower the production of cropland. I never said they could be blamed for earthquakes, lack of rain, or anything like that. The Communist Chinese government policies are to blame for the lack of food for feeding all the population. They can’t afford for people to figure that out. They blame over-population to cover up for their failings. Then they brag about how they have 300 million less mouths to feed. They brag about death, and you think I’m dreaming up conspiracies.
I’m beginning to feel like I’m bashing my head against a brick wall here, to be honest. You’ve clearly decided that the Chinese government are devils incarnate, cheerfully restricting their own population, it’s all a big conspiracy and that human beings can happily go on procreating like rabbits for all eternity without ever running out of room. Clearly you’re not budging from that view, not matter what evidence you are presented with (see previous links).
But since we’ve drifted slightly from the original point, I’ll just take this opportunity to steer us back on course. Perhaps you could begin by stating exactly what seperates human beings from animals?
I’m beginning to feel like I’m bashing my head against a brick wall here, to be honest. You’ve clearly decided that the Chinese government are devils incarnate, cheerfully restricting their own population, it’s all a big conspiracy and that human beings can happily go on procreating like rabbits for all eternity without ever running out of room. Clearly you’re not budging from that view, not matter what evidence you are presented with (see previous links).
But since we’ve drifted slightly from the original point, I’ll just take this opportunity to steer us back on course. Perhaps you could begin by stating exactly what seperates human beings from animals?
we teach our kids about divorce by showing them its ok, we teach them that those people have different religion, or that these people believe in creationism, we teach each other to love each other in gods name. at some point we have to teach our kids to love gay people and their choices given to them by god. remember god gave us the choice. Judge not, hiding our kids from the world would be the worst thing we can do. We need to spread the word not demand others to follow. As Americans we to practice what we preach… Freedom, for all.
I don’t believe that same sex marriage is moral, but with that being said . . . the government can’t legislate morality. Morality is between the person and God. There are many Christians struggling with homosexuality and their struggle makes them no less Christian than you or I. We have got to stop presenting our values and beliefs in ways that make us look like bigots. (Not talking about the video). Legalizing gay marriage wasn’t what caused the scenerio in Massachusetts. What caused it was hypocratical actions by the Mass. government. Schools can’t teach the Bible, but they can teach other moral issues. I’m not fully against a civil union because I believe that “marriage” could lead to forced church marriages, but their are certain rights in a Union that just make sense. Like deciding to pull the plug on a partner in a coma, jointly adopted children. What is worse having a child grow up in a homosexual household or having a child believe that both people are their parents and then when the couple spilts they are ripped from one’s life and that person has no claim to the child no matter how old the child is?
I read an article the other day in a Christian magazine that said maybe the best thing that could happen to Christianity is to have all our religious rights taken away. Think about it! We rely on the government to do our dirty work. We sit back and say I voted, but do nothing else to teach our children how to be moral in an immoral world. We should teach them to love people, but not the sin. Not hate people because they are sinners. Sorry to tell everyone this, but WE ARE ALL SINNERS!!!!!!!!
I don’t believe that same sex marriage is moral, but with that being said . . . the government can’t legislate morality. Morality is between the person and God. There are many Christians struggling with homosexuality and their struggle makes them no less Christian than you or I. We have got to stop presenting our values and beliefs in ways that make us look like bigots. (Not talking about the video). Legalizing gay marriage wasn’t what caused the scenerio in Massachusetts. What caused it was hypocratical actions by the Mass. government. Schools can’t teach the Bible, but they can teach other moral issues. I’m not fully against a civil union because I believe that “marriage” could lead to forced church marriages, but their are certain rights in a Union that just make sense. Like deciding to pull the plug on a partner in a coma, jointly adopted children. What is worse having a child grow up in a homosexual household or having a child believe that both people are their parents and then when the couple spilts they are ripped from one’s life and that person has no claim to the child no matter how old the child is?
I read an article the other day in a Christian magazine that said maybe the best thing that could happen to Christianity is to have all our religious rights taken away. Think about it! We rely on the government to do our dirty work. We sit back and say I voted, but do nothing else to teach our children how to be moral in an immoral world. We should teach them to love people, but not the sin. Not hate people because they are sinners. Sorry to tell everyone this, but WE ARE ALL SINNERS!!!!!!!!
lrca mjbhaq jgpnhm rgepuk etgdzrs eotnsi thvlsyoje
lrca mjbhaq jgpnhm rgepuk etgdzrs eotnsi thvlsyoje
Good morning. Make a decision, even if it’s wrong.
I am from Myanmar and now study English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Search the top travel sites for cheap airline tickets, hotels and cars! Flights hotels cars book together and save! Round trip.”
:P Thanks in advance. Hye.