Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
N.H. legalizes same-sex marriage
Yesterday, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, creating a bloc of northeast states that allow gays to wed.
Here’s my article on the long battle over language protecting religious liberty. Gov. John Lynch insisted on the language before signing the bill into law, saying he wanted a bill that protects both the liberty of homosexuals and religious organizations. Traditional marriage advocates counter that the religious liberty language was simply a “smokescreen” to deflect attention from the fact that he has previously said that he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
Here’s the final text of the bill, the governor’s press release, applause from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and condemnation from the National Organization for Marriage.
back to top148 Comments to “N.H. legalizes same-sex marriage”
“to deflection attention” or to “deflect attention”
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if a bisexual would be allowed to marry 50% of a man and 50% of a woman or if they will be restricted to one transexual?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have to worry until it hits PA, then all of my dreams that one day B will wake up and discover he is really straight will be dashed and I will have to fly to Pittsburgh and give him away for good.
Report comment to moderator
My Nashua brother in law is not happy. He says the governor’s switch from his pledge to oppose it was phony.
Report comment to moderator
The compromise was appropriate, though legally unnecessary. No church in America has ever been forced to marry anyone they didn’t want to, and they are constitutionally protected in that regards. Always have been, always will be.
Never-the-less, to allay certain fears, a “religious conscience” clause was added to the bill. Few people have a problem with that.
What’s important is that civil marriage has been granted, which is all that we have been seeking.
As of today, June 4th, 2009 for gay people in America:
6 “free” states
44 “slave” states
The long march toward freedom continues.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone here know if this was voted in by the citizens or mandated by the state government or judiciary?
Just curious.
Report comment to moderator
Liberty and justice for all, EXCEPT for consenting adults who claim to be in love and are polygamists, polyamorists, various group marriage advocates, and/or bi-sexuals who seek multiple partners of consenting adults. No “marriage equality” for them.
Report comment to moderator
As usual, dump the rights and needs of children. Who cares about the children who need to grow up with their mom and dad as married partners and who need to grow up in a world with sexual sanity and standards rather than confusion and chaos.
Put the preferences, inclinations, homrmones and whims of adults first and just clean up after the lives of our children are dashed all over the rocks.
Report comment to moderator
Next up??? Who will it be????
RI, NY, NJ, CA, PA, WA, OR ???
Almost certainly will see them all come around within Obama’s first term!
Yay!
I don’t have to worry until it hits PA, then all of my dreams that one day B will wake up and discover he is really straight will be dashed and I will have to fly to Pittsburgh and give him away for good.
I don’t know who “B” is, but unless he’s under the age of 10, it’s not all that likely that he will suddenly “discover” he was wrong about his sexual orientation! And the availability of gay marriage will have nothing to do with it! What you should hope is that – whoever “B” is – he can have a happy life with a stable partner that is supported by extended community, as opposed to a promiscuous life of superficial relationships built only around sexual gratification.
Where are your family values?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#10 – No one does this for a piece of paper – they do it for hundreds of legal rights that married couples have in the US.
The only mocking, V, is that of self-righteous bigotry. Ten years from now this will be nationally recognized, and all the holier-than-thou moralizing of the fundamentalist right wing will be understood by the majority for what it is – unacceptable and hateful prejudice practiced by ignorant numbskulls.
Report comment to moderator
#8 It is in the interests of the children of gay couples – which already exist – that their parents be married.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (#8),
There is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are any worse off than children raised by heterosexual couples.
Report comment to moderator
A piece of paper does not make a marriage – two women or two men don’t make a marriage, it’s a sham, no different then the -Emperor with no clothes- everyone knows the naked truth.
Report comment to moderator
#6 BroD – this was a legislative bill voted on by 2 houses and signed by the governor. RI has no “referendum” option. Current NH polls break both ways for and against gay marriage with a small margin. An anti-equality referendum in NH would currently have a poorer chance of passing than did Prop 8 in CA, and that one just squeaked by.
CA equality supporters are still debating whether to challenge Prop 8 in 2010, when it would still be close in CA, or to wait until 2012, at which time a majority in favor of marriage equality is assured by the death of old bigots and an infusion of more pro-equality young people into the voting population.
Report comment to moderator
gwf81 – 13
I have witnessed same sex raising two children, it’s been a disaster – both kids are homosexual – the emotional problems, drinking, drugs are monumental.
Report comment to moderator
#16 I have witnessed evangelicals raising many children with all of the same results.
Report comment to moderator
When the lives of many of these kids are exposed as they age, the emotional problems will be far more obvious. Their confusion regarding who they are, not to mention their sexual practices, which in the case of males can lead to HIV/AIDS is horrific.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (#16),
You have a problem with people citing Wikipedia for basic and trivial concepts because of its supposed unreliability, yet you provide us with anecdotal evidence to support your point. Thanks for the laugh.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark at 8.
“It’s not the sinful yucky unnatural gay sex that bothers us, it’s the effect on the children”.
“It’s not the godlessness of the schools that makes us home school, it’s the lousy education”.
“It’s not the premarital irresponsible hetero sex that bothers us, it’s the death of blobs of protoplasm”.
And so forth and so on…
Report comment to moderator
11-
Maybe ten years from now we will be on the other side of the Great Tribulation and the days that “people called evil good and good evil” will not even be a memory.
Hosanna, Lord Jesus! Save us from ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
15-
Thanks for the reply. So, how many states have you guys one by vote?
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 –
Nothing like witnessing first hand the mess same sex partners inflict on the children – Wikipedia doesn’t have a thing to do with watching two lives torn apart by an aberrant lifestyle.
Report comment to moderator
Massachusetts has had gay marriage for five years now with zero attempted polygamist marriages, zero attempted incestuous marriages, and zero attempted interspecies marriages.
The slope isn’t looking very slippery at this point. As a matter of fact, Joel Mark is the only advocate of polygamist marriage I ever hear.
Report comment to moderator
BroD -
“Maybe ten years from now we will be on the other side of the Great Tribulation and the days that “people called evil good and good evil” will not even be a memory.”
Not gonna happen – Christians have been expecting apocalyptic solutions for ~2,000 years. Even in the 19th century, thousands of upstate NYers sold all and waited on hilltops for a predicted second coming. Didn’t happen. When I was a Jesus Freak, Chuck Smith suggested it would be in 1986. NOT
When are you people gonna learn?!!!
Life has been evolving on Earth for billions of years. It will still be here in a thousand, million, and even a billion years from now.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (#23),
The point is that even if your story is true, which I doubt, your sample size is deficient by many orders of magnitude.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark is the only advocate of polygamist marriage I ever hear.
I think that’s in keeping with his literalist view of the OT. He would have made a good fundamentalist Mormon…
Report comment to moderator
#26 – GWF81, I’ve tried explaining selection bias to Victoria before. It’s her favorite hobby. The sheer dishonesty of it is beyond her comprehension.
Report comment to moderator
gwf81 – 26
The story is true whether you believe it or not. It’s been painful to anyone observing.
Report comment to moderator
erratum – I said, “It will still be here in a thousand, million, and even a billion years from now.”
But it will probably be too hot in a billion years …
In a million years, though, any remnant intelligent life on Earth will probably not even remember the quaint barbaric religion that deified a jewish teacher during the Roman occupation of Palestine.
Report comment to moderator
#24, Kwatson wrote; “Massachusetts has had gay marriage for five years now with zero attempted polygamist marriages….”
That’s because polygamists are clearly considered less human, sub-human and at best are second class citizens without equal rights. The proof is that they cannot even marry, even though they are consenting adults and can claim to be in love. Clearly, Massacusetts is an intensely bigoted state.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#28),
Yeah, I am sure it is a lost cause… I would link her to the Wikipedia article, but maybe anecdotal evidence would play more to her strengths.
Victoria,
Once I was talking with someone on an internet message board and they told a personal story to prove their point. It turned out that they were wrong. I also think they were on drugs.
Report comment to moderator
25-
It will happen one day. And no, I don’t know when. Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? Next century?
Oh, but THAT will be a truly glorious day!!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Mothers and fathers both matter to children. No same-sex partnership can provide a child with a mom and a dad, which marriage was ordained by God to provide for children.
The notion that children need both a mom and dad in their home is not bigotry. Parents, churches and faith communities should be free to transmit a marriage culture to their children without being attacked and stigmatized.
______________
Report comment to moderator
Public schools will directly instruct very young children that two men or two women being sexually intimate are just the same as a husband and wife. Christians disagree with that, but the Christian view will not be allowed in public schools.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, whether there is marriage or not for gays will not, gay people will still be raising children. Leave it to the conservative Christians to want those children punished for their parent’s “sins”.
I mean, if you can’t treat gay people unjustly, and if you can’t treat them and their children as legal and social outcasts, what the h is the point of being a conservative Christian?
“Conservative Christianity: When you want to deny other people their legal rights and treat them as social outcasts, there is no substitute for our faith. Join us, won’t you?”
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like your crystal ball was broken during those conversations! LOL
Report comment to moderator
“If society is to flourish and perpetuate itself, it must uphold marriage as a social ideal — it must raise boys and girls in a culture that encourages them to eventually marry a partner of the opposite sex, make stable and loving homes together, and have children who will one day form successful marriages of their own.”
Jeff Jacoby, Columnist. January 23, 2007.
______________
So true.
Report comment to moderator
#32 “but maybe anecdotal evidence would play more to her strengths.”
I’ve thought that too – but you can’t counter with a “straight” story either – obviously there are a lost more stories about children of heterosexuals with identity, alcohol, drug, and STD problems than children of gay couples. In fact, most of the people that have those problems are the product of straight marriages. But “V” would not interpret this as invalidating “opposite” marriage in keeping with the logic of her anti-gay position. That wouldn’t suit her purposes.
Report comment to moderator
“It will happen one day. And no, I don’t know when. Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? Next century?”
Next never!
Report comment to moderator
Children are far more at risk in multiple ways pysical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, emotional and otherwise in ANY alternative combination of people in the name of marriage besides the traditional unit of the mom & dad living together. When that traditional model is broken by a tragedy or by some accident or unavoidable factor, decent people can make the best of it and be highly respected for that effort.
Report comment to moderator
#41 Loving rational parents in a stable family (e.g., married) are a boon, regardless of gender. These are far more beneficial than deluded self-righteous, superstitious bigots.
Report comment to moderator
#33 BroD – the only thing that will “happen” as a result of beliefs like yours is that those so deluded will continue to avoid responsibility for the planet and its residents, because they think things will end before the consequences of their irresponsible actions are manifest!
Report comment to moderator
-40
Spinoza, I pray that I will see you in heaven. I will rejoice with you should that day come. But I will weep and cry if you’re not there, until my Lord wipes away every tear.
I don’t want to fight you, Spin. I want to love you into the kingdom. What is so wrong with that? Am I evil becuase I want good for you?
Report comment to moderator
#7 Joel Mark
You have stated this about sixty zillion times.
I have answered it at least 41 and a half zillion times. You ay it over and over and over and over again anyway.
I presume you post comments on “automatic pilot.” I hope you don’t drive on automatic pilot or we would be picking up the pieces all over D.C. (or wherever you live).
Report comment to moderator
-43
That is not the way I live. I believe that we are responsible for the creation. There is a verse in the bible, in Revelation, where a list is given of those that are going to the lake of fire. In that list are “the world destroyers” or something like that.
You see, I don’t believe in Pre-tribulation. But even if I did, I still hold to my responsibilty of caring for this creation. I just refuse to put the creation above the creator, and I try to put the same value on human life that God does.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: “Children are far more at risk in multiple ways pysical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, emotional and otherwise in ANY alternative combination of people in the name of marriage besides the traditional unit of the mom & dad living together.”
A particularly strong case can be made that children are at great moral, intellectual, and emotional risk (some would make a case for spiritual and physical risk as well) when they are raised in conservative Christian households, but no one is trying to deny two conservative Christians the right to get married and raise their children as they see fit. Ironically, one has a choice on whether or not they want to be a conservative Christian, unlike their sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
#41 There goes Joel again. Why do so many Christians complain when they are stereotyped and labeled and are so proudly oblivious when they do it themselves to others.
Homosexuals are just ordinary people with odd sexual tastes.
Those who otherwise behave themselves in regard to crimes such as murder, rape, theft, and spitting on the grass, should be allowed to form legal unions, whatever they are called.
Leaving space here for Yeah to rush in and do his thing…
By the way, I have never yet seen Yeah say anthing positive about anything or anyone. All he knows how to do is criticize.
I am often justly described as being this way. However, I once in a while post a coherent and constructive commet. For example, the one I posted today about death in reply to Make it Man. Has anybody, anywhere, ever seen Yeah post a comment that had something besides carping and criticism in it?
Speaking of Joel and Yeah, I several times asked Joel to separate himself from Yeah’s meditations on executing homosexuals.
Still waiting…Joel.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, you don’t know me very well or you would have seen that was my attempt at humor in the situation.
B was my high school boyfriend. When he broke up with me I was crushed, crushed I tell you. I was actually relieved to find out he didn’t reject me personally, just all women.
He has been in a committed relationship for the last 5 years and they want to get married when it is legal in PA
But see there you go knee jerking
Report comment to moderator
“you would have seen that was my attempt at humor in the situation.”
You failed
Report comment to moderator
34-
the fact that children need a mom and a dad is biological first
there are no children without a mom and a dad
I told my gay ex-relative that I am sure glad that his parents marrired each other and had him! I enjoyed him as a child, when I knew him.
Report comment to moderator
Parents, churches and faith communities should be free to transmit a marriage culture to their children without being attacked and stigmatized.
Yeah, we heard exactly the same argument put forward on interracial marriage. How did that work out for ya?
What our conservative Christian friend are telling us is that in order for them to freely practice their faith it requires that gay people surrender our rights and liberties as American citizens. That’s religious tyranny, not freedom! And we are not going to submit to your religious tyranny. We will win our freedom as American citizens.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
#44 – I like you too BroD. I also strongly regret life decisions I made in the 70’s under the influence of the belief that Jesus would return soon. I wish that no one else would make similar mistakes.
You did, however, express a wish for an apocalyptic solution (whether pre- or post-) to cut short current progress against gay marriage inequality. That’s both an unethical and an impossible hope.
Report comment to moderator
*Sigh* I wish WMB would call a moratorium on “gay” threads for awhile.
As a moral conservative I have seen the writing on the wall on this issue. As America becomes more and more secular it is inevitable that our concept of morality will be redefined.
I would call on Christians to exert their best energies in their homes and churches. If we are able to repair what is fundamentally wrong with how our lifestyles don’t match our profession of faith, we’ll have more credibility when we venture to speak.
I’m not suggesting that we abandon the civic arena, but that we recognize that society is broken because too much is going wrong in our churches and christian families. I’m not church bashing either. I believe that the hope of the world is faith in Jesus Christ and that the Church has been given the mandate to spread that faith. But judgment begins in the house of God. Too many of us are living lives that are not distinctively Christian and we are being bashed in the civic arena because of it.
*sigh*
Report comment to moderator
Or you have no sense of humor.
Report comment to moderator
I agree – there have been so many, not to mention all the homosexuals who homosexual many of the threads which are unrelated to the lifestyle.
Report comment to moderator
#54 An admirable pragmatism. I wish more evangelicals believed as you do.
But much opposition to evangelical views on homosexuality has less to do with perceived hypocrisy and christian shortcomings than with the perception that evangelical views on this issue are unethical, immoral, and wrong. This opposition is not solely “secular” but is maintained by many religious believers as well.
Report comment to moderator
#56 – This is a consequence of opposing federal support for gay marriage – By letting the issue be decided state by state, you have ensured the existence of at least fifty WMB posts on the topic of gay marriage!
Report comment to moderator
Goody another gay thread. Think I’ll go stick my head in a pot of boiling water.
Report comment to moderator
#55 So you think, for example, that racist jokes are funny? That’s a sick sense of humor.
Report comment to moderator
#56 … Of course, if there’s to-ing and fro-ing in other states as per CA, there may be many times as many posts as there are states left to support gay marriage.
Won’t it be great when we finally get to Mississippi, which will undoubtedly be last?
Or will you be ready for a federal solution before then?
Report comment to moderator
BROTHER DAN,
Be encouraged.
“In the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say,’where is this coming he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’……But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar;the elements will be destroyed by fire and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”
“But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of the righteous.” (2 Peter 3-13).
As you said, we do not worship the earth, nor is it something we need hoard for a future “someday” out of fear. We praise God for his abundant provision and seek His glory in its use.
Report comment to moderator
I will give you a coupld of true life story on being raised by homosexuals:
1. My friend Dooze was in a long term relationship with another woman. The woman had tried to be straight and had two children from her marriage. The boys always knew they had an ally in Dooze and ran to her whenever they wanted to vent over their parents. When the relationship broke up the hardest part was knowing that the boys would be leaving her life. She says homosexuals should never have children for that reason alone. One partner doens’t have rights to the children.
2. My ex-husbands cousin had to admit to his wife and children that he had AIDS. The cousin died several years ago. The daughter is happy and well adjusted the son is confused and having a hard time. My personal thought there is that he has not come to grips with his own homosexuality, but that really isn’t the point here.
3. My step-brother is the father of two little girls who are being raised by their two mommies in California. They are happy well adjusted children.
4. Me? I am the adult child of an alcoholic and I am as messed up as they come, but apparently both my parents were straight.
Which brings me back to my friend B. Not too long ago I had a dream about him where I was sitting in his lap and he was hugging me. When I mentioned it to my “group” the leader suggested that it was because my subconscious knew he was “safe” and that I needed that nurturing hug so my dream was about him instead of any straight man I know. All part of the rough couple of years I have had, because I really don’t like men right now, which brings me to my last point. If homosexuality were a choice and because women had bad experiences with men, I would probably be a lesbian.
Report comment to moderator
#57 Spinoza: This is the only thing that I will say on this thread.
“But much opposition to evangelical views on homosexuality has less to do with perceived hypocrisy and christian shortcomings than with the perception that evangelical views on this issue are unethical, immoral, and wrong. This opposition is not solely “secular” but is maintained by many religious believers as well.
This is true today, but only because, as I have stated above, morality and ethics have been redefined. The standard position held by the gay community were not conventionally held moral views (except by the tiniest minority) even one generation ago.
As the accusations of hypocrisy grew in the church (and the actual practice of this hypocrisy) the moral arena has taken on a whole new tone. There are few who would deny that.
Now I’m off to do something more constructive with my life than get bogged down on one of WMB’s infamous gay threads.
Report comment to moderator
-53
My wish for an apocolyptic solution was a retort to your post #10 “The only mocking, V, is that of self-righteous bigotry. Ten years from now this will be nationally recognized, and all the holier-than-thou moralizing of the fundamentalist right wing will be understood by the majority for what it is – unacceptable and hateful prejudice practiced by ignorant numbskulls.”
There was a lot of ad-hominem in your post. Sometimes I react negatively to such name calling.
But His return is my blessed hope. I shouldn’t use it as a weapon.
I think I’m going to give up trying to win political arguments here. Instead, I will ask myself, as a representative of Christ, how would He respond? I’ll fail at this, but I will try.
I believe He loves you and me. I believe He grieves over your turning away from Him. My belief is motivated by love, not condemnation.
May God wash you anew in His grace.
Report comment to moderator
62-DEET
Thank you. May the Lord bless you.
I believe that there will be many tears from the Christians when that day comes when we see how many people didn’t make it. But God will wipe away every tear. My joyful expectation of end of this age is mixed with the sorrow of those that will be on the wrong side of the Great Decision.
Report comment to moderator
In any event, the issue of gay people raising children is not relevant because most gay people don’t have children. And as straight people have more than adequately shown, having and raising children is not dependent on one’s marital status. Also, we allow straight couples who have no intention of having children (or without the ability to have children) to get married. We celebrate and legally recognize their marriages just as much as we do a couple with children. Heck, we allow drive-through weddings, 48-hour marriages, serial marriage, and marriage for mass murderers on death row. Gay people couldn’t possibly screw it up any more than y’all have.
Our conservative Christian friends are just going to have to get used to the fact that increasingly their anti-gay bigotry is not going to be given legal cover. It’s running smack into the fundamental right of marriage, Due Process, and Equal Protection.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
Congratulations to New Hampshire!
Report comment to moderator
Kim at #55: Or you have no sense of humor.
FWIW, I thought it was quite funny, but only after I heard the backstory. Just seeing the initial “B” without knowing who it was or what the context was left me baffled.
I am guessing some people here do know you didn’t think it would be necessary to say more than you did, but I was left in the dark.
Report comment to moderator
13. I’ve heard this many times but I’ve never see any actual stats or research just the vague statement that there is no significance difference. Plus, any research that proved otherwise would be like the racial IQ studies.
Report comment to moderator
#54 METANOIA,
Agreed. The church has not guarded its purity, and these days, seems to have abandoned discipline all together for the sake of “unity” and “loving one another”.
Concerning the gay marriage issue, in a way, the church finds itself fighting uphill for having allowed and ,to a certain degree, legitimized a redefinition of marriage through its broad acceptance of divorce.
Report comment to moderator
Kim at #63: Very good post. The grace, love and simple humanity of it will be lost on Joel Mark and Victoria and others, but I appreciated it a great deal.
My cousin died of AIDS in the early 1990s. His father was a Baptist minister. Once it became known that the minister had a gay son whom he was continuing to love and care for, the church fired him. Very sad.
Report comment to moderator
#63
#1 Just a thought – If your friend could have gotten married, she would have joint custody rights and wouldn’t have had to separate from the kids.
#2 All would have been avoided if another gay man had not felt pressured to be in “opposite marriage,” but could have practiced safe sex in a faithful same-sex marriage.
#3 Yay!
#4 Sorry to hear – and sorry to have “knee-jerked” as you pointed out. I appreciate your candor.
“Last point” – There is some evidence that women are more innately bisexual than men and capable of “choice”. But maybe this is just that there are more creepy men, and women are simply taking umbrage!
May you find the right “person” as a partner regardless. Somebody who loves you and stands by you and creates a home with you. And may you not have to endure a large segment of the population condemning you for entering into such an arrangement!
Report comment to moderator
Society is constantly in the process of redefining its concept of morality. Fortunately, God never changes His concept of morality. The lies that satan brings are a smokescreen designed to cloud over the moral absolutes upon which civilized society has been built. But no matter what any court of law declares, no matter what laws any government passes, it will never change the severity of moral impurity in the eyes of a holy God.
Report comment to moderator
KBells (#70),
If you are genuinely interested in studies on this topic, it is trivial to find them.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
Report comment to moderator
“If homosexuality were a choice and because women had bad experiences with men, I would probably be a lesbian.”
This type of statement intrigues me. Mainly because, where as men are definately and most often jerks and bums…women have their faults as well and can treat each other just as rotten.
I knew a girl growing up who became a lesbian, based on her first experience with a guy, according to her. It wasnt a good one apparently. She was also adopted and never had a good relationship with her father.
Report comment to moderator
I think you might have misinterpreted Kim in #3 Spinoza. She’s one of the good people on here and she’s got a kind heart.
*****
I’ll bet if the conservative Christians were having their fundamental rights abridged, we’d see posts on here day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year until it was made right.
I can say this much – we are never giving up the fight for our freedom. I think the American people’s fundamental sense of justice and fairness is a plus for our side and will win out for us when all is said and done.
Liberty and justice for all!
Report comment to moderator
#70 It was stated in the negative – so the fact that you’ve seen no studies doesn’t undermine the proposition that “their is no evidence…”
But I suppose you think the burden of proof is on gays to show no difference. That should be easy, given the state of the average American “opposite” marriage and its ill-behaved spawn. The bar is already quite low!
But I do agree it would be interesting to see statistical comparisons with a uniform metric for evaluating well-being. Of course, “V’s” consists mostly of whether or not the progeny become evangelical Christians. It may well be likely that children of gay parents are less likely to be evangelical Christians. On the other hand, they might use it as a means to rebell!
The Wikipedia “Same Sex Marriage” site summarizes key relevant studies. Studies show some differences for fatherless “families” (single mother and/or 2 mothers).
Research has found no major differences in parenting or child development between families headed by two mothers and other fatherless families.
Three studies are cited and referenced in the original article:
Same Sex Marriage They have a small sample size and don’t address same-sex male parenting.
Report comment to moderator
I think you might have misinterpreted Kim in #3 Spinoza.
Yes I think I did … I apologized in #73, but it’s kinda buried in there …
Report comment to moderator
#75 – That’s a pretty big sample!
“Oct. 13, 2005 (Washington) — An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.”
Report comment to moderator
Hi again, Random Name. Thanks for keeping me in the news. Why do you keep entertaining me by demonstrating your obsession with me, especially when it’s clear nobody else cares? I’ve clearly struck a nerve with you, somehow, but hanged if I know why. I’m not appreciably different than a lot of folks here. And not that anyone cares about this either, but I’ve made a number of just plain old discussion-type posts here. You’re not paying attention. But since you refer to me derisively, and do it so often, and since I respond in kind now and then, that probably accounts for your hyper-negative perception of me.
As an extra analysis, free of charge: Your daughter’s homosexuality is the reason you’re so emotionally invested in the subject (duh), and that unfortunate fact handicaps you from being able to think clearly on the matter. Same with a number of like-minded people in this very thread. The consequences are tragic, both now, and by-and-by. The nature of homosexual is insidious; it goes deep and is not easily forsaken.
Take care!
Report comment to moderator
Apocalypse! Now!
At least some of the bizarre thinking that underlies much fundamentalist Christian doctrine seeps out into the open occasionally.
(Besides, who knew that the Apocalypse would be kicked off in New Hampshire. I would have voted for New York or California)
Report comment to moderator
75 & 78. Thanks. I will look those over when I return from the t-ball game.
Report comment to moderator
#16
I haven’t seen your children, Victoria. Based on the vapid and frequent comments you post, I certainly would expect disasters.
Are any of Victoria’s children reading? If you are, please post some comments. We would like to examine them for vapidity (a new favorite insult courtesy of NJL, who just handed it to me). It’s possible Victoria’s children are better than mom. Hard to believe, but we should give them a fair chance.
Also, on the Internet, nobody knows your sex. How do we know that the person using the screen name “Victoria” is not a man dressed in drag, giving transvestites a bad name by his self-hatred?
Report comment to moderator
I’ll first say a nice thing: Elton John sings well. (Now I can move on.)
Do homosexuals find any sexual relationships to be wrong? (I want to exclude forced sex, sex with a minor,and adulterous relationships/cheating from consideration.) For instance will premarital sex be wrong now that you have been granted marriage status? What about bestiality? What about sex between close relations? What about polygamous relationships? What about sex for hire? These are all instances of consenting sexual relationships (except maybe for the beast)? So long as no one is hurt is consent your only requirement?
Report comment to moderator
Serious post. For reasons I don’t know, during my 65 years of life, I have known quite a few homosexual people. Men and women, old and young, working a variety of occupations, displaying a variety of faults and virtues and types of behavior.
As long as they are not breaking any laws and are of the age of consent, they should be allowed to form legal unions. I don’t care whether their arrangements are called “marriage” or not.
This is a sensible proposal, and gradually people in the United States are sliding around to recognizing this as a reasonable desire.
I have presented a succinct, positive, and coherent political opinion with no sarcasm and no personal attacks.
I request participants in this discussion to tell me briefly and clearly why homosexual adult law-abiding United States citizen should not be allowed access to this kind of union.
Although prohibiting legal unions is not as bad as burning people at the stake, stoning them, hanging them, drowning them and similar types of persecutions done over history in the name of or against the name of religion, I still consider refusal to accept such a sensible arrangement as persecution and a denial of human rights.
I am a United States citizen by birth. I vote in most elections. I do not consider political party a type of race or identity politics. I sometimes vote for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans. I respect people’s right to practice their religions and to speak their minds, but I do not consider beliefs based on books of myths as a very good basis for making our rules and laws. So I would prefer that you state your argument on other grounds, if you are able.
Report comment to moderator
#84 is a pertinent example of a silly and prejudiced post.
Have you ever met a homosexual in your life? Or do they only exist in stories about the boogeyman someone told you.
There are heterosexual people who are “swingers” and engage in sex of every description. There are homosexual people who are “swingers” and engage in sex of every description.
There are heterosexual people who are very faithful, sensible, and prudent in their sexual lives. There are homosexual people who are very faithful, sensible, and prudent in their sexual lives.
NOPM are you willing to tell us every detail of your personal sexual life? Perhaps it is impeccable. Perhaps it is awful. I don’t know. Nobody here knows the slightest thing about you. You would be rightfully insulted if I started making up stories about ou out of my imagination.
but you are quite willing to do the same without the slightest bit of embarrassment or shame. Fortunately, you and people like ou are losing this battle. Unfortunately, it will take a long time for your children to outgrow your nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
-86
First, your last paragraph is a straw man requirement. And I really wish I had time for a lengthy reply, but I’m at work.
But perhaps you have time to reply to this question: why do you insist on the word “marriage”? It’s just a word, isn’t it? In state after state, aren’t civil unions granting all the same legal rights? Why do you insist on the word?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG thanks for understanding.
Spinoza, thanks for the apology. I myself was baffled as to how you could compare it to a racist joke, when I was freely admitting how much I have always loved this man.
Anlir, thanks for the vote of confidence. It isn’t easy to be on your side and when I am I hate to get “kicked”
As I like to remind people, Billy Graham once wrote in my local paper that if he had a gay son he would love him more, because he would need him more.
Report comment to moderator
Alright Random, rather than asking homosexuals generally, consider my post (#85) to be directly asked to you. Do believe any or all of the relationships I mentioned in #85 to be immoral? I will answer my own post — I believe all the sexual relationships I asked about in #85 to be immoral. Consent doesn’t define morality for me.
You are certainly not obligated to answer me, but why you continue to sidetrack by saying that heterosexuals engage in those behaviours is really beside the point. I’m not asking anyone to relate the details of their sex lives. I’m specifically asking for your views. From your #86 post it seems fairly clear that consent may be your only criteria for the situations I asked about.
Report comment to moderator
“For instance will premarital sex be wrong now that you have been granted marriage status? What about bestiality? What about sex between close relations? What about polygamous relationships? What about sex for hire? These are all instances of consenting sexual relationships (except maybe for the beast)? So long as no one is hurt is consent your only requirement?”
What makes you think we’re opposed to sex occasionally hurting? I think you lose your status as a person able and fit to give consent if you demonstrate and willingness or desire to do permanent harm to yourself, but “as long as no one gets hurt” isn’t a standard.
Consent is actually a great tool for distinguishing good from bad sexual behavior. Consent as a standard protects people from exploitation and rape. It sets tools for creating limits that are negotiated between two people of equal power. It enables people to refuse. And it makes sex enjoyable.
The standards for separating good sex from bad sex that the Christian right offers up, however, are historic failures with respect to protecting people from exploitation and rape. “Marriage” is a terrible standard for sexual ethics. It functioned for 6000 years (conservatively by creationist estimates) to make a woman vulnerable to rape and exploitation by any man who happened to be her husband. And those same standards held her disproportionately accountable for rape and other forms of sexualized violence.
Every Christian woman who wants to tout her marriage and criticize feminism should face up to this fact. Under Christianity’s watch it was perfect legal for a woman’s husband to hold her down and rape her (or to use financial or personal threats to force her into sex) in every U.S. state till 1976. It is feminism and a CONSENT standard, not marriage, that protects women from sexual slavery in American marriages. CONSENT and feminism are a better sexual ethic than your Christian leaders have managed to cook up in 2000 years. And every woman who now knows with confidence that she can say NO and not be raped in her own home with no legal recourse, owes “marriage” nothing for this safety and owes CONSENT and feminism a big, fat thank you!
You Christian hypocrites are sexual morality failures and you need to get over yourselves.
Report comment to moderator
“Under Christianity’s watch…”
That’s how these people frame these discussions. Christianity is pro-rape. Out to LUNCH, folks.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s more disengenuousnessosity:
I do not consider beliefs based on books of myths as a very good basis for making our rules and laws. So I would prefer that you state your argument on other grounds, if you are able.
In other words,
Assume you’re wrong. Also, assume I’m right. Now on those premises, prove me wrong.
Report comment to moderator
No YEAH, I am spot on.
Your religions sexual ethics were the hegemonic ideology of this country till the sexual revolution. That’s why we had to have a sexual revolution.
American Christianity is not and has never been “pro-rape” (and you using that term shows that your not capable of behaving in this conversation like an adult).
But Christianity let women be raped for 200 years of this nations existence, because it lacked the ability to recognize rape when it happened, all because “God” in his infinite wisdom, back when he was divinely revealing all answers, never said, “Hey fellas, she has to be into it too.” Sexual ethics FAIL.
Report comment to moderator
Most rape was never prosecuted because there was no “proof” and if there was “proof” (a pregnancy) they believed that a woman had to have achieved orgasm as well. It was scientific stupidity.
Report comment to moderator
The pro-family crowd continues to crack me up. Within the past year, evangelicals have swooned before two air-headed beauty queens, and held them up as models of Christian womanhood. (Since when did Christian womanhood include getting a boob job and prancing around before men in a skimpy bathing suit?) But gay marriage is supposed to be so awful?
Take the plank out of your own eye, folks. When the evangelical divorce rate in America is in the single digits, conservative Christians will have more credibility when they speak on family-related issues.
Report comment to moderator
Once you radically marriage to suit the will of a particular special interest group, other interest groups will apply in time seekinbg newer re-definitions. And we have absolutely no rational or legal or moral reason to stop them.
Andy Warhol defined “art” as “anything you can get away with.”
To the degree that any bought into this, “art” was devalued and diminished.
Now, marriage is becoming “anything you can get away with.”
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, you seem to have a problem of separating actual behaviours from principles or ideals. Ideally marriage is not only between a man and a woman, but also between consenting adults. Sex, even in a marriage relationship, should be based on consent. People’s actual practices may certainly be different, but I doubt very much that every rape committed was committed by Christians.
Obviously consent has its place, but it isn’t the only standard. The only standard is God’s standard. In other words if He gives His approval (consent) then that is what is best. And, of course, He designed all things to function well when they function by His standard.
And, don’t bother saying pointing to what Christianity has given us. Not everything done in the name of Christianity is christian. And every true Christian already admits they are a sinner and have sinned and still continue to do so.
So, at least, now I know that consent is the only standard you have. I sort of figured that was the case, but I wanted it verified.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
For my part I don’t remember myself swooning.
I can lump all homosexuals together in one sense. They all engage in the sin of homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Yep consent and respect has always been at the center of Christian sexual doctrine.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife.
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.
Report comment to moderator
#89 Well it doesn’t help that you have the same name as my ex-wife!!
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes, the sexual revolution gave us so much: abortion, STD epidemics, out of wedlock children, divorce, date rape, teen pregnancy, porn on demand.
Report comment to moderator
JM – “Once you radically marriage to suit the will of a particular special interest group, other interest groups will apply in time seekinbg newer re-definitions.”
That’s a really intriguing sentence. It sorta speaks for itself…
Report comment to moderator
#102 – all of those pre-date the 60’s sexual revolution which was, in its most extreme form, a failed experiment provoked by a failed socially conservative morality.
Report comment to moderator
#100 And don’t forget:
“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ …. 20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you,” (Deut. 22:13).
This little gem figures in a recent pro-equality PSA that is seriously amusing:
“The Defenders”
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
You won’t submit to any authority?
Christians all submit to God and do it out of love just as the wife submits out of love to a loving husband. (I know its fun to quote bits and pieces of the Bible without the context. I’ve done it myself to get a few laughs now and then.) And if you are not doing that then it is likely a willful misunderstanding.
Report comment to moderator
105
Sin has consequences. Apparently cheating and adultery have approval in your circles?
Report comment to moderator
#107 Apparently cheating and adultery have approval in your circles?
Approval no – But apparently they deserve the death penalty in your circles? That’s sick…
Report comment to moderator
#99 – Norm wrote; “I can lump all homosexuals together in one sense. They all engage in the sin of homosexuality.”
However, all those who repent and are transformed by God’s powerful grace and sanctified through the Holy Spirit, will be with the saved eternally in heaven, according to Christianity, the religion of repentance and forgiveness.
Report comment to moderator
Technically every sin deserves the death penalty. But, yes God required the death penalty for adultery. [Someone once pointed out that every one of the 10 commandments required the death penalty for breaking a commandment in at least some fashion. I've never tried to verify that statement, but it could be true.]
Report comment to moderator
#109 And those that watch out and neither cry nor pout, who are not naughty but nice and are good for goodness sake, they will reap tremendous reward when Santa Claus comes to town!
Report comment to moderator
#110 Please watch “The Defenders” link I posted above for an illustration of how stupid that sounds to normal people.
Here’s the YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another one:
http://www.youtube.com/user/KeithHartman1
Report comment to moderator
Mynock,
My point is that evangelicals only rail against sins that cut against the grain of the evangelical subculture. Evangelicals may not condone adultry and divorce. Yet they don’t condemn them vocally because many evangelicals commit those sins. Pastors don’t preach against pornography because legions of evangelical men are addicted to it. (Porn sales, after all, are higher in regions of the country where evangelicals dominate the country.)
Report comment to moderator
KBells in 102 – “the sexual revolution gave us so much: abortion, STD epidemics, out of wedlock children, divorce, date rape, teen pregnancy, porn on demand.”
It’s now official. At least one of those things is increased by gay marriage bans!
Link: Study: Bans on gay marriage lead to rise in HIV infections
Report comment to moderator
From the study:
“Intolerance is deadly,” Mialon said. “Bans on gay marriage codify intolerance, causing more gay people to shift to underground sexual behaviors that carry more risk.”
Report comment to moderator
Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, AIDS was unheard of and Abortion really was rare before the sexual revolution.
Report comment to moderator
NH where I live has been formally conquered by Taxachusettes liberals.
I could care less what special rights the state grants to special groups with bizarre and grotesque behavior problems. But please don’t call it marriage. Too late. Lynch is the worst governor in the history of our state.
Report comment to moderator
The divorce rate in the US doubled from 1963 to 1974
Report comment to moderator
Prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. Both were easily treatable with antibiotics. In the sixties and seventies this relatively stable situation began to change. For example, in 1976, chlamydia first appeared in increasing numbers in the United States. Chlamydia, particularly dangerous to women, is now the most common STD in the country. Then in 1981, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus which causes AIDS, was identified. By early 1993, between 1 and 2 million Americans were infected with AIDS, over 12 million were infected worldwide, and over 160,000 had died in the U.S. alone. Over 10% of the total U.S. population, 30 million people, are infected with herpes.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, so America was founded as a Christian nation, eh, Mynock (94)? It was because all those founders were orthodox Christians who encoded our laws on a strictly Christian basis that made rape so pervasive…until we ditched all that in the ’60s. How could I not have seen that?
Report comment to moderator
I can’t believe how incoherent this thread has gotten.
Consent is a serious issue, but not the only issue. Consequences are also a serious issue. Sex often causes pregnancy. For that reason sex between married adults is good because even intelligent and educated adults who take precautions get pregnant. After raising two children, my brother and his wife, who has been a midwife and nurse and head nurse of the obstetrical department of a major hospital had an “oopsie” as they described it to me. They thought about abortion, but decided to keep the child, who is now doing fine (and shows signs of being a mathematical genius.
I am not against marriage of heterosexual people. However, I know no way to force all people who have sex to be married and responsible. Nor do you. Though apparently you think posting preachy messages on blogs will do something (which sounds narcissistic to me).
Report comment to moderator
Sex by homosexuals seldom causes pregnancies or abortions.
On the other hand, all kinds of sexual activities leads to sexually transmitted diseases, as several people have mentioned.
I don’t know how to stop people from engaging in careless sex with multiple partners, which probably is the leading cause of STDs being transmitted.
Again, posting self-righteous messages on a blog accomplishes little except giving you an opportunity to preen and feel righteous.
If homosexual sex is a “sin” that is an opinion. Sexual sinx may cause you to go to Hell. That is up to God to take care of as far as I am concerned. This is not a tangible consequence that can be measured, evaluated, or proven.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage or union provides contracts so that people in sexual relationships can plan for issues such as caring for children, sharing resources, and handling dissolutions. Heterosexuals and homosexuals should have the opportunity to create and manage such contracts. If you want to label heterosexual contracts “marriages” and homosexual ones “unions,” that is a sop I think you should get so you would just be quiet and go back to singing hymns in church.
Report comment to moderator
Christians are not being “persecuted.” They are not being respected as much as they once were, which they interpret as persecution. They no longer get the opportunity to persecute homosexuals which they interpret as persecution.
Many of us regard these reactions as whining.
Report comment to moderator
#60, Spinoza, yes, some racist jokes are very funny. In fact they have made several black comedians very rich. Now don’t be a hot head (Richard Pryor) or start cursing (Redd Foxx) or get all judgemental (Pigmeat Markum) . But it doesn’t take a short , half blind, black, jewish tap dancer (Sammy Davis Jr.) to realise that racist jokes can be very funny indeed.
Report comment to moderator
#60 … extra, The jokes the Tajiks tell about the Pashtuns are really quite hysterical.
Report comment to moderator
109
Yes you are right. We can be thankful for that.
You all have my consent to continue this thread. And I won’t be hurt if I miss out.
Immoral behavior has negative consequences. Nothing new there.
Report comment to moderator
Remember to argue the idea not the person. And I’m talking to both sides of this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Randon (126) seems to have hit the nail on the head.
For about 120 years (1830s to 1950s), conservative white Christians held a monopoly on power in many parts of this country. During that period, we enjoyed certain social benefits (e.g., safer streets, more stable family life, etc.). But we also suffered certain social ills, such as the relegation of women second-class citizenship and of African-Americans to something even lower. In that same era, only those of WASP descent were allowed into professions such as medicine and law.
That era is gone, and it is gone forever. We now have more crime and more sex. But we also have lots of minorities who have become doctors and lawyers. African-Americans now routinely vote in the South, and can even use the same facilities as their white Christian brethren. In the end, I think that we’re a more just nation today, although our social fabric is much more chaotic.
It is natural for conservative white Christians to long for the day when their religion and skin color conferred automatic status on them. They want to tell everyone that the world would be better if we again became a society ruled by conservative white Christian men. But no one is listening.
The incessant whining of conservative white Christians has one root cause: Power. They used to have it as a matter of right; now they have to earn it; they’re not doing a very good job of earning it; so, they’d rather return to the days where they have power as a matter of right.
I too prefer a more structured democracy, such as that advocated by Joseph Schumpeter or Roger Scruton. But that is not the society in which we live. Moreover, I wonder whether such a society is possible without a hierarchical institutional church at its center. Because mainline Protestantism has faded, we have an ecclesial vacuum at the center of society. Nothing will rise to fill it anytime soon.
Report comment to moderator
RSD: You may be on to something. That’s also likely why conservative Christians find it so important to get government endorsement of their religion … during the time period you defined, they could get that, usually without objection, because conservative Christianity was pervasive.
Now our country is religiously pluralistic in a way it never was before (in the past, the greatest religious divide we had was, Protestant vs. Catholic). If the government stays religiously neutral, as it should, conservative Christians have to confront their relative lack of power compared to times past. If they could just get the Nativity on the Courthouse lawn and not have any pesky atheists, Jews or Muslims object, they might be able to relax with some assurance they’re still in charge.
Because we liberal Christians are not all that concerned with gaining power, we have to be denounced along with the non-Christians.
Hm. Yes, I do think you’re on the right track.
Report comment to moderator
#109
I am mean to Joel sometimes. However, to be fair (though it hurs at lot), he does post positive, constructive comments at times.
As do I, though less often.
Report comment to moderator
However, I have never seen Yeah post a postive, constructive comment. I seldom post one, but I do once in a while.
Once Yeah disagreed with Victoria. I thought good for him.
Then I thought That is a negative critical comment.
I have seen Victoria post sensible comments about teenage sexuality (they can’t control it) and about autism.
If a conservative Christian posts a sensible constructive comment I will acknowledge it. If Yeah posts a sensible constructive comment without any criticism of another person it it, I will acknowledge it and applaud him. This is called positive reinforcement in Skinnerian terms.
For operant conditioning to work, you have to spot at least one instance of positive behavior and then reinforce it.
Report comment to moderator
Therefore, if you see Yeah make a positive comment about anything:
1) Encourage him in a polite, concise, non-sarcastic way.
2) Notify me so I can do the same. Email me at eman_modnar@yahoo.com. I will do the same.
Report comment to moderator
Being so positive and constructive is causing me to sneeze and blow my nose. (I have allergies.)
I am going to gay the thread just to get even.
Report comment to moderator
KBells – the alleged ills of the 60’s sexual revolution comprise a good argument for gay marriage. Why aren’t you for it?
Report comment to moderator
According to the study I linked to in #115 – those who supported Prop 8 will be the cause of a quadrupling of the HIV infection rate.
Way to go …
Report comment to moderator
Oh dear.
Random, this is getting serious. I worry for you. Nobody else cares about your obsession with me. Won’t you at least give us a hint as to what’s motivating you on this point? It’s sad, really.
Report comment to moderator
“According to the study I linked to in #115 – those who supported Prop 8 will be the cause of a quadrupling of the HIV infection rate.
Way to go …”
So you need a sheet of paper, defining marriage to include gays, as your source for limiting HIV via, monogamous relationships?
Since when is a sheet of paper or a definition needed to take part in a committed relationship?
Why cant you stay committed, faithful, and monogamous already?
Report comment to moderator
“Pastors don’t preach against pornography because legions of evangelical men are addicted to it.”
Um my black pastor does actually. Its an evangelical, protestant church in the heart of Mississippi.
“But we also suffered certain social ills, such as the relegation of women second-class citizenship and of African-Americans to something even lower.”
Really? No other country did this before the great USA?? Many non christian nations have throughout history made slaves out of men. The issue is not christianity, or conservativism, or the USA. It’s man’s own corrupt heart.
You also had christians who led the end of slavery, led women to voting rights, and took part in civil rights era. Many of them conservative and white.
“African-Americans now routinely vote in the South, and can even use the same facilities as their white Christian brethren.”
Does the North allow this yet? Did you know that the largest slave owner in Mississippi was a black man from Natchez?
My point is simply that your blinders are whining. Get over it if Christians want to take part in politics. They have just as much right as the next guy to influence policy.
As christians though, politics should be the least of our worries. We should be having 10 kids a family, and witnessing the love of Christ to our communities in the least.
That is one thing I agree with you, christians need to quit waiting for it to just be handed back to them, cause it aint gonna happen without a return to the dedication of family and service to their communities.
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
Spousal rape wasn’t prosecuted pre-1976, because it wasn’t illegal!
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “Evangelicals may not condone adultry and divorce. Yet they don’t condemn them vocally because many evangelicals commit those sins.”
This stereotype is off target. RSD obviously does not know or listen to many evangelicals.
I also often hear preaching against addiction to or abuse of pornography, often because pastors who counsel struggling people who come to them for help know that these addictions are real and so are the struggles with them.
Evangelicals are human and so some selectivity & bias may well come into play in their lives and their discourse. This is inevitable. But RSD does not have a handle on the nature of that human reality when it comes to evangelical pastors in general.
Report comment to moderator
RSD may agree with me on this, but I do see a slight decline in preaching on sin of any sort these days and a bit more preaching on pragmatic themes like how to be a better parent, or handle finances, or seek a career or get along at work, etc. I am not against such preaching, but it is important that our preaching take on the problem of sin (at all levels of commission and omission), or it is not real preaching at all.
Report comment to moderator
#144 “a bit more preaching on pragmatic themes . . . “
Quite the understatement. Every once in a while I’ll do a sample survey of all the preaching and teaching that is available in my area through TV and radio. I will visit a bookstore and find the same thing. Preaching of Gospel is almost non-existent.
It is mostly self-help pop psychology.
I have the luxury of visiting many churches and most of the sermon series and materials available on their websites and bookstores reveaal the very same thing.
While you may not be “against such preaching” (and I think you were just being diplomatic), I am. I think the pulpit needs to be used for clear and thorough preaching of the Gospel. Christians can get all that other stuff on their own if most of them would just shut off the TV and did some quality reading.
Report comment to moderator
#139
What I said.
Report comment to moderator
#146: Good. And now your motivation part?
Report comment to moderator
Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual.
_____________another excerpt___________
Some researchers who uncovered sexual preference differences between homosexually and heterosexually parented children, nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found. Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas.
All social scientists who conduct research in this emotionally-charged area have personal biases. That’s a given. But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!