Same-sex marriages can do harm

Chuck wrote:

The more I think about this idiot, the madder I become. Marriage is not a construct of any one particular religion. All religions have some sort of marriage arrangement. So if a new religion is born that defines marriage as between any two consenting adults then where will his argument be then? That the religion is too new? Well at some point ALL religions were once new.
And if marriage is so sacred as a religious construct then why is the civil government bestowing societal and monetary benefits to people based on their religious choice?
If they want to keep marriage as a religious arrangement then the government needs to become neutral in the affairs of marriage and neither penalize or reward citizens for engaging in their religious practices of matrimony.

This is exactly what the religious right doesn't get and why they're so dangerous.

First off, MY religious beliefs, of which I am entitled to by law,*already* include a belief that gay couples can be married in the eyes of God--why else did God make so many of us??? So how come THEY get to trump MY rights with THEIR religious beliefs??

Next, the only "slippery slope" here is the one created once the people allow the government to become involved in religious life. Once religious beliefs start getting legislated, who's beliefs take precedence? Christians? Christian Fundamentalists? Catholics? Born-Agains? Methodists? Baptists? Word of Godders?

Once religious beliefs start influencing legal proceedings, EVERYONE loses.

VickyB wrote:

....for defending our Rights as Christians who believe in the Tanach!...

Who is trying to prevent you from believing in the Tanach (whatever THAT is...)???

Believe whatever you want, but you do NOT have the right to force others to believe what you do.

Normal Person wrote:

Ya know how many times I've heard the words "latest study"? Brain activity, born gay, tendency toward.... yada, yada, yada, give me some real science. Gay marriage has to hurt normal people. Its been my experience that gay men are less manogamous than than hertosexuals I know....

How many gay men that are in committed relationships have YOU had sex with?!?!?

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>

Hi eJohn,
I haven't been on this forum in a while. I found your name on this topic. I thought I'd ask you how you've been.

Ellie wrote:

I believe gay and lesbian people should have all the legal rights as heterosexuals do in a relatonship. However, I believe marriage is a covenant between people and God. My argument is only for the children of gay marriages. The adults that make this choice should have the right to do it. But bringing children into it is not right. For one minute, think about how an innocent child deals with the fact that he/she is the product of a sperm bank, and two or more "mommies" or two or more "daddies." When this child is in kindergarten and sees other kids that KNOW both their parents and wonder why he is different. Think about how this child thinks of their identity and WHOM they identify with? Does he unconsciously search his whole life for his biological other "parent?" looking at strangers for similar features? Many adopted kids have trouble dealing with a parent that "deserted" them already. Does it also make him lean more to a gay lifestyle or not? Do not forget the "nurture" part of "nature or nurture" plays into this scenario. I believe it is a very selfish thing to demand you have the "right" to children. Not everyone is cut out to be a good parent, heterosexuals included. Loving your child more than yourself and a lot of sacrifice is necessary to be a good parent.

They used to say exactly the same thing about the children of interracial couples, too. "I don't mind them getting married, but they shouldn't have kids. It's not fair to the kids that have to feel different and get picked on in school."

What kid doesn't feel different and picked on in school? And what kid wouldn't want loving parents, gay or straight?

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually David, you haven't been right about anything yet and this response is no different. If you really want to get technical about it, there were no "gay" people prior to the late 1920s when the word was first used as a slight against our community and there were no "homosexuals" prior to 1868 when the word was first used by Magnus Hirschfeld to describe us, but only an idiot would believe that would mean that we did not exsist prior to those constructs being coined. I guess that makes you the idiot as you yourself stated that there were same-sex relationships, same-sex love and same-sex sex prior to that construction. What were these people if not "homosexual", what were these people if not "gay", even though neither word was in use? Simply because there was no word in the language to describe us, it's absurd to argue that we did not exsist. Even in your own book you use the term "gay" as reference to figures from both the American Revolution and the European Renaissance, or are you now trying to distance yourself from your own claims as an expert historian as you have from your own sexual orientation?
As to your discussion of domestic partnership and anti-discrimination legislation, you're jumbling several issues together in a failed attempt to muddy the waters. One purpose of the judicial system is to review legislative actions to ensure their compliance with constitutional standards, prior legal precedent and previously enacted statuatry restrictions. In New York, the courts there have found that the current prohibition against marriage for same-sex couples is constitutionally sound but has all but demanded additional legislative review of the exsisting statute. In a separate case, they have ruled that since that prohibition does not specifically address marriages legally recognized by jurisdictions other than New York, the requirements of equal protection do in fact apply, which has set up a scenario where New York cannot recognize same-sex marriages in their own state but must recoignize those recognized elsewhere. I was unable to find any specific mention in the statutes where anti-discrimination protections expressly forbid marriage, but state marriage statues are clear in their prohibition. In Massachusetts, the court found an out right violation of the due process clause of the state constitution based on the argument that there be a compelling state interest in denial of marriage rights and not a violation of anti-discrimination legislation previously enacted. Only the California case seems to have found a violation of constitutional provisions of equal protection and legal protections enacted by the legislature. I'm sure given the opportunity to prove me wrong, you might jump at that chance, but given your track record thus far...

I guess the old saying applies to David, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull bleep. Everything he writes is a thinly veiled disguise for prejudice and bigotry in denial of someone's state of being. I just love the argument that gays cannot be committed to one another (probably his own promiscuity revealed here) so their relationships are not valid. This is the typical illogical statement and trademark. By this logic, a large portion of heterosexual marriages would also be invalid. Would this invalidate committed relationships? Like the story of Abraham about whether God should destroy everyone in the town. Suppose there is one just man or one committed couple? Where is the justice in such a generalized statement? What's more, his responses are long winded and unfocused. I cannot see anything credible in what he has presented so far. He is still in the Ann Coulter category as far as I am concerned.

What a farce this article was. Lets deny gay people the right to marry because they probably would commit adultery?? Give me a break. Every gay person I've spoken to who wants to get married, wants to be in a committed, monogomous relationship. Even if that were not the case, this is hardly a logical reason to deny equal rights. Every straight person could be considered a qualified applicant to that same straying attitude, so don't give me the institute of marriage B.S. If it's "diluted", only straight people have contributed to that, as only they have been allowed to marry up until now. In regards to the issue of having to tell your children why Bob is kissing Dan - simple. Tell them they're in love. What exactly is the harm in that? What detail, exactly, are you going to go into when your six-year-old asks? How about your twelve-year-old? Timing is important, that's for sure. Screaming "Oh my god, think of the children", is just fanning more flames of hatred. If you can't logically discuss homosexuality with your kids, you probably can't even discuss sexuality with you kids. Most kids wouldn't even think twice anyway if they saw two men or two women kissing. It sounds like the adults have more of a problem with that. All they do then, is pass their biased thinking along to their kids. What is the perfect age for you to discuss sex with your kids? As soon as they start asking questions, but you don't have to go into major detail. Most kids will not think twice when seeing two people kiss, whoever the two people are. I think parents are the uncomfortable ones here. I stand with Dan Savage!!!!!!

MichelleMC wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi eJohn,
I haven't been on this forum in a while. I found your name on this topic. I thought I'd ask you how you've been.

Good, Michelle! How are you? I've been way too busy to be on the forums much lately, but I'm running some HUGE accounting reports right now so these are my entertainment while they're processing....:)

David Benkof wrote:

Timothy-
I could declare "No gay person has ever given a cogent reason why domestic partnerships are not a valid equivalent to marriage in California." I actually believe that. But I know and respect that some marriage-equality activists do have answers. I don't think any of those answers are "cogent" so I guess I could say, over and over, "I have never heard a cogent reason why domestic partnerships are not enough."
But of course I feel that way. If I knew of cogent reasons, I would switch my position!

This is not a true statement.

Benkof is quite clear - in other places, of course - that his worldview is preset by his religious beliefs. If 300 cogent reasons were provided as to why domestic partnerships are not adequate, Benkof would not change his position.

Benkof has a long history of untruthfulness and deception. This is but one more example.

MichelleMC wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi eJohn,
I haven't been on this forum in a while. I found your name on this topic. I thought I'd ask you how you've been.

I see, eJohn,
Like SOME others on another thread in this forum, you're going to look down your nose to me too because I'm not like you. But you want respect. It goes both ways. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Oh well, bye.

Um, Michelle, maybe it was just an oversight, but eJohn DID reply back to you, very nicely, too, I might add, just about 5 minutes before you assumed he was looking down his nose at you. Just wanted to point that out.

ACLU Tom-
Something isn't a right because the ACLU says it is. Something's a right because our political process declares it so. Women did not have the right to vote in 1910. They did in 1920. The Supreme Court of the United States and 48 states have never said there is a civil right to gay marriage. There is a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts, as well as California for the next 4.5 months, at which point it will probably cease to exist. I mean, please. Barack Obama is the civil rights phenomenon of the century. He was a law professor. If there was a civil right to marriage, I think he would know. And he says there isn't one. I'm sorry, but I'll follow Barack Obama's lead before I follow the ACLU's.
Craig in OKC-
You believe the Daily News only allows people to comment on flawed opinion pieces, but comments are barred on cogent pieces? What's your evidence?
Rick in Kansas, you're just ignorant about gay history. Here are some gay experts at gay history none of whom prefers man-woman marriage:
The dean of gay historians, leftist openly gay scholar Martin Duberman: "Were people always either gay or straight? The answer to that is a decided 'No.'[Instead, people from other eras who slept with members of their own gender] haven't viewed that as something exclusive and therefore something that defines them as a different category of human being."
Independent scholar Jonathan Ned Katz, formerly of Yale, early pioneer in uncovering documents about the lesbian and gay past, and author of the totally awesome "The Invention of Heterosexuality": "The existence of the words and our use of them can't be separated from the feelings and the acts.... it's literally true that homosexual feelings and acts didn't exist before those concepts."
I have more quotes but I'll use just those because of space. This is not MY idea. It is the consensus position of gay historians.
The statute in New York you need to look at is SONDA. That is the law Gov. Paterson cited, conveniently ignoring the provision of that law that says it may not be used for gay marriage.
Shannon-
Rick knows nothing about gay history. Some good books are Gay New York by George Chauncey, The World Turned by John D'Emilio, and The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz.
I agree that the CMPA may lose. If it does, it won't be in the constitution. Do you agree that if the CMPA passes, discrimination against same-sex "marriage" will be completely and utterly constitutional? If not, please explain.
eJohn-
Shouldn't *both* of our religious beliefs have equal input? Shouldn't all people have one vote, and whoever gets the most votes wins? Why should your religious or secular beliefs (in the minority) get to set the definition of marriage instead of my religious or secular beliefs (in the majority)? I just don't understand.
And whoever said they wanted to force people to believe as they do??? Talk about your drama queens...

Lulu-
If you wish to criticize things I've said, go ahead. But when you criticize things that you fantasize I've said because they make me look bad, you're totally reckless. When did I say gay relationships are not valid? They're completely valid. They're just not marriages. They're not holy. They're not something I want to enter into. But if you want to have a lesbian lover, be my guest. It's a free country. Just don't ask me to support pretending like you're "married" to her.
Kooky-
It's fine that you want to teach your very young children about two men in love. I don't. I plan to raise my very young children with Jewish values about the family and sexuality, and I think it would be confusing at a very young age to teach about gay couples. I respect your right to teach your children what you believe, how dare you criticize my desire to teach my own children about what I believe?
Timothy-
If you convinced me that G-d didn't write the Torah, I don't see why I wouldn't be open to arguments that domestic partnerships aren't a completely fair compromise. You don't inhabit my mind. How do you know what I think? The more you cry "deception" when so far you've only found two little mistakes by me, the more it's the boy who cried wolf.

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
Good, Michelle! How are you? I've been way too busy to be on the forums much lately, but I'm running some HUGE accounting reports right now so these are my entertainment while they're processing....:)

eJohn,
I'm so sorry about my next post after the one saying hi to you. I waited a while and I kept refreshing the page. Now this post is posted before my mean one. I'm so sorry, and I hope you will forgive me. However, I am right about some people on another thread on this forum. They are hypocrites. They want respect, but aren't willing to give it. They drove someone else off the thread too. Sorry, I wasn't more patient. Take care. I'll stop back by a thread you posted on to say hi.

Shannon wrote:

Um, Michelle, maybe it was just an oversight, but eJohn DID reply back to you, very nicely, too, I might add, just about 5 minutes before you assumed he was looking down his nose at you. Just wanted to point that out.

Thank you, Shannon. I did see that. I also said hi to him very nicely. It wasn't an oversight. There is something wrong with Topix. I kept looking before I posted. Anyway, I apologized to eJohn, just now so the decision to forgive me is his, not anyone else's.

We'll agree to disagree on the whole gay history issue and let that go, even though those are two of the most bogus statements I've ever read...just because a feeling or an act doesn't have a name, it didn't exist? That's right up there with "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

"Do you agree that if the CMPA passes, discrimination against same-sex "marriage" will be completely and utterly constitutional? If not, please explain."
No, I don't agree and never will agree and your answer is right there in front of you: BECAUSE IT'S DISCRIMINATORY.

And as far as religion having a part in any of this, it shouldn't, yours, eJohn's or anybody elses. Last I heard, ours was a secular government, church and state completely separate. Religion, regardless of whose or what kind, should never be used to set the difinition of any law, amendment, initiative, constitution, etc.

Michelle, if I offended you, I do sincerely apologize and I mean no harm. I just felt bad for eJohn because all I could think was that the poor guy might have signed off after his post and missed yours and would have no idea why you would be upset with him and I just wanted you to know that he wasnt blowing you off. Anyways, please accept my apology and have a great night.

Shannon-

I've been reading your posts. You're not stupid. How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Do you understand what "unconstitutional" means? It doesn't mean "bad" or "unfair" or "something that should be struck down." It means something that is barred by the constitution. If it's in the constitution, it cannot be barred by the constitution.

I have heard your opinion about how religion shouldn't have any part of this debate. But despite my asking at least a half dozen times, nobody has every specified how they would like that implemented. I want my religiously based definition of marriage to be the law in the United States. So - should I be denied the right to vote? If so, how will you determine who's opposing gay marriage for religious reasons vs. secular reasons vs. both? Or will you just bar all Orthodox Jews from voting? Or maybe all Jews of any kind? Will we be allowed to vote for Congress and President and dogcatcher, but just not on marriage initiatives? Or will we be barred from voting at all?

What about the public debate? Should my blog be shut down? Should I be fined or imprisoned if I urge people to vote for the CMPA because of my religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? Should I be fined or imprisoned if I write an op-ed like the one in the Daily News? Should the Daily News be fined or shut down for running an op-ed of mine? Can an Orthodox Jew run for Congress on a man-woman marriage platform? Or should his name be removed from the ballot? May I write my Congressman in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment? If not, what punishment should I face for doing so?

If you do not want to limit anybody's right to vote, speak out, or lobby in favor of their religiously based definition of marriage, then what exactly is your point in saying "as far as religion having a part in any of this, it shouldn't" and "Religion, regardless of whose or what kind, should never be used to set the difinition of any law, amendment, initiative, constitution, etc." if you're not saying that only secular people's opinions should count. What exactly are you saying? I look forward to the answer.

Marriage is MAN and WOMAN wrote:

The term marriage is defined as
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
The argument that "equal protection" is being denied to the deviant degenerates is ridiculous at best.
The deviants chose to live their lifestyle(if it was genetic it would be considered a 'fatal' gene). Obviously it takes both male+female organs to reproduce.
Why shouldn't the Heterosexuals be able to have their own pre-defined word 'marriage' all to themselves.
The deviant homosexuals desire for others to accept their choice of lifestyles yet wish to defile the sacred institution of marriage without a second thought.
The straight people of this world have a right to live their lives accordingly. The gay agenda is to force their lifestyle into that of normalcy by raping the laws and language of society.
This is intolerable.

Marriage is a personal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock.

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land. If recognized by the State, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong and/or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal status of the individuals in the eyes of those authorities that recognize it.

People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.[1][2]

Marriage may take many forms: for example, a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife is a monogamous heterosexual marriage; polygamy — in which a person takes more than one spouse — is common in many societies;[3] and, in some jurisdictions[4] and denominations, a same-sex marriage unites people of the same sex.

A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony,[5] which may be performed either by a religious officiant, by a secular government-sanctioned officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved and, in many societies, their extended families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Mr. Benkof:

Does this mean you are now a columnist on Topix.net as well?