First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding
Welcome to reason number 9,999,987 to homeschool. I guarantee you this is the tip of the iceberg for the anti-Proposition 8 propaganda campaign in California. Via ProtectMarriage.com:
In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.
“Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids,” said Yes on 8—ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. “I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding,” Schubert said.
When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was “a teachable moment,” the school’s principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.
“Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that ’same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage,” said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie “Rosie” Avila. “We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will,” Avila added.
The lesbian teacher’s wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: “The door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not.”
The Yes on 8 campaign’s ads explain that if the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. “It’s totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding,” said Chip White, Press Secretary for Yes on 8. “This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.” The field trip underscores the Yes on 8 campaign’s message that unless Prop. 8 passes, children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools. “Not only can it happen, it has already happened,” White said.
Here’s the SF Chronicle piece that ran on Saturday. Excerpt:
On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom’s office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
“With this ring, I thee wed!” Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis.
After traditional photos, the two walked out City Hall’s main doors where the students were lined up down the steps with bags of pink rose petals and bottles of bubbles hanging from their necks. McCoy, a conferences services coordinator, was in on the surprise and beamed as the children swarmed around Carder.
The two said they have participated in the campaign against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around San Francisco on Friday afternoon in a motorized trolley car with “Just Married” and “Vote No on 8″ banners…
…Creative Arts administrators and parents acknowledged that the field trip might be controversial, but they didn’t see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal, they noted.
“How many days in school are they going to remember?” asked parent Marc Lipsett. “This is a day they’ll definitely remember.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Maybe they should spend more time in the classroom « Right Minded Online
- First Grade Field Trip to Teacher’s Gay Wedding : Stop The ACLU
- Gay High School? « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » So, what are YOUR kids learning at public school?
- The Other McCain: School field trips, 2008
- Yet Another Reason to Home School Children | Pirates! Man Your Women!
- Will what happens in San Francisco stay in San Francisco? « Iowa Defense Alliance
- First Graders Taken To Gay Wedding « The Forum
- Blog DeVore » Blog Archive » (Almost) Unbelievable – the pro-tax, pro-big government, teachers’ union just gave $1 million to oppose traditional marriage
- Michelle Malkin » California teachers vs. traditional marriage
- PrestoPundit
- SansPretense » On Education, Part I: Empowerment through education
- SansPretense » On Education, Part II: Exploitation through Indoctrination
- Forget the lawyers, it’s time to shoot the teachers! Part II « Mark Epstein
- Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
- Michelle Malkin » Obama’s Sept. 8 speech to schoolchildren
- Inspiration…or Marching Orders? « Patriot Burr
- GayPatriot » Has Any Previous President Ever Addressed Schoolchildren . . .
- Indoctrination By The Anointed One « The Underground Conservative
- UrbanGrounds | Obama’s Innocuous Little Speech
- BizzyBlog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education, Proposition 8
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’
Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
Also, God punished Sodom and Gomorrah by completely destroying them. Their sins were described in the Book of Genesis cited by alaskangrizzly #260 above. Yet God was willing to spare the entire city if only a few righteous people could be found there (Gen. 18:20-19:28). God’s justice is great, and is His mercy.
That is why my posts to Omu didn’t seem to be getting through. He/she doesn’t seem to be able to understand the dichotomy of God’s love for the sinner, and hatred for sin. We all must renounce our sin, not encourage, excuse, or condone it. This is an example of a sin that God calls an “abomination” to Him.
zeroangel said:
Marriage has been a legal matter for thousands of years, and for good reason. Societies/nations have a vested interest in strong marriages and families. As the family goes, so goes the nation.
When considered from a purely utilitarian perspective, the “traditional” ideal model of marriage – one man & one woman committed to each other until separated by death – is vastly superior to any other “alternative” model of marriage. This form of marriage isn’t merely a religious matter, it is common sense.
zeroangel said:
Same sex couples can already live how they want. This is just about forcing other people to validate their own life choices. Much of the gay agenda is really about silencing Christianity, restricting our freedom of religion. It is already happening in other western nations (preachers jailed for saying homosexual behavior is sin).
So in that regard, it would not solve the problem at hand.
MtsEdge said:
In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus explicitly endorses the entire Law and the Prophets. He also criticizes His fellow Jews who would annul even the least of these commandments.
So with those words, Jesus endorsed the law of stoning people engaged in homosexual behavior.
Note: Jesus endorsed the Law during His life, because He was born under the Law, and He remained under the Law until all things were accomplished (He was crucified). All Christians are baptized into Jesus’ death, and therefore are not under the Law of Moses. So Christians are not supposed to stone people for practicing homosexual behavior (and thus, you have 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Re #296, I think we’re on the same page. Jesus said, “I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” We are also told that the strength of sin is in the law. The law convicts, and the wages of all sin is death. Once Jesus died and was crucified, He paid the price for all sins, once and for all.
If we repent, ask forgiveness, and invite Jesus to become our personal Savior, He remembers our sin no more. Praise God!
Trollman:
My solution won’t stop traditional marriage, nor will making gay marriage illegal get rid of gays. From a purely utilitarian point of view, either way, it won’t matter.
No, its about allowing gay couples (who aren’t going away) the same legal protections as straight couples.
My solution does the opposite. In my model as a pastor you are free to marry whoever you want or don’t want per your religous beliefs.
Are you against “civil unions” as well?
Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered/Bisexual people are human beings and are entitled to the same rights as other human beings. For me, civil unions satisfies that issue.
Sadly, gay marriage is the radical attempt to stifle and bankrupt Christianity. Wait until the first pastor/church refuses to marry a Gay couple. Then see the big lawsuits.
As for the data on the decline of traditional marriage, check out the research from the Netherlands own government. As fewer young people were married and more children were born to unwed parents, crime and other social problems increased significantly.
Long term stable relationships are important for society, thats why society should encourage both traditional marriage and civil unions.
zeroangel said:
It will matter. There are consequences to fixing things that aren’t broke.
zeroangel said:
Why is a “couple” so essential to marriage, but the heterosexual aspect of it is not? Apart from heterosexuality, that marriage is limited to couples is completely arbitrary. The truth is, it isn’t arbitrary, it is about imposing one group’s morality upon the majority who reject it.
If anything, we should allow polygamy/group marriages, before we allow same sex marriages. So when we redefine marriage as something other than the ideal, it does lead to a slippery slope.
What you then end up with is a large number of things, most of which are not ideal for developing strong families and an orderly society, that become passed off as marriage. What is legal does influence Joe Sixpack’s view of morality.
The traditional view of family/marriage is superior to all other forms. We ought to encourage that form above all others. Just as we ought to encourage the raising of children by both biological parents, rather than single parenting, as a general rule.
zeroangel said:
In the current model, I am free to marry/not marry anyone I want. The traditional marriage has worked for thousands of years. Why should we tamper with that? The burden is on those who would argue for same sex marriage.
Is it really about hospital visitation rights? Good, then let’s make this about hospital visitation rights. I am all for allowing people to designate the person of their choice to have that right, or allow them to have the power of attorney, etc. But that isn’t what the push is for, it is a push for nothing less than being recognized as marriage, as in no way inferior to traditional marriage.
zeroangel said:
I am against civil unions. The concept of “civil unions,” where it is marriage in everything except name, is just a legal stepping stone to marriage. Myself and many liberal judges agree on this point.
happy2behere said:
Homosexuals have the same marriage rights that I have – they are free to marry a member of the other gender.
happy2behere said:
And that is the main point, it is about suppressing people’s freedom to worship.
The Constitution explicitly states that I have a right to worship, but not a right to marry a fellow member of my gender. It is all about rights. Not made up rights, but real rights.
Trollman:
No, it will not, the gay couple living next door will still be there, the only difference is now they will be able to file their taxes together among other things. That will not affect you.
I am sure the same argument was used some time ago to try and prevent interracial marriages from becoming legal.
I am ok with that and said as much (of course my language leaves the word “marriage” out entirely as to leave that word to the churches only).
Nonsense! It is completely legal to call your wife a whore and verbally abuse your children. However, it is certainly not moral and no decent person (from any religion or non-religion) would disagree. I am sure I could come up with countless examples.
Weak. Many things work for thousands of years that were later found to be dead wrong. I don’t think I need to come up with examples.
OK. Now we are getting somewhere and I am understanding your objection to my model. So, you are against civil unions that are equal to a heterosexual marriage, but you are ok with hospital visitation rights. Can you please spell out exactly which protections or rights you DO NOT want same-sex couples to have.
Oops. Messed up the quotes above.
The following from above:
Again, no doubt the same argument was used with interracial marriage. Furthermore, while single parenting is not the ideal, obviously, it shouldn’t be illegal or not recognized.
should not be in a blockquote as it was what I wrote.
zeroangel said:
You missed the part where I pointed out that same sex marriage does lead to a slippery slope, effectively watering down marriage in society, leading to other problems.
zeroangel said:
To compare same sex marriage with interracial marriage is a joke. There is a clear distinction between males and females, particularly in the function of families (same sex couples cannot reproduce). Race, on the other hand, is a superficial difference.
There aren’t separate races, there are really just differences within the same continuum. How black do you have to be to be “black enough”? How white do you have to be to be “white enough?”
There is nothing inherent in the traditional form of marriage in regards to race. Race has nothing to do with starting a family.
zeroangel said:
But you missed the part where you can’t just redefine something as integral to a strong society as marriage and assume there won’t be major side effects, long term.
zeroangel said:
You can come up with several examples. That still won’t disprove my point. Legality does not always change people’s opinions of it, but sometimes it can, and has. Case in point, just look at drugs and intoxicants. People often look at two drugs very differently, attaching a stigma, apart from their positive/negative effects. An illegal drug is often seen as worse than another drug that is legal, even though the legal drug might be more harmful.
zeroangel said:
It isn’t that it just worked. Nor is it somehow wrong. Traditional marriage is superior to any other form of marriage/family, including same sex marriage, and polygamy. I’ve done a research paper comparing what each form of marriage brings to society in terms of utility.
It works better. Just like having a two parent home works better than a single parent home. It is just better. Therefore we ought to encourage traditional marriage, just like we ought to encourage two parent homes. The difference is, single parenting hasn’t/shouldn’t (for obvious reasons) be illegal. Historically speaking, same sex marriage has never been legal.
You want to change something that has – not only worked, but worked well, and works better than any alternative – then you have the burden for justifying such a major, foundational change to society.
zeroangel said:
I have no problem with allowing people to make decisions that aren’t/shouldn’t be necessarily limited to family. Broadly speaking, a family consists of those you are related to by blood, those you could produce offspring with (and their family).
You don’t have to leave all your belongings to your family, you can legally write a will and leave your junk to anyone of your choice. Things like that, I have no problem with.
In other areas, things that are generally limited to family, such as filing joint tax returns, spousal benefits on insurance, etc., I have a problem with.
Trollman:
I had a longer post that dealt with each of your points on a point-counterpoint basis. I decided that all of it was so much opinion though, and has been rehashed a million times.
I have no doubt you’ve heard all the same arguments I was going to put forward (sterile heterosexual couples, rejection of interracial marriage over the course of history, irrational fear of marijuana, members of same-sex couples adopting as individuals) and I have heard all the same couter-points.
That said, I think it’s best to focus on the “nitty gritty.”
Please explain how allowing same sex couples to file joint tax returns and receive spousal insurance benefits will lead to the downfall of society.
you’re casting pearls before swine. this clown zero doesn’t accept what Stanley Kurtz has written on this subject.
facts never get in the way of his ideology.
As Gavin boy idol most famously said, “whether they like it or not!” If that isn’t facisim, I don’t know what is. I Thank God that my kids are done with public school, granted, they weren’t nearly as bad as San Francisco, but still glad not to have to deal with administrators telling me how to parent etc. The grandkids (none yet) will go to Catholic school even if I have to work 2 jobs for the rest of my life!
zeroangel said:
Then why would you raise such points? Homosexual behavior is not comparable to one’s race. One is a chosen behavior (even if you believe you are born with the desire), the other is neither a choice nor an action.
The sterile couple objection also obviously fails. Just how sterile is sterile enough? I’ve known people that couldn’t have children, and then, whaddayaknow? Should people be required a fertility test before being allowed to wed? Should people be required to divorce if one person becomes disabled and no longer able to reproduce? Should elderly couples, past the age of child birth, be forced to separate? There is a clear, non-arbitrary distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Even if people can’t/won’t have children, a heterosexual helps society in that it reinforces the model of a man & woman living a life committed to each other – which does indirectly support those couples that can/do reproduce. The more people that have kids outside of marriage, the more it becomes accepted, and the more it happens.
zeroangel said:
Things like filing joint tax returns won’t hurt society, but it is the things that go along with that – the redefining of marriage and family. That leads to weaker families, more problems with children, etc., ultimately hurting society in real, tangible ways.
And I still do not see a pressing need for same sex marriage. That they are not able to file joint tax returns, does that make them second class citizens? Really? They already have the right to “pursue happiness” with their bedroom buddies, what more do they need? Apart from a couple of things that I believe should be legal wholly apart from the homosexual agenda, I fail to see the need.
Which all points to one thing: it is truly about restricting a real right – freedom of religion. Perhaps you don’t care about that, but controlling religion leads to the controlling of thought. Doesn’t it bother you that many of your points could be made by the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama?
Because they are excellent points, though I realize they won’t convince you, so I decided it wasn’t worth it.
I do believe it is a genetic issue. That said, on what grounds do you argue it is wrong for two consenting adults to engage in said behavior?
Let’s say one or both people (man and woman) were in serious accidents and had their genitals mutilated or destroyed. Should they NOT be allowed to marry?
I understand your argument, and I know how it goes. That somehow homosexual behavior reinforces and encourages sex purely for pleasure which leads to other social ills. I get it. I just think it’s silly.
No matter how many people my neighbors may or may not be fornicating with, it won’t affect my marriage. Period. I don’t know why you think it would affect yours, or anyone else’s (at least not anyone who has a marriage worth keeping)
Like it or not family IS being redefined. One aspect that comes to mind is dual-income families.
Of course you don’t. You aren’t gay and neither am I. I can still recognize that decent gay people might see a need.
Non sequitur. How exactly? How does giving gays ability to file joint tax returns and such restrict YOUR religion? That’s absurd!
It may offend your religion but under my plan you won’t be forced to marry any gays in your church!
Perfect Reductio ad Hitlerum (using other folks instead of Hitler of course). Barack Obama likes basketball, do you? Would that bother you if you did?
Trollman:
One quick thing I forgot. Based on what you said earlier about “choice” I could argue that heterosexual behavior is also a “choice.”
zeroangel said:
As I’ve shown, it isn’t just a matter of disagreeing, it is that they are bad points and the logic doesn’t pan out.
zeroangel said:
The scientific evidence is pretty clear. Genetics does influence whether or not someone is gay. So does one’s environment. There have been studies done on identical twins separated from birth. When one twin is gay, they then checked to see if the other was gay, too. With one being gay, the other was more likely (than the general population) to be gay, but many were not. At a bare minimum, that demonstrates that, at least for many gays, that genetics did not solely determine one’s sexual orientation.
But it is moot. Even if one is innately attracted to members of the same gender, we are all human beings with self-control. Sex (excluding rape) is always a choice.
zeroangel said:
I don’t have a problem with a sterile, heterosexual couple.
zeroangel said:
That isn’t my argument at all. I don’t have a problem with people having sex purely for pleasure. I’m not even for laws forbidding gay sex.
zeroangel said:
We’re not talking about fornication, we’re talking about marriage. If people want to engage in homosexual sex in the privacy of their bedrooms, that is their business.
zeroangel said:
That isn’t redefining what a family is. Dual-incomes merely adds new stresses to the already existing model of family. Dual-income does not redefine marriage from being between a man & a woman into something else.
zeroangel said:
I don’t need to be gay in order to see the needs of a gay person, just like I don’t need to be black in order to understand how slavery is oppressive.
But where is the actual oppression? I’m not trying to keep them from the person they love, I’m not trying to fire them for loving whomever they want. What do they need? Hospital visitation rights? I’ll give them that. Do they need for me to tell them that their relationship is just as valid and as good as a heterosexual relationship? Is that really a need?
You want us to roll the dice on a very foundational aspect of society. Well, if we’re going to do that, we had better have a pressing need to do so. What is so important, to divert great disaster or to make society so much greater, that we should chance this?
zeroangel said:
That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I explicitly said that things like joint tax returns wasn’t the problem, but things that would necessarily follow (a redefinition of marriage). I said:
And you know full well how this could come back to restrict freedom of religion. You yourself advocate removing marriage as a legal issue, so preachers won’t be forced by law to marry same sex couples. Look at how hate crimes legislation is already being used in parts of the world to try to silence preachers.
zeroangel said:
Actually, if you notice, the points of my argument do not rest on the particulars of one religion or another. They are based upon utility to society, and the freedom of religion – which relates to the freedom of thought.
That this isn’t merely some prejudice of Judeo-Christian values can be seen by non-Christian societies. Throughout history, including pre-Christian history, you had societies that were very open to homosexual behavior. In some cultures and nations, it was very popular, and did not have the stigma that it does under Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
But get this – none of them, none of them ever dreamed of calling such relationships marriage! Why? Because they were prejudiced against such behavior? No, but because they had something a lot of liberals today don’t – common sense. A man & a man isn’t a marriage, and it isn’t a family.
zeroangel said:
One, I don’t like basketball. Two, it was a frivolous point meant mostly in jest, thus I tacked it on at the end.
zeroangel said:
I’m only attracted by members of the opposite sex. That is innate. I could probably influence that to some degree, if I so chose, but I have no desire to even try. Regardless, the actions I take, the behaviors I engage in, are choices. If behavior (including sexual behavior) is not truly a choice, then why do we reward good behavior and punish bad behavior?
Trollman:
So, you agree that (like heterosexual people) gays are naturally attracted to whom they are attracted to?
You say you don’t have a problem with sex for pleasure or what anyone does in thier own bedroom. So, do you, or do you not believe that gay sex is immoral?
My plan is just calling for them to have the same benefits legally. It is not calling it a marriage. You do not have to tell gay people thier “union” is as valid as a heterosexual union under my plan, in fact you can refuse them marriage in your church.
As for benefits, we can take things one at a time: filing taxes jointly, is this BY ITSELF a problem or not, and why? Why is hospital visitation rights ok, but joint filing is not?
No, I don’t.
Yes, so what? Laws don’t dictate who can recieve communion, why should they dictate who can and cannot be married?
It doesn’t follow. How is a gay couple getting a “civil union” going to restrict your religion? It makes no sense.
Because they didn’t have convaluted tax laws, family law, estate law, etc. Also, I’m not calling it marriage either.
So, gay sex acts are “wrong?” Why?
Trollman:
One more note, a more ideal solution in my mind would be a flat tax or VAT, that would eliminate “joint filing” altogether.
That’s a seperate topic though.
zeroangel said:
I answered that question in detail. I think there is both a genetic and a behavioral influence that together determines one’s sexuality. I believe your restatement is an oversimplification of my view. I don’t know how to be any clearer than what I posted in my last post.
zeroangel said:
The Bible clearly teaches that sex purely for pleasure (within marriage) is perfectly fine (1 Cor. 7:3-5). Personally, I believe that all sex outside of marriage (and thus, all homosexual sex) is immoral, but that is completely irrelevant to my points here. Obviously, I have no intention to outlaw sex outside of marriage, or even gay sex.
zeroangel said:
You’re just playing semantics. We won’t call it “marriage,” we’ll make marriage purely a “religious” term, even though it has never been considered a (purely) religious term throughout man’s history.
So why the sudden change, going against recorded history? So same sex couples can be “married.” All you are doing is playing games of semantics. The effect is the same – the redefinition of (what has been historically understood as) marriage and family. I’m not into semantics, I’m interested in the effects on society and people.
zeroangel said:
Because some things are innately tied to the definition of family & marriage. If you allow your gay partner “spousal privileges,” then that effectively redefines marriage & family. Allowing the person of your choice to visit you in a hospital does not necessitate a change in the definition of family/marriage.
zeroangel said:
Then go back and read some of the other posts on this thread – posts by people who are considerably more liberal on this subject than myself, who nevertheless acknowledge that this would pose a real threat to the freedom of religion.
zeroangel said:
Look at history. Marriage is not inherently a religious institution, it is a social institution apart from religion (thus you can see, throughout man’s history, in various religions and cultures and nations, you find many laws concerning marriage). Many people do believe there is a religious aspect to marriage, but even those who do not have the common sense to recognize that it is a major social force.
Why did the pre-Christian Roman empire have so many laws concerning marriage and divorce? Why did they require people by law to remarry within a certain time frame after divorcing/widowing? It wasn’t because they were Jews/Christians/Muslims. They were “religious,” but not how we think of religious – their religions didn’t have the same kind of hard code of ethics found in the monotheistic faiths. Much like the deists of a few centuries ago, many were effectively the “atheists of their day.”
zeroangel said:
You’re smarter than that! Just look at Connecticut to see how judges easily transformed civil union to same sex marriage. One can easily see how such a couple might insist on some church perform their ceremony, and if refused, could take them to court. Just as churches are (rightly) not allowed to discriminate against race & interracial couples, there is a good chance that the courts will force churches to perform same sex marriages, or be penalized. As if you couldn’t have seen all this – which was implied when you pointed out how your solution would avoid this very situation.
zeroangel said:
Rome had plenty of tax laws, family laws, estate laws, etc. It didn’t occur to them because they understood what is and isn’t a family & a marriage – just as the rest of humanity, throughout history, has. Until now.
zeroangel said:
It is irrelevant, since I am not arguing against same sex marriage on the basis of “gay sex is immoral.” But I will answer your question anyway. There is obviously something backwards about homosexual sex. Whether you believe people got here by design (creation) or by chance (evolution), or anything in between, the fact remains that men are clearly built to be sexually compatible with females, and vice versa. It is also obvious that males are not sexually compatible with other males, and the same for females.
That is just a fact of nature. Now some object, saying that homosexual behavior is natural. That is, you see some examples of homosexual behavior in various animals. But this objection fails, since we are clearly not like other animals.
Animals can kill people, but only a person can commit murder. Why? Because people are on a higher plane in terms of mental ability. What might be acceptable in someone that is ignorant, isn’t acceptable by someone who should know better. Thus, even if you did feel attracted to members of the same gender, your brain ought to realize that there is something wrong with that – it doesn’t fit the physical reality. Thus, for thinking things, it is unnatural, irrational, etc.
Thus homosexual behavior, in humans, is unnatural, irrational, and in that sense, wrong. If you look at the Bible, the Bible agrees with this. According to the Bible, why is homosexual behavior wrong? Because it is a denial of reality (Romans 1:26-27). Intentional irrationality, especially in an area that is so important, is wrong. And I don’t think you need the Bible to see that. That is the Apostle Paul’s point – the Gentiles didn’t have the Bible to tell them homosexual acts were wrong, but they didn’t need to, because nature itself condemns the act.
If you notice, if you are purely a homosexual (you only have sex with members of your gender), then nature & evolution itself passes the “death penalty” on them, since they cannot reproduce.
The Bible doesn’t arbitrarily rule the act as wrong, like much of the morality in the Bible, it is based off of reality, the nature of the way things are, and common sense.
Some of these matters I’ve gone over before, and I don’t know if you can’t get it, or won’t get it. If your response shows some understanding of my view, then I’ll continue. Otherwise, I’ll be forced to agree with right4life(!) for once.
Trollman:
So, sex outside of marriage and homosexual sex is immoral, but you don’t mind it being legal. OK.
However, you do mind giving tax breaks to a committed homosexual couple on the grounds that it’s an aspect of redefining marriage and that is bad because it goes against history, it will erode regular families, and it will infringe on your freedom of religion. Is that right?
As for history, well so what? Why bother citing the Romans anyway? It’s not as if they should be held up as an ideal (nor should any previous point in history for that matter). I also have no doubt Roman tax laws wouldn’t even come close to being as convoluted as ours.
As far as families, please give me an example of how a gay couple living next door to me filing taxes jointly will affect my family or even my children’s family.
Now, your point about religion might be the only (somewhat) valid one. I do understand what you are saying, which is why I was careful to say in my solution that a marriage in a church should have no legal standing. Problem solved! In fact, in my model I am willing to bet a church could refuse a marriage to anyone they like (much like what is done with communion). There is MORE religious freedom in my model, not less!
One more note, let’s assume a fair tax, flat tax, or VAT tax becomes adopted and the joint filing aspect simply vanishes, (joint filing is outdated anyway, it was more useful in a time when woman generally stayed at home) what then? What other privileges would you deny to gay couples to preserve the institution of marriage?
As far as why gay sex acts are “wrong,” it is clear we see it very differently. You regard it as something “unnatural” and not right. I simply regard it as a kind of “genetic disease” or “handicap.” Some have even gone so far to argue it is a built in evolutionary method of population control (but I don’t know if that holds water because there is no reason to think homosexuals would be “naturally selected”). In either case, I don’t think its right to treat “handicapped” people differently. Asking them to repress their inherent sexual urges is, in my mind, cruel and would likely lead to severe personality disorders. Then, if they don’t suppress them, and they find someone they love, denying them tax breaks just like any heterosexual couple would get, is also cruel. In my mind it ranks right up there with telling a person in a wheelchair that they should just use the stairs like everyone else.
zeroangel said:
Basically, yeah.
zeroangel said:
The point was to show that there is no genuine need to officially recognize same sex relationships as marriage. This whole issue is manufactured outrage. They aren’t being oppressed or treated as second class citizens, which is ultimately the only “real” rationale for allowing SSM (same sex marriage).
Marriage isn’t a religious issue, nor should it be relegated as a religious issue. Another reason was to demonstrate that this wasn’t some psycho-Christian witch hunt against homosexuals. One need not be religious to hold to this view, which history agrees.
zeroangel said:
I don’t know what else to tell you. I’ve repeatedly said it isn’t about one particular benefit or whatever, but the redefinition of marriage that would go along with it.
zeroangel said:
No, that is a problem created. There is no problem with marriage ceremonies being performed by clergy in churches – unless you create one by redefining marriage.
zeroangel said:
You can’t force a church to marry anyone now. So no new freedom would be gained. Either way, a church could potentially get in trouble for (even if not an overtly stated policy, it could still be demonstrated) being racist, etc.
zeroangel said:
Things that are inherently tied into marriage and family. One example – extending spousal benefits to one’s gay lover. You might have a relationship, but that isn’t a family, under the traditional understanding. But allowing what spousal benefits to be extended to them, even if you suddenly change the name, it still goes to the definition of family and marriage.
zeroangel said:
I think we are actually in basic agreement on this issue. The terms or nuance, sure, we differ on, but I think we both agree that there is something not right, or not optimal with homosexual behavior. The rest is just details, that is the main point on this part of the conversation.
zeroangel said:
You seem to think that homosexuals are born gay and cannot become otherwise purely on the basis of their genetics. Citing the evidence above – in regards to identical twins separated at birth, that is clearly not the case, at least some of the time.
We have pretty hard evidence that at least some gay people cannot be gay purely due to genetic factors. That means, at least in many homosexuals, that environmental and personal factors play a significant role in determining their sexuality. I think there is enough evidence to say that that is a fact.
Another fact is that everyone can alter, at least to some degree, what they find sexually attractive through environmental factors.
Let’s consider another historic example: Sparta in ancient Greece. There is a fairly steady percentage of the general population that is gay – so across cultures and time, you have a certain percentage who are born with genetics that at least strongly point them towards being gay. I think we can agree on at least that much. Well in Sparta, all boys were raised up by older men, who were their lovers.
When the boys became men, they were to take a wife so as to have children, to keep Sparta strong. Sometimes, the women on their wedding night had to even dress up as boys so as to arouse their new husbands. Presumably, like all other populations, most of these boys weren’t born with genetics that would lead them to become gay, and yet they all participated in homosexual sex. That suggests to me that environmental factors can greatly influence one’s sexuality, even lend people “born heterosexual” to accept gay sex.
You see this to a lesser extent today, all the time. For example, many men in Europe don’t mind women who don’t shave their legs. But many American men are turned off by women who don’t shave their legs or armpits. Obviously, that isn’t a genetic thing, that is an example of societal conditioning.
So this idea that gay people are born gay, that they cannot change, etc., I think is not born out by the evidence.
But ultimately, the larger argument boils down to this: where is the urgent need for SSM? I’m not trying to deprive them of love, affection, companionship, or sex. They can have all those things. I’m just saying they shouldn’t be able to get spousal benefits for their gay lover, just like Joe Sixpack shouldn’t be able to get spousal benefits for his girlfriend (whom he hasn’t married) or for his buddy. Because those aren’t spouses. That isn’t what marriage is.
zeroangel said:
We ask, and even command, that people suppress certain inherent urges, including sexual ones, all the time. A lot of guys claim that they can’t be satisfied with just one woman. That is just a lame excuse. Either we have self-control, or we do not. Sure, we all have weaknesses, and might stumble at times, but overall, we exert self-control over ourselves all of the time. Or else we end up dead or in jail.
zeroangel said:
No, not every heterosexual couples get them – only those that are considered married. Before I married my wife, yet after we were a couple, we didn’t get any tax breaks.
Denying them love, affection, companionship, sex, and things like that, you could make a case for those things being cruel. But claiming that, since they are not able to file joint tax returns, that that is cruel… are you serious?!
zeroangel said:
The reason why this analogy fails is that it is physically impossible for a wheelchair bound individual to get up the stairs. A homosexual can get married the same way I did, pick a member of the other gender and get married. I can no more marry someone of the same gender than they can. It is perfectly fair, in that regard.
To make a special exception, just for homosexuals, would be unfair to many others who would support their own definition of marriage. But sticking to the traditional view of marriage isn’t unfair or arbitrary, it is defined the way it is for good reason. If one doesn’t like that fact that men aren’t built for men, then too bad, you don’t then get to change the facts to fit your desires.
We may not like reality, we may not like nature’s ways, but it is what it is.
Yes, they are.
As for being born gay, I actually think it’s more an analog, rather than digital question and some folks are “more” homosexual then others.
Regarding the twins: the “experiment” wasn’t a good one because it isn’t a proper experiment. There are too many factors involved. For example, both twins may very likely be “naturally” rather gay but society exerts a great deal of pressure to be otherwise.
Concerning Sparta, not that it’s very much important to the conversation, but your description is a gross oversimplification as historians cannot agree on as to how far these relationships went. Since most people aren’t naturally gay, I am willing to bet most of these relationships were never consummated.
The huge difference being is that you are saying Joe Sixpack can marry his girlfriend but a homosexual cannot marry his significant other. You are saying their love and affection is not valid for marriage. That is WRONG.
So? Those guys don’t get married! Or get a divorce. Obviously, they aren’t in a happy marriage. Repressing urges telling me to kill or hurt someone is a totally different matter. Two gay consenting adults don’t hurt anyone.
Yes, I am serious. There is no good reason not to and you are treating them as second class citizens.
No, its not. A wheelchair bound person could struggle with great difficulty to get up stairs. Just like a homosexual would have to struggle to marry a person of the opposite gender. The analogy is PERFECT.
I am getting tired of this conversation. At this point we should agree to disagree. Your posts are becoming longer and longer and I really wish you’d try and be a bit more concise.
I will submit to you this: even if you are right that gay marriage will lead to other social ills (which I don’t think it will) I don’t care. I do not care for the following reason: it is wrong to not allow gays the same privileges as heterosexuals. I have no doubt that long ago many people argued freeing slaves would create all kinds of social ills, and well, they were right (albeit probably for the wrong reasons)! It does not matter. Society will have to adjust, because telling a person in a wheelchair to use the stairs is WRONG.
If people actually believed this attitude we would still be living in caves.
zeroangel said:
I’ve filed as both an individual, and as a couple. Neither is more “cruel” than the other. By insisting that forbidding someone to file a joint tax return is cruel, you have zero credibility, zero. CRUEL!
There is more to say, but if you insist that that is cruel, you are a lost cause, and right4life was right.
The fact that they aren’t given the option treats them as second class. That is what is cruel.
Tax laws themselves are cruel anyway you slice them. *smile*.
Go see the other thread. Let’s close this one.