Prop 8 Video by the Family Research Council

Culture, Politics — By on October 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

While 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: , , , , ,
  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You may want to check the post. I couldn’t get the file to play for me.

  • http://thundersounds.blogspot.com/ slw

    Why in the world do you think the government has any business regulating marriage at all? Did God give government the right to issue marriage licenses, or did government usurp that to itself? No government or agency of government has any business defining, proscribing, licensing or recognizing marriage. It may be tradition, but it’s not inherently righteous nor justifiable. Licensure is just another nuisance tax imo. The legal consequence of marriage should be a matter of contract law, governed by relevent provisions and protected by the contract clause in the Constitution. I will never understand why conservative evangelicals want the government’s imprimatur for their weddings.

  • http://www.newcovenantliving.blogspot.com Jack Brooks

    How about:
    (a) There’s one supreme Creator God who is the First Cause of all things, and who created marriage. He defines what marriage is, not people.
    (b) There is a book filled up with scores of fulfilled prophecies, verifying its divine origin, commonly called the Bible.
    (c) There are a minimum of four reliable witnesses who told us about a man, Jesus of Nazareth, who was God’s Son and who rose from the dead.
    (d) Jesus put His imprimatur on the Old Testament, as a document without error and divinely inspired. This means, by unavoidable logical implication, that Jesus of Nazareth approved of the Old Testament’s view of homosexuality.
    (e) This God, revealed in this book, has said that he hates sexual deviancy (because He loves what is healthy and good), and He physically destroys people who engage in sexual deviancy, both for their rebellion against His authority as well as the predation that deviancy always entails.
    (f) This same God has, in the past, destroyed city-states because of their participation in homosexuality. Sometimes He destroys only by letting mankind pursue its free-will without restraint. That approach has resulted in millions of people now dying in Africa from self-inflicted disease-catastrophes.
    As long as there is a God, and He has spoken through the Bible on matters of public morality and conduct, then there is no way to form or assess laws apart from these consideration. Secularism supplies no basis for the morality that must undergird law. God does not respect any nation’s decision to normalize evils like sodomy, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, and pre-marital sex. I regard what’s been happening to the U.S. right over the last 1-2 years, both politically, economically, and meteorologically, as manifestations of the wrath of God.

  • http://thundersounds.blogspot.com/ slw

    @Jack
    Your point seems to be that government has the right to license marriage on the basis of religious dogma. So, I suppose you’d have no trouble with licensing plural marriage in a Mormon dominated state; child brides in a Muslim or Hindu dominated state (God forbid), or racially “pure” ones in a segregationist dominated state. It still is up to the states after all. I agree with you that homosexuality is a damnable sin, but I still see no benefit to having the government interfere with marriage.

  • I am a MOM

    For SLW:
    How lucky we are to live in a country that allows us the freedom to express our opinions, whether to agree or disagree, openly. But that freedom has been bought with a price. I believe that the ultimate price was paid for by Jesus. He died for all sins – even the “damnable sin” of homosexuality. He gave us a guide book on how we should live, including rejecting a homosexual LIFESTYLE. Our founding fathers, believed in these Judeo Christian values taught in the Bible, and wrote our Constitution, and later, the Declaration of Independence based on those values. They had the wisdom to know that that laws are needed to coexist and to keep anarchy from prevailing. Our government, while adhering to the Judeo-Christian values, has grown and thrived. You ask:
    1. what right does the govenment have in licensing? it’s not inherently righteous nor justifiable, in your opinion. You suggest a legal contract.
    I ask you, who then should determine how the contract should be written? Isn’t that still a government process? Why bother at all to even have a contract? Is it so that people have protection from one another if the relationship terminates? Homosexuals already have a contract in place in the state of California. It’s called a civil union. In fact, they have more rights in their civil union than married heterosexual couples do. So why do you think they are pushing SO HARD for the marriage license? I contend that homesexuals know inherently that their lifestyle isn’t natural or normal. They not only want everyone to accept it as such, but we are labeled “intolerant” if we dare to oppose them. I ask you if their recent lawsuits against a medical clinic and a photographer is not “intolerance” on their part against the heterosexual lifestyle?
    Could it be that this is only one step in an “agenda” that ultimately seeks to allow “plural marriage in a Mormon dominated state; child brides in a Muslim or Hindu dominated state (God forbid), or racially “pure” ones in a segregationist dominated state” as you accuse those who oppose Prop. 8 with their “religious dogma”? I believe so.
    2. What about MY RIGHTS when I won’t be given a choice to keep my to keep my children from being taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is no different from mine? I can guarantee you that will happen. It already has in Massachusettes.
    3. Other questions: Where did you get your moral compass from? What makes homosexuality so wrong to you, yet you don’t see a need to stop the influence of the homosexual agenda? Do you really think they care what you believe? Is it really government who is interfering with marriage, or is it the homosexuals.
    Finally, we the people, are our government. I, for one, want our nation to defend the Judeo-Christian values it was founded on, that people since the beginning WITH ITS LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS that made our country great, have died for. That’s why I’m getting involved in speaking out for Prop. 8. You need to make up your mind if there is a benefit to your country having a moral compass, or shut up about people and their “damnable sins”.

  • I am a MOM

    For SLW:
    How lucky we are to live in a country that allows us the freedom to express our opinions, whether to agree or disagree, openly. But that freedom has been bought with a price. I believe that the ultimate price was paid for by Jesus. He died for all sins – even the “damnable sin” of homosexuality. He gave us a guide book on how we should live, including rejecting a homosexual LIFESTYLE. Our founding fathers, believed in these Judeo Christian values taught in the Bible, and wrote our Constitution, and later, the Declaration of Independence based on those values. They had the wisdom to know that that laws are needed to coexist and to keep anarchy from prevailing. Our government, while adhering to the Judeo-Christian values, has grown and thrived. You ask:
    1. what right does the govenment have in licensing? it’s not inherently righteous nor justifiable, in your opinion. You suggest a legal contract.
    I ask you, who then should determine how the contract should be written? Isn’t that still a government process? Why bother at all to even have a contract? Is it so that people have protection from one another if the relationship terminates? Homosexuals already have a contract in place in the state of California. It’s called a civil union. In fact, they have more rights in their civil union than married heterosexual couples do. So why do you think they are pushing SO HARD for the marriage license? I contend that homesexuals know inherently that their lifestyle isn’t natural or normal. They not only want everyone to accept it as such, but we are labeled “intolerant” if we dare to oppose them. I ask you if their recent lawsuits against a medical clinic and a photographer is not “intolerance” on their part against the heterosexual lifestyle?
    Could it be that this is only one step in an “agenda” that ultimately seeks to allow “plural marriage in a Mormon dominated state; child brides in a Muslim or Hindu dominated state (God forbid), or racially “pure” ones in a segregationist dominated state” as you accuse those who oppose Prop. 8 with their “religious dogma”? I believe so.
    2. What about MY RIGHTS when I won’t be given a choice to keep my to keep my children from being taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is no different from mine? I can guarantee you that will happen. It already has in Massachusettes.
    3. Other questions: Where did you get your moral compass from? What makes homosexuality so wrong to you, yet you don’t see a need to stop the influence of the homosexual agenda? Do you really think they care what you believe? Is it really government who is interfering with marriage, or is it the homosexuals.
    Finally, we the people, are our government. I, for one, want our nation to defend the Judeo-Christian values it was founded on, that people since the beginning WITH ITS LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS that made our country great, have died for. That’s why I’m getting involved in speaking out for Prop. 8. You need to make up your mind if there is a benefit to your country having a moral compass, or shut up about people and their “damnable sins”.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==Why in the world do you think the government has any business regulating marriage at all?==
    If you believe that the State has no business in marriage at all, then all you have to do is march right on down to a lawyer’s office, with your partner, and draw up a contract, and call your relationship, “marriage.”
    Of course, if there are problems, you’ll run right out to the government to help you resolve those through the courts.
    == Did God give government the right to issue marriage licenses…? ==
    No, but, since is a contract, how would you resolve problems that crop up? How would they be enforced?
    ==No government or agency of government has any business defining, proscribing, licensing or recognizing marriage.==
    Especially if people like you want to push your agenda on the rest of us. You people want to take the State out of the loop so that society, the culture in this country would be unprotected.
    == It may be tradition, but it’s not inherently righteous nor justifiable.==
    Well, you disagree with God.
    ==The legal consequence of marriage should be a matter of contract law, governed by relevent provisions and protected by the contract clause in the Constitution.==
    Nothing stops you from entering into a contract with another person right now. You can leave the State out of it except when you have to run to the State when the contract goes sour. I’m sure you won’t then be saying that the State should stay out of it.
    == I will never understand why conservative evangelicals want the government’s imprimatur for their weddings.==
    That’s because you want not to understand.
    The State is a party to the marital contract in order for the contract provisions to be protected.
    Even if two individuals go to a lawyer and draw up a contract and call it, “marriage,” the State is still involved when one party to the contract fails to perform.
    So, it’s not that you want the State to stay out of it; you want the State to show up only when it’s convenient for you.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==I still see no benefit to having the government interfere with marriage.==
    And you’ll continue to see no benefit to having the State interfere with marriage until the other party fails to perform the contract and you have to depend on the State to help you sort it out. Then, all of a sudden, you’ll see the benefit.

  • Mr. Incredible

    Most of the laws, in one way, or the other, say that “marriage” is the union of the “man,” or, “male,” and of “woman,” or, “female.”
    The last time I checked, the Human Race consists only of males and females. They are of two sexes. There is no third sex.
    So, where’s the discrimination in a law that doesn’t say that the man must be heterosexual and doesn’t say that the woman must be heterosexual. They may both claim to be homosexual, and the State will bless the marriage.
    All males — heterosexual and those who claim to be homosexual — have the same opportunity to marry females — heterosexual and those who claim to be homosexual.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==who then should determine how the contract should be written? ==
    The parties involved.
    In the marital contract, that includes the State. The State is a party to that contract.
    If two individuals go to a lawyer to draw up a contract to call their relationship, “marriage,” then the State is a referee without whose call nothing is resolved.
    So, in any and all cases, the State is involved in contracts.
    This means that, if these people want the State to stay out of it, they can’t, later, call on the State to resolve their conflict.
    Y’see, that’s what happens when somebody makes an ignorant statement that the State should stay out of it.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==who then should determine how the contract should be written? ==
    The parties involved.
    In the marital contract, that includes the State. The State is a party to that contract.
    If two individuals go to a lawyer to draw up a contract to call their relationship, “marriage,” then the State is a referee without whose call nothing is resolved.
    So, in any and all cases, the State is involved in contracts.
    This means that, if these people want the State to stay out of it, they can’t, later, call on the State to resolve their conflict.
    Y’see, that’s what happens when somebody makes an ignorant statement that the State should stay out of it.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I am a MOM’s points:
    For the most part no much in way of coherence, this blog has gone downhill faster than the McCain campaign since Joe went AWOL….but I’ll do my part to help out….
    1. SSM has no logical connection to either plural marriage favored by Mormon fundamentalists nor child marriage as practiced in some developing cultures. You are free to demonstrate such a connection if you are able too.
    As for why contracts or civil unions aren’t viable? Well trying to simulate marriage with a series of private contracts is expensive, tricky and even then kind of imperfect.
    The problem with Civil Unions? Well there’s two. One is if they are not the same as marriage then they are something different. If you have a ‘marriage-lite’ then it has to be open to heterosexual couples as well. You’re back to the same problem, denying gay couples something you give straight couples (straight get marriage and marriage-lite, gay just get marriage-lite). If they are the same thing as marriage, well you’re talking about a name and nothing else. What really is the point then?
    2. What about MY RIGHTS when I won’t be given a choice to keep my to keep my children from being taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is no different from mine?
    Well first off, this has nothing to do with California’s proposition. Gays exist whether or not the state recognizes their unions as marriage. If you have some objection to some actual school’s teaching then address that otherwise the fact that the state may recognize gay marriage no more ‘teaches’ your children anything than the fact that the state recognizes divorce ‘teaches’ Catholic children anything….other than the fact that church rules do not overlap with state rules.
    3. I don’t really get your point here. Try to sharpen it a bit please.

  • http://thundersounds.blogspot.com/ slw

    Nothing ignorant about my statements at all. Contracts are made with breach provisions in them. That is what gets settled in court. I have no problem with the courts settling such disputes on the basis of the terms within contracts. What I want to know, and what I haven’t seen an answer for is what business for what benefit does the state have in licensing marriage? If government didn’t issue licenses, homosexuals wouldn’t want them. They only want them because they desire “state approval” for their unions. Why give them, or anyone for that matter, that approval? Do I need the state to approve my marriage? Absolutely not!

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Sly,
    One way you can think about marriage then is a type of ‘default contract’ that would replace the need to reinvent the wheel over and over again. I’m sure lawyers have already come up with a ‘marriage kit’ of ready made contracts but that still doesn’t dodge the fact that it would be expensive and complicated to try to simulate marriage with just contracts.
    There are some legal aspects to marriage that cannot be easily simulated using custom built contracts. Spousal immunity comes to mind, although I’m not sure how many states still have that. Some property law. For example, if you buy a house in NJ you must put your spouse on the title unless he or she signs a waiver. Yes you could have a contract with someone requiring them to put you on the title but that doesn’t mean they have to do it at a closing. If they fail to do it you have to sue for breech and even if you win you may not be able to force yourself on the title. Another aspect is that you are responsible for your spouses debts for necessities (i.e. medical care).
    So I think there are lots of reasons people turn to the state for marriage other than some desire to see the state ‘endorse’ their relationship.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Ohhh, another issue with contracts….some of you ‘save marriage’ types have pushed ‘marriage protection amendments’ that have language that threaten the ability of courts to enforce contracts that seem to simulate marriage as well as outlaw civil unions and other alternatives.
    It shouldn’t be a surpise, then, that gay marriage advocates see the safest approach as keeping marriage and getting gays into that as opposed to creating some legal institution outside of marriage that you guys will target.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==…what I haven’t seen an answer for is what business for what benefit does the state have in licensing marriage?==
    Licensing orders the benefits and burdens of men and women in marriage. It solidifies, for legal purposes, the marriage commitment. It enhances the commitment.
    ==If government didn’t issue licenses, homosexuals wouldn’t want them.==
    What an ignorant statement!
    == They only want them because they desire “state approval” for their unions.==
    That’s THEIR problem.
    ==Why give them, or anyone for that matter, that approval?==
    Why WANT that approval?
    == Do I need the state to approve my marriage?==
    No. And, in the same way, the State is not required to enter into a contract with whose terms it does not agree. See? It works both ways.
    So, if “marriage” is defined as “a union of a man and a woman,” and the State agrees, it doesn’t have to recognize anything else as being “marriage.” It doesn’t have to enter into a contract that tries to make “marriage” something else.
    Not only that, but you may go to a lawyer to draw up a contract that calls whatever relationship you have, with whatever you have it, and call it “marriage.”

  • http://thundersounds.blogspot.com/ slw

    Boonton,
    At its legal fundamental, is marriage anything more than a pooling of interests? Our legal system knows how to deal with that. I think marriage contracts would quickly devolve into a few base models appropriate for people in different circumstances. They would become readily available in short order, with lawyers significantly involved only for folk who need something unique (as is now the case with prenups). Prices would drop speedily thanks to the likes of firms like Legalzoom.com. and the sheer overabundance of lawyers in our economy. If we pursued this course, we might well see the customary trek to the county courthouse transform into a stop by a website and a trip to the notary.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Well as I pointed out there are some legal aspects to marriage that you can’t recreate by creative contract writing.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==…there are some legal aspects to marriage that you can’t recreate by creative contract writing.==
    Unless you want the State to be involved, anyone may/can write a contract to any specifications he wants. However, the State is still involved cuz the contract must meet legal standards.
    Gee, ya can’t get the State outta the loop.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Very simple, what about the law prohibiting you from buying a house and not putting your spouse on the title (unless your spouse signs a waiver)?
    This law requires the issue of your martial status to be determined and acted upon at the closing of a real estate purchase/sale. While you can write a contract requiring a person to put you on a title some issues make it kind of tricky:
    1. Consideration….”I promise to put you on a title of any house I buy” is not a contract.
    2. Enforcement – The existence of such a contract doesn’t automatically give you a seat at the closing table. Getting it enforced may well end up impossible…especially if the spouse is playing games and is flipping property to hide assets from you.
    Another aspect of marriage it the public policy one. Your spouse is responsible for your medical bills and some of your debts. Likewise your have access to your spouse’s income. If you’re married to Donald Trump he can’t have you starving outside a soup kitchen. The very existence of a marriage entitles you to demand a share of his income to support yourself.
    I’m not going to push spousal immunity in criminal cases because I think it only still exists in a few states but it is another example of how using contracts to simulate marriage is trickier than it sounds at first.

  • http://thundersounds.blogspot.com/ slw

    boonton,
    I really don’t see how those things which are actually worth preserving– the Jersey law you mentioned seems stupid to me– would not be easily enfolded into a strict contract approach. We already, really, have a contract approach to marriage, it’s just that the state writes the provisions rather than the individuals involved. Prenups trump that now. All this falderol, dust and smoke over an unnecessary government intrusion into individuals’ lives makes good political theater, but I fear it’s as empty as Sarai’s womb. Logically, there is no place this can go other than state approbation of gay marriage as long as the underlying principle in licensing is in essence religious.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    law you mentioned seems stupid to me–
    It’s purpose would be, I imagine, to prevent a spouse from accumulating and hiding assets from the other spouse. There’s probably an argument for spousal immunity but I don’t know enough about the topic to make it. Likewise the support rules are probably based on a pretty sensible public policy of requiring married people to take care of each other before they go to welfare for aid.
    All this falderol, dust and smoke over an unnecessary government intrusion into individuals’ lives makes good political theater,
    I’m not sure what the intrusion is considering that you can’t get married unless you want too.
    Logically, there is no place this can go other than state approbation of gay marriage as long as the underlying principle in licensing is in essence religious.
    Well actuall the logical place for this to go is to let gays have marriage and churches are free, as they have always been, to restrict the marriages they recognize to the ones that comply with their theological requirements.

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==…let gays have marriage…==
    Those who claim to be homosexual already have.
    No law says that a man MUST be heterosexual in order to marry a woman.
    No law says that a woman MUST be heterosexual in order to marry a man.
    And, as far as I can see, there is no member of a third sex being denied, cuz there IS no third sex.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I’m unconvinced that the logic used to support interracial marriage bans works in this case. Since those opposed to gay marriage have been unable to make a coherent case for why it harms them (or anyone for that matter) and there’s a good case to be made that it’s positive for gays it seems the best solution is letting California’s law stand.
    As for slw’s idea of making marriage into nothing more than a contract issue, I don’t see much in the way of pros. There are som cons and while I think they might be able to be handled why go through the effort if you don’t have any real pros?

  • http://thundersounds.blogspot.com/ slw

    boonton,
    Personally, I find the notion of gay marriage repulsive. As long as the state is licensing marriage, this will end up being an issue of discrimination and will ultimately be jammed down the rest of our throats publicly; for what basis, logically, is there to deny equal access to a public artifice (i.e. a state license)? If the issue remains private, contractual, there is no official imprimatur for it one way or the other and someone’s business will remain his or her business and no one else’s. Not “don’t ask, don’t tell” but maybe it’s marital equivalent. In today’s climate (in light of things like Canada’s Human Rights Council), I find that a huge pro.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Personally, I find the notion of gay marriage repulsive.
    So what? If someone finds the notion of fat people getting married repulsive should we care? Do you have a ‘pro’ other than your personal tastes?

  • Mr. Incredible

    ==”Personally, I find the notion of gay marriage repulsive.”
    So what? If someone finds the notion of fat people getting married repulsive should we care?==
    No. “Fat” is sometimes genetic and, sometimes, an emotional result. In any case, “fat” is something that is translated from something to which we can trace a cause. No such convenience for those who claim to be homosexual.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    In today’s climate (in light of things like Canada’s Human Rights Council),
    Ok, I see where you’re going. If gay marriage then maybe some type of political correctness outfit will punish people who don’t accept it….. The problem with this reasoning is you’re assuming the existence of some type of political correctness outfit with the power to punish free expression. If such a thing exists then what would prevent it from infringing on the freedom of speech of those opposed to gay marriage regardless of whether or not gay marriage is the law? Just as pressing, wouldn’t it be a lot more productive to simply support free speech and oppose any such entity?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    No. “Fat” is sometimes genetic and, sometimes, an emotional result. In any case, “fat” is something that is translated from something to which we can trace a cause. No such convenience for those who claim to be homosexual.
    So what, there are some people who find fat people repulsive and they don’t care if you can ‘translate from something to which we can trace a cause’ (and before you keep making excuses for polices based on what’s repulsive you really should consider what you do to the English language with phrases like that). If one guy gets to write policy because he finds gay marriage repulsive why not the anti-fat people?

  • Rob Ryan

    “Find out what you can do to help people think well about and protect marriage.”
    Protect it from what? Homosexuals can’t bring the institution into any more disrepute than heterosexuals have. The “protect marriage” argument is simply bogus; the real desire is to marginalize homosexuals to perpetuate a worldview. It’s hard to teach your kids that homosexuality is evil when the government condones it.

  • http://ateam.blogware.com David N.

    Rob Ryan,
    “the real desire is to marginalize homosexuals to perpetuate a worldview.”
    Since condoning homosexual marriage would be equally perpetuating a certain worldview, can I assume that you are equally opposed to it?

  • Rob Ryan

    David N.: “Since condoning homosexual marriage would be equally perpetuating a certain worldview, can I assume that you are equally opposed to it?”
    No, that would be quite an assumption. I’m glad you had the courtesy to ask instead of arrogantly making that assumption to serve your own rhetorical purposes, as so many might have done.
    My intent was only to expose the disingenuousness of the “protecting marriage” argument. The government can’t relly help but take sides in issues relating to worldview, can it? Worldview covers a lot of ground as a concept. Religion is a bit narrower as a concept, and I think the government can strive for religious neutrality. I see choice as more religiously neutral than a prohibition of or lack of recognition of gay marriage in that it leaves people free to follow their own consciences on the matter.
    I would personally accept the compromise of civil unions that impart the same rights and the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That way, the word “marriage” retains its traditional sense. It is the exclusivity of rights, not language, that concerns me. Unfortunately, so many people who oppose gay marriage also oppose the compromise. As a result, I think they will eventually lose the whole ball of wax.

  • funshe

    1. First of all, I am a born-again Christian (not a Church-goer), there is a difference between being a Church-goer or a conservative and being a heaven-bound born-again Christian (John 3:3).
    2. Abortion and homosexuality are NOT the only sin. If you harbor hatred in your heart against ANYBODY, bear false witness, commit fornication/adultery, if you lie, curse etc., you are the same in the sight of God with somebody that aborted a pregnancy. No sin is bigger than the other (READ YOUR BIBLE). “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
    3. This is another sign that Obama is going to win decisively. There was a Focus on Family Pastor and some ignorant church-goer that prayed that God should rain on Obama’s speech in Denver. It did not happen!! instead GOP’s convention was interrupted by hurricane. The prayer by our dear Reverend Conrad also will not be answered. God is going to show again that not all that calls Him God, knows and is doing His will. OBAMA WILL WIN.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Dustin Steeve

    Rob:
    “Protect it from what? Homosexuals can’t bring the institution into any more disrepute than heterosexuals have. The “protect marriage” argument is simply bogus; the real desire is to marginalize homosexuals to perpetuate a worldview. It’s hard to teach your kids that homosexuality is evil when the government condones it.”
    Why assume that homosexuals cannot bring the institution of marriage into any more disrepute than heterosexuals can? Even if I accept the premise that homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are essentially the same, I still deny your claim. One reason is that the same-sex lobby has refused to provide a compelling, intellectual reason for why marriage cannot be perpetually re-defined. Currently there are numerous philosophic and political arguments for why marriage is defined by the state as a union between a man and a woman. One example that can be made is an argument from natural law that recognizes both the desires of an individual as well as the design & purpose of their physical parts to draw the reasonable conclusion that men and women are naturally made for one another and that their union, and consequent family, are in proper standing with an ordered natural condition and an ordered society. Another compelling argument, good for the forming of the moral mind of many Americans, is the Biblical argument against same-sex marriage.
    If we arbitrarily re-define marriage as a union between two people for the sake of making politically expedient maneuvers to assuage a loud and well funded minority group, what is to prevent us (either legally or philosophically) from redefining it perpetually to assuage the desires of new groups of loud, well funded minorities? Certainly this is not the activity of healthy democracies. Assuming that marriage can and should be so easily redefined, one should really ask themselves why marriage is not two cars driving down the road in parallel simultaneously. A hasty reader might dismiss this and claim that I am committing the fallacy of the “Slippery Slope.” In fact, in this case, it would not be a fallacy. What I am doing is showing how the same-sex lobby’s argument assumes a very controversial premise (that homosexual behavior is normal, healthy, and good) and then asks us to redefine law based on this assumption while simultaneously not responding to the questions which are begged: is a same-sex family truly a “family” properly understood and are these families healthy and good for the human society?
    You think divorces, chain-marriages, affairs, separations, and single-parent families are bad for marriage? Imagine a world where marriage and the family no longer have any essential meaning at all. Until we, as a society, get clear on the heritage of marriage/families and their essential nature as well as purpose to our society, we have no business re-defining those critical institutions.
    Funshe:
    Not to rain on your parade, but you are chasing phantoms.
    Your first point is obviously true and entirely uninteresting. Regarding your second point, nobody here is discussing abortion or suggesting that people do not suffer from a multitude of sins. Yes, we are all guilty before the eyes of the Lord. However, the greatest commandment is to love God and then love thy neighbor. How loving are we as a people if we do not understand the proper nature of familial love and help our fellow man, through reasonable discourse, to see what we see. Such discourse is healthy for democracies and also helps us all find the good. Regarding your third point, I agree that the story exemplifies silliness and I hope, for a multitude of reasons, that Senator Obama does not win.
    Mr. Incredible:
    I love the name.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Dustin Steeve

    Rob:
    “Protect it from what? Homosexuals can’t bring the institution into any more disrepute than heterosexuals have. The “protect marriage” argument is simply bogus; the real desire is to marginalize homosexuals to perpetuate a worldview. It’s hard to teach your kids that homosexuality is evil when the government condones it.”
    Why assume that homosexuals cannot bring the institution of marriage into any more disrepute than heterosexuals can? Even if I accept the premise that homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are essentially the same, I still deny your claim. One reason is that the same-sex lobby has refused to provide a compelling, intellectual reason for why marriage cannot be perpetually re-defined. Currently there are numerous philosophic and political arguments for why marriage is defined by the state as a union between a man and a woman. One example that can be made is an argument from natural law that recognizes both the desires of an individual as well as the design & purpose of their physical parts to draw the reasonable conclusion that men and women are naturally made for one another and that their union, and consequent family, are in proper standing with an ordered natural condition and an ordered society. Another compelling argument, good for the forming of the moral mind of many Americans, is the Biblical argument against same-sex marriage.
    If we arbitrarily re-define marriage as a union between two people for the sake of making politically expedient maneuvers to assuage a loud and well funded minority group, what is to prevent us (either legally or philosophically) from redefining it perpetually to assuage the desires of new groups of loud, well funded minorities? Certainly this is not the activity of healthy democracies. Assuming that marriage can and should be so easily redefined, one should really ask themselves why marriage is not two cars driving down the road in parallel simultaneously. A hasty reader might dismiss this and claim that I am committing the fallacy of the “Slippery Slope.” In fact, in this case, it would not be a fallacy. What I am doing is showing how the same-sex lobby’s argument assumes a very controversial premise (that homosexual behavior is normal, healthy, and good) and then asks us to redefine law based on this assumption while simultaneously not responding to the questions which are begged: is a same-sex family truly a “family” properly understood and are these families healthy and good for the human society?
    You think divorces, chain-marriages, affairs, separations, and single-parent families are bad for marriage? Imagine a world where marriage and the family no longer have any essential meaning at all. Until we, as a society, get clear on the heritage of marriage/families and their essential nature as well as purpose to our society, we have no business re-defining those critical institutions.
    Funshe:
    Not to rain on your parade, but you are chasing phantoms.
    Your first point is obviously true and entirely uninteresting. Regarding your second point, nobody here is discussing abortion or suggesting that people do not suffer from a multitude of sins. Yes, we are all guilty before the eyes of the Lord. However, the greatest commandment is to love God and then love thy neighbor. How loving are we as a people if we do not understand the proper nature of familial love and help our fellow man, through reasonable discourse, to see what we see. Such discourse is healthy for democracies and also helps us all find the good. Regarding your third point, I agree that the story exemplifies silliness and I hope, for a multitude of reasons, that Senator Obama does not win.
    Mr. Incredible:
    I love the name.

  • smmtheory

    Dustin,
    I think maybe Funshe was suggesting in point 1 that church-going or conservative people are not heaven bound. It kind of puts the kibosh to point 2 about judging people, but I think overall it was just a drive-by comment anyway.

  • Richie

    Dustin Steeve – You state that “numerous philosophic and political arguments for why marriage is defined by the state as a union between a man and a woman”, and you go on to give us two examples. However, as far as I can see, they are actually the same example.
    You assume the human body was ‘designed’ and with a ‘purpose’ in mind. That is quite an assumption. You are assuming an nitelligent designer, and therefore I do not see the difference between this and you Biblical argument – you are still trying to enforce your religious views on others who may well not share them. You are also assuming there is a natural law for homosexuals to flout. First of all you need to demonstrate such a law exists.
    One difficulty you may face in doing so is to explain homosexual behaviour in animals. Are these animals breaking a natural law? What IS a natural law if broken naturally in the wild? I do not simply mean ‘prison sexuality’ where animals of a single sex satisfy themselves with each other because there are no opposite-sex individuals around, but a marked and purpetual preference for the same sex. The following site lists a great many documented cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
    Also, your slippery slope fallacy is indeed exactly that. What other groups of “loud, well funded minorities” did you have in mind, precisely? If we open the door of marriage to homosexuals, then who else are you worried about abusing it?
    It seems to me that you are starting with the view that homosexual behaviour is wrong, and will continue to do so until convinced otherwise. This is bad logic. Homosexual behaviour can be described as ‘good’ and ‘normal’ under the position that there is nothing wrong with it. The burden of proof is on you to show that homosexual behaviour is wrong and that gay marriage would be detrimental to society, rather than on homosexuals to show that it would not.

  • smmtheory

    One difficulty you may face in doing so is to explain homosexual behaviour in animals.

    And here I always thought the idea behind being a Human being was that we strive to be something other than an animal; to be more circumspect or sophisticated. After all, we have more control over our actions than animals do. It is illogical to compare ourselves with animals who have no rational capacity to understand they are acting against natural law.

  • Richie

    smmtheory – what you say may well be true, but you are now making the opposite point to Dustin Steeve. You suggest that we as human beings should rise above nature. Why then should we obey natural law?
    Also, what IS natural law if animals can act against it?

  • smmtheory

    You suggest that we as human beings should rise above nature. Why then should we obey natural law?

    Actually, my suggestion was that we rise above animal behaviour. You appear to be conflating animal behaviour with nature as a whole. The only way Humans can rise above nature is after death. Why “obey” natural law? Actually I prefer to think of it not so much obeying as acting with or against. If for no other reason (because you have already alluded to your rejection of a supernatural arbiter), then how about because you can? Natural law expresses the observed qualities in nature such as the fact that for species with a natural division between male and female, both are required in order to procreate. With Humans, male plus male does not produce young, and likewise with female plus female. The natural law cannot be broken as such.

  • Richie

    “Natural law expresses the observed qualities in nature such as the fact that for species with a natural division between male and female, both are required in order to procreate. With Humans, male plus male does not produce young, and likewise with female plus female.”
    I see. But I’m still not sure this argument holds water. For one thing, homosexual behaviour IS an observed quality in nature. So surely then homosexuality is part of natural law, not a violation of it.
    For another, it may well be true that in species with a male/female divide, it requires one of each sex to procreate. But homosexual behaviour is not an attempt to procreate. It is not a violation of some procreation law either. It seems to me that you are trying to draw a moral judgement from observed animal activity, which is a clumsy thing to do to say the least.
    And if your objection to homosexuality is that it is a sexual activity which does not create children, then neither does masturbation, oral sex, anal sex between heterosexual couples, or sex with contraception. Should all these activities be similarly reviled?
    As a final point, I have finally been able to actually watch the video at the top of the post, and I have no idea why the couple are upset. They are angry because the schools are teaching their children that gay couples exist? Please! They seem to want the right to keep their children wrapped up in ignorance. That is ridiculous. School is a place for learning. They might as well be objecting to the schools teaching their children multiplication tables.

  • smmtheory

    But homosexual behaviour is not an attempt to procreate. It is not a violation of some procreation law either.

    Exactly, it is pretty much masturbating with a partner. Think back upon all those hundreds of people in an unbroken linkage from the first men and women to you. If any one of those links had instead been broken because one of your ancestors had decided homosexual activity was normal, you wouldn’t be arguing it today.

    And if your objection to homosexuality is that it is a sexual activity which does not create children, then neither does masturbation, oral sex, anal sex between heterosexual couples, or sex with contraception. Should all these activities be similarly reviled?

    Yes, all those activities are to be similarly reviled as homosexual practice is. Procreation is the purpose behind sex.

  • Richie

    “If any one of those links had instead been
    broken because one of your ancestors had
    decided homosexual activity was normal, you wouldn’t be arguing it today.”
    If any of my ancestors had taken a vow of celibacy for religious reasons, I wouldn’t be here today. Does that make celibacy morally wrong?
    “Procreation is the purpose behind sex.”
    Off the cuff, I can think of five other purposes for sex. 1. It can be a physical expression of love when in a caring, affectionate realtionship. 2. It can deepen an existing relationship, moving the couple from friends to lovers. 3. It is great physical exercise and helps to keep the body fit and healthy. 4. People have sex to feel attractive and good about themselves (though this is neither a particularly good or healthy attitude in my opinion) 5. It’s FUN! And these are just five thinks off the top of my head.
    My point is that there are many purposes for sex. It is rather naive to think the only people who have sex are the ones who want children. Also notice how pocreation is the only purpose mentioned that homosexuals are excluded from…

  • smmtheory

    Wrong, one purpose, many benefits.
    Celibacy is moral because it is a form of Chastity. It is therefore illogical to use it as an argument against Chastity. Neither is it unnatural, because it is our normal status with respect to our reproductive qualities.

  • Richie

    “Wrong, one purpose, many benefits.”
    Even if, for argument’s sake, I accept that as true, then why is sex in any context other than procreation wrong? The ‘purpose’ of our ears is surely not to hang pieces of jewellery from, and yet I’ve never heard people with pierced ears being condemned for ‘misusing their ears.’
    And I mentioned chastity because you made the point that I owe my existance to every one of my ancestors procreating. Which is true, I do. However, my ancestors were not morally obliged to play their part in creating me. I am not so arrogant as to believe I am the centre of the universe. If any of my direct ancestors had been homosexual, or celibate, or unable to play their part in my heritage for any reason t all, they could not have been reproached for failing to create me. Yet you seem to think this is a fair criticism of homosexuality. And if you do, then why not of chastity too?
    I would also like to argue the point that chastity is natural. I cannot think of anything more unnatural. Where in nature does ANYTHING able to reproduce voluntarily fail to do so?

  • smmtheory

    I said celibacy was natural. Chastity is behaviorally having respect for our creative powers and knowing when to use them and when not.
    If you still want to argue that celibacy is not natural, maybe you should find (and you can look even in the animal kingdom for this) a being that copulates every moment of its life, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
    Chastity is knowing when an opportunity is right and good. Celibacy is never looking for an opportunity, or maybe deciding to wait for a better opportunity, or perhaps waiting for the perfect partner (this last one includes celibacy for religious reason). That is why celibacy is beyond the same reproach as the unchaste homosexual activity. Also, within marriage, if a couple actively uses contraceptives to avoid having children they are deserving of reproach. The longer they attempt so, the more reproach they deserve.
    The thing proponents of “Monosex Marriage” do not understand is that they might get somebody (or even a lot of people) to call their partnership a marriage, but it never will be a marriage. It doesn’t matter how much people pretend it is, it just isn’t marriage. Confusing children with the falsehood that marriage can be monosexed is doing violence to them.

  • Ritchie

    I didn’t say animals copulate 24 hours a day. Celibacy and chastity too are unnatural, since by definition people in such states are fighting entirely natural urges for sex.
    Every cell in your body (and indeed, every animal’s body) is constantly reproducing itself. Bacteria and viruses too are in a constant state of self-replication. Looking at bigger animals, Mayflies can live from 30 minutes to one day depending on species once they have reached maturity, and then they all fly around mating with as many partners as they can and then drop down dead – first the males, and then the females after they have laid their eggs. Male ants and bees also do nothing in a hive until the day they fly out, mate with the immature queens and then promptly die. In many species of spider the female eats the male after he has copulated with her.
    Does this all not imply the male’s natural function is to simply impregnate the female?
    Looking at larger species, they are not copulating 24/7 because they need to give birth to, and raise, their young, which is an important part of reproduction if the off-spring are to survive. I know this is horribly over-simplistic but for a more detailed account, Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene is a marvellous account of how genes essentially use their host animals to reproduce themselves as efficiently as possible.
    “Celibacy is never looking for an opportunity, or maybe deciding to wait for a better opportunity, or perhaps waiting for the perfect partner (this last one includes celibacy for religious reason). That is why celibacy is beyond the same reproach as the unchaste homosexual activity”
    I’m sorry, I don’t see the link here at all. Why is celibacy beyond the same reproach as the unchaste homosexual activity? Please elaborate.
    Why is ‘monosex marriage’ not a marriage? Please explain this too.
    “Confusing children with the falsehood that marriage can be monosexed is doing violence to them.”
    This is the most ridiculous statement of them all. It is no crime to confuse children. Often when we educate children we confuse them, because we are teaching them things they did not previously know. Nor is it true that marriage cannot be monosexed. Three states in the USA now recognise gay marriage, so clearly it can be. And equating teaching children that gay people exist to enacting violence on them is just absurd and histrionic beyond words.

  • smmtheory

    Does this all not imply the male’s natural function is to simply impregnate the female?

    Actually, it rather seems to point out that the underlying purpose of sex is to procreate, not masturbate.

    Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene is a marvellous account of how genes essentially use their host animals to reproduce themselves as efficiently as possible.

    Yeah, yeah, I get it. You would see the human status diminished to the level of being just another animal mucking about in its own excrement like the rest of the animals.

    It is no crime to confuse children.

    But it is shameful to the point of criminality to teach them falsely.

  • Ritchie

    “Actually, it rather seems to point out that the underlying purpose of sex is to procreate, not masturbate.”
    Then that takes us right back to celibacy and chastity again.
    It’s fairly simple – either homosexual behaviour is natural or it is not. If not, then how are there so many gay animals? If it is, then why should gay people try to repress it?
    Sex is natural. In all its myriad forms. It’s not something we should shamefully hide away or be embarrassed about. And I have to say I find your attitude to sex quite socially irresponsible. The world’s population is increasing at a rate of 100 million every year. Global resources are stretched as it is. To vilify sex in every form other than between man and wife for procretion purposes only is to encourage large families and over-population. How much longer would you estimate the Earth can take the strain of an exponentially expanding human population? The responsible thing to do would be to encourage people to keep families small.
    “You would see the human status diminished to the level of being just another animal mucking about in its own excrement like the rest of the animals.”
    Like it or not, we are animals. We may have raised ourselves through technological progress to develop civilizations. We have developed art in many forms, philosophy, developed ethics, language and law. I am proud and grateful for all these advantages, but that does not mean that we are not biologically animals.
    Not do I share your depressing view of nature. To me, nature is a source of endless wonder and amazement. The habits, adaptations and social relations of animals are complex and in their own way, beautiful. I certainly do not see just a load of animals ‘mucking about in their own excrement’.
    “But it is shameful to the point of criminality to teach them falsely.”
    That is as it may be. But the parents in the video at the top of this thread were outraged that their children were being taught that gay people exist. This is not false. This is true; they do exist. I therefore see no reason why prop 8 should succeed.

  • smmtheory

    Like it or not, we are animals.

    Like it or not, we really aren’t animals. Like it or not, the world isn’t even close to overpopulation. The entire world’s popluation could live in the state of Texas with everybody having a house on a quarter acre of land as it stands now. Like it or not, the Earth’s resources are nowhere near being stretched to the limit. 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. Even among animals homosexual behavior is aberrant and out of the norm. The population of sexes among humans is not severely out of balance, so defending homosexual behavior as normal based on behavior in the animal kingdom has no logical basis.

  • Ritchie

    “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.

  • smmtheory

    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.

  • Richie

    “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.

  • smmtheory

    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.

    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 –

    But do not let that fool you into thinking humans are somehow special.

    – 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.

  • Richie

    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.

  • smmtheory

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  • Richie

    “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.

  • smmtheory

    When scientific fact and religious dogma disagree over a point, you are favouring religious dogma.

    What scientific “fact” disagrees with the dogmatic point of believing that God always has and always will provide?

    Are you aware that in China, for example, there is a ‘one child per family’ rule because the country is so overpopulated?

    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.

  • Richie

    “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.

  • smmtheory

    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.

  • Richie

    “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?

  • smmtheory

    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.

  • Richie

    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.

  • smmtheory

    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.

  • Richie

    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?

  • smmtheory

    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.

  • Richie

    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?

  • Richie

    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?

  • frank

    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.

  • Ame

    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!!!!!!!!

  • Ame

    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!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.yvakhqxtn.uhcpaxd.com sghdqfxnu wjrkds

    lrca mjbhaq jgpnhm rgepuk etgdzrs eotnsi thvlsyoje

  • http://www.yvakhqxtn.uhcpaxd.com sghdqfxnu wjrkds

    lrca mjbhaq jgpnhm rgepuk etgdzrs eotnsi thvlsyoje

  • http://cheapest-tickets.us/ Hye

    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.