Who favors same-sex marriage?
It’s getting to the point where you don’t need to ask someone’s opinion on same-sex marriage. A person’s age, address, and party affiliation get you close enough to the answer. A Fox News poll shows how neatly divided the country is on the question, but also with some surprising movement:
“Those most likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally include liberals (59 percent), Democrats (56 percent), Northeasterners (55 percent), and those under age 30 (52 percent).
“Conservatives (38 percent), Republicans (37 percent), those ages 65 and over (37 percent), and those with less than a college education (36 percent) are among those most likely to say there should be no legal recognition for same-sex relationships.
“Among those who attend religious services regularly, 20 percent believe gays should be allowed to marry legally, 31 percent support a legal partnership and 43 percent believe there should be no legal recognition.
“For those who attend services rarely, 44 percent support legal marriage, 31 percent legal partnership and 20 percent no legal recognition.”
Notice the predictable groups in favor: liberals, Democrats, Northeasterners, and the young. All of those groups are within seven points of each other. On the other hand, conservatives, Republicans, retirees, and the uneducated are all within two points of each other.
One might conclude from the “less than a college education” figure that training in the art of thinking along with access to relevant information leads one to the more liberal view on this question. But I think it is more indicative of the politically charged state of higher education in our country these days. According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, it is a sad fact that people leave many colleges and universities, even the most prestigious ones, knowing less about government and politics than they knew upon entering.
The national figures for opposition to same-sex marriage is 37 percent for and 57 percent against. While that looks decisive, the figures below the surface paint a different picture. From the summer of 2004 through 2006 and 2009 to now, the national figures for supporting same-sex marriage have climbed dramatically from 25 percent to 27 percent to 33 percent to 37 percent. Correspondingly, between the summers of ’06 and ’09, support for “no legal recognition” fell 10 points from 39 percent to 29 percent. That is a significant cultural shift.
It is also striking that legally recognizing unions between people of the same sex has the approval of only 19 percent of Republicans. One wonders how many of those are libertarians and social liberals within the party. That level of support is almost the same as the 20 percent support among people “who attend religious services regularly.” That church-attending group gives 31 percent of its support to some sort of legally recognized partnership, lower than the Republican figure of 39 percent.
Incidentally, it would be wrong to suspect that the poll is biased against same-sex marriage just because it is from Fox News. I have strong suspicions that the network fully supports the idea and actively promotes it. It frequently runs stories on the subject to the point that I cannot let my children watch the cable channel’s shows without great caution. Yes, news on this subject is event-driven, but their stories always feature multiple, successive images of same-sex couples “marrying,” kissing, hugging, etc. All of this seems calculated to desensitize us to what traditionally would have shocked the average viewer, and to convince us of its normalcy and the inevitable legalization and social acceptance of the practice.
CBS reporter Lesley Stahl once did a story on Ronald Reagan that was highly critical of the president. Michael Deaver, Reagan’s deputy chief of staff for image-crafting, phoned her up and thanked her for it. She was confused, of course. But he pointed out that the images were all quite flattering, and that is all that people would remember.
Lesson learned. And Fox knows it. Perhaps that accounts for some of the shift.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top118 Comments to “Who favors same-sex marriage?”
Notice the predictable groups in favor: liberals, Democrats, Northeasterners, and the young. All of those groups are within seven points of each other. On the other hand, conservatives, Republicans, retirees, and the uneducated are all within two points of each other.
Predictable groups in favor, predictable groups opposed.
And me? I do favor it. I am liberal, and I am a Democrat. I am not from or in the northeast, and I am not young … well, I am quite a few years north of 30, which was the age mentioned in the report. And I do attend religious services regularly.
So whether I’m “predictable” or not, I’ll leave to others to judge.
Report comment to moderator
The battle over gay marriage is over. That’s why Beck, Hasselbeck, Dr. Laura, Coulter, Limbaugh, and many, many other conservatives have either stopped talking about it, toned their language about it way down, or outright endorsed it.
Report comment to moderator
When states allow a vote, usually a marriage-protection amendment is passed. When the judges rule, they usually destroy these amendments. I do not think the battle is over. In addition, Roe vs Wade proved that a battle can be pronounced “over” and not be over, no matter what the courts say. In addition, giving same-sex couples a marriage license does NOT make their relationship a marriage. The Bible’s definition of marriage is found in Jesus’ statement
“Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? And said, Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And the two shall be one flesh… What GOD hath therefore joined together, let not man put apart.” Mathew 19:4-6
Report comment to moderator
God makes marriages, and He defines them as one man and one woman for life. Same-sex marriage is a mockery of God and his created order. In addition, it is frequently based on the unproven argument that people are born homosexual and cannot change. For a challenge to that idea, look up exodusinternational.org, an organization dedicated to helping people leave homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
“I cannot let my children watch the cable channel’s shows without great caution. Yes, news on this subject is event-driven, but their stories always feature multiple, successive images of same-sex couples “marrying,” kissing, hugging, etc.”
I really don’t get this. What’s the point? Does Mr. Innes fear that if his kids are exposed to affectionate homosexuals at a young age that they might actually grow up to be gay or gay tolerant?
Report comment to moderator
One might conclude from the “less than a college education” figure that training in the art of thinking along with access to relevant information leads one to the more liberal view on this question. But I think it is more indicative of the politically charged state of higher education in our country these days.
I would think “going to college” takes many people out of their comfort zone and forces them to reevaluate their opinions. Note, its the actual physical move to a different place that is the determinant not the actual politicizing from the front of the classroom which most students are good at ignoring.
Report comment to moderator
I also wonder if their is a rural urban split in the polling
Report comment to moderator
“God makes marriages, and He defines them as one man and one woman for life. Same-sex marriage is a mockery of God and his created order.”
Collegestudent, I don’t believe in your God. Please stop trying to make me live as if I did. That’s religious tyranny. Let’s make a deal, I won’t try to tell you who you can and can’t marry, and you can do the same for me.
Report comment to moderator
wow I need to go back to work soon “their” should be “there”
Report comment to moderator
When the State moves this far from a Biblical foundation for a law, I wonder if the Church should turn away from it. Maybe Christian couples who solemnize their marriage Biblicly, in the church, and with God as their third partner should ignore the legal registration. Let the State recognize under Common Law what has been established under God.
Report comment to moderator
For a Christian the Word of God has the finial say…..
Report comment to moderator
They should have asked those polled if they have a relative who is homosexual. People are probably more accepting if they have a close relative who is homosexual.
Some think that as we are desensitized to homosexuality that more of our children will be open to trying it out to see if they might be homosexual. No longer can you be friends with the same sex because your friend might be a closet homosexual. These days, if 2 girls or 2 guys rent together, people might think they are homosexual. Especially if they shop together. I always wonder that myself when I see 2 in the store. More often it is 2 heterosexual mates who are unmarried living together. (That only happens when I am shopping in the off hours.)
Which begs the question of “WHY do homosexuals WANT to get married, while heterosexuals most likely DON’T want to get married?”
Report comment to moderator
Opponents never seem to care about the difference between civil law and religious law.
Civil law applies to everyone who lives within the jurisdiction it covers.
Religious law applies only to people who are part of the religion (except in theocratic governments, which we are not.)
Therefore, it would be entirely possible for the government to create a same-sex marriage law available to the populace at large, while members of religions that don’t believe in same-sex marriage will be free not to take part. Just as right now I can buy a bottle of whiskey, and my neighbor who believes drinking alcohol is a sin is not forced to partake.
This should be the clear and obvious solution.
Report comment to moderator
DOULOS8 #10 Bingo!
The emerging definition of “marriage” used by the state is clearly not what the Bible describes. It may be okay to register with the government as a couple for a variety of reasons. But the time is fast approaching that Christians should have Biblical marriage unions totally unrelated to the state.
Since word definitions are so variable (approaching meaningless), if the couple is especially happy they could have a “gay wedding.”
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans – I believe there is also going to be a time in this nation, that if you speak out against the GLBT Community, you will be charged with a hate crime.
A friend of mine who is a Chaplian in the Air Force told me that Washington is being pressure that one’s the don’t ask don’t tell is removed. That the GLBT Community want the Military to tell the Christian Chaplians, what they can and can not preach. An they want it done under a Military version of hate crime law.
Report comment to moderator
As evil as it is to destroy the basic definition of marriage itself to please a militant special interest group and keep Democrats in political power, what is even worse is the fact that 40 percent of all American babies are born out of wedlock, and in almost all these cases, it is coldly intentional.
Same-sex marriage adds to this problem by intentionally disolving the marriage model that best ensures that babies will grow up in a home with their mom and dad in the home together (which is the most basic natural right of all).
But who cares about human babies anyway anymore?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, You are right on. The Christian community needs to humbly champion the high privileges, responsibilities and joys of Biblical marriage. Repentance must begin with the house of God.
Report comment to moderator
“So whether I’m “predictable” or not, I’ll leave to others to judge.”
Oh, you’re predictable.
Marriage predates Christianity and throughout time and cultures, homosexuality has been discouraged and unacceptable. This issue predates religious law. What we have to keep in mind is that what’s happening is spoken about in Scripture as are a lot of things. We should remember what the ultimate goal is
Report comment to moderator
BY mrs.news2me 08.25.10 AT 4:50 PM
Which begs the question of “WHY do homosexuals WANT to get married, while heterosexuals most likely DON’T want to get married?”
———————————————————–
That’s the key question, similar to why homosexuals need to have gay marriage, and not just civil unions.
The answer is legitmacy. Most people base their moral decisions on what is legal; if the law says that it is okay, then it is.
The book of Romans shows that God’s law is revealed in all of our hearts, meaning we all know what is right and what is wrong.
I think that homosexuals believe that if gay marriage becomes legal, then somehow everything will be okay, and even God will accept it. That nagging feeling inside that their lifestyle is wrong might actually be easier to ignore if it is legal. They just can’t fathom the idea that it will be a sin if it is legal.
This is also symptomatic of a universalism among most people; they just don’t believe that God will actually judge people and that there will be a separation of the sheep and the goats.
Report comment to moderator
Fisher, I think you’re right. People know. They also want heterosexuals to accept them. The truth is there will always be a distinction, just as there is a distinction between singles and marrieds — it’s a different life. And when one is widowed, they also become the odd person. They know this, too, but can’t face it.
Report comment to moderator
#3 & #4 – Good posts Collegestudent. You show a healthy measure of clarity and wisdom. If indeed you are a college student, I am even more pleased to hear good sense and moral clarity from a young person.
Report comment to moderator
#13 – It would be entirely possible for the government to create polygamous and polyamorous marriage laws available to the populace at large, while members of religions that don’t believe in polygamous or polyamorous marriages will be free not to take part. If you think those are sins, you don’t have to partake.
After all, marriage is pretty much anything any consenting adults of any number or gender want it to be, right? Marriage equality for all! No discrimination!
Report comment to moderator
The rate at which unmarried women are having babies in America has risen dramatically in the past 50 years (a ten-fold increase) and even more dramatically in the last seven years.
The quality of life prospects for children born into traditinal intact families are dramatically better and nearly all levels than those born into single-parent homes. This is social injustice at its worst.
_______________
Some facts reported by Mona Charen in a recent op-ed:
* By age 12, 78 percent of children living in non-married households have experienced one or more years of poverty. For children in intact families, the figure is 18 percent.
* Charen wrote: “Children who are raised in non-marital households have poorer school performance, more trouble with the law, more mental and emotional disturbances, more poverty, suffer more physical and sexual abuse, and are more likely to become unwed parents themselves.”
Dan Quayle was right!
Report comment to moderator
Marriage is secondarily about adult happiness and primarily about safety, security and development of character and strength for children.
Children need a dad and a mom. Only selfish, morally confused and dishonest people could deny this. Rampant sexual chaos (hertorsexual and homosexual) mitigate against this most basic need.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure that I agree with Innes’s opinion about the reasons why the uneducated tend to disapprove of gay marriage. I don’t think that we can chalk it up to university indoctrination, especially when most of us went to college before this ever became an issue.
In contrast, I’d suggest that it has to do with the fact that the educated tend to work in white-collar professional environments, where companies have antidiscrimination policies and people generally have gay coworkers.
Again, as Conan points out, folks on this site keep conflating with civil marriage with religious marriage. In a sense, it seems that folks are asking the state to enforce the religious law.
Report comment to moderator
RSD I agree rarely does something said in the classroom change people’s minds but the change in place and social setting will gradually change people — office environment, urban environment, diverse friends and neighbors, etc
Report comment to moderator
“The national figures for opposition to same-sex marriage is 37 percent for and 57 percent against. While that looks decisive…”
It only looks decisive when you omit the fact that an additional 29% of respondents support legal partnerships. That puts the camp of “gays should have some sort of legal recognition” with 66% vs. 28% who say “no legal recognition”.
The Fox News poll also seems to put the number slightly lower than other polls. A CNN poll from August asked the question “Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?” 49% answered “yes”.
When Gallup asked “”Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?” in May of this year, 44% of people said “should”.
Can get other results here:
http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Report comment to moderator
#24: “Children need a dad and a mom.”
They really don’t. Plenty of widows and widowers raise their kids just fine. Is it harder? Sure. Being a single parent is harder than having two people to share responsibilities. But I strongly disagree that kids are just “ruined” if they don’t have both a mother and father in the home.
#25: “I’d suggest that it has to do with the fact that the educated tend to work in white-collar professional environments, where companies have anti-discrimination policies and people generally have gay coworkers.”
Honestly? I’d suggest that it has to do with the large overlap between religiosity and poverty, and the fact that certain ethnic groups that strongly disapprove of gay marriage (African Americans) may be over-represented among this group.
Report comment to moderator
“That church-attending group gives 31 percent of its support to some sort of legally recognized partnership”
———
There can be attendees that make the drive for the free music and the potential of new business contacts.
Attending to sound Biblical fact is something different.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding polls; “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” That means that if 100% of Americans believed something to be right/okay/acceptable/legal/etc., and God voted otherwise, God would be right and all the rest of us wrong. Polls may measure opinions but they cannot determine right and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Who favors same-sex marriage?
Lust of the Flesh.
Report comment to moderator
There are several factors that have turned the tide in favor of marriage equality for Gay couples … not the least of which is the fact that most people, ESPECIALLY young people, are fully aware of friends, family members, and co-workers who are Gay. With that awareness has come increasing acceptance and support, since more people are coming to the realization that Gay people are not the wheezing, drooling sexual predators that the church has always been fond of portraying them as.
In more recent years I think there has been one factor that has made the proverbial “CLOSET” completely obsolete: Facebook. This is not to say that Facebook is the greatest thing since Sliced White Bread. Even among those of us with Facebook pages, there is general agreement that people waste far too much time on it. And the recent “South Park” skewering of Facebook almost made me embarrassed to have a Facebook page; and thank goodness I don’t fool with things like Farmville, or I probably would’ve just killed myself.
But when you have a Facebook page, all your Facebook friends know who all YOUR Facebook friends are, not to mention your political position and other social affiliations. I don’t even need to SAY that I’m Gay on Facebook: Anyone who looks at my profile and sees who most of my friends are can put two and two together.
Facebook has made the “closet” a 20th century anachronism. That, plus the fact that Gay individuals and couples are simply living their lives openly and honestly, with integrity and decency, has made most people realize that allowing Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted simply isn’t that big a deal anymore.
Report comment to moderator
#25 – “…folks on this site keep conflating with civil marriage with religious marriage.”
That’s because folks on this site are intelligent, realizing that various rhetorical labels, qualifications and categories that we create for “marriage” do not change the fact that it, as a longstanding insitution for society at large, is still the glue that holds our civilization togetther.
Report comment to moderator
#30 – Good reminder, Neil.
Report comment to moderator
[Marriage], as a longstanding insitution for society at large, is still the glue that holds our civilization togetther.”
And that won’t change when Gay couples are allowed to get married as well. The quest for marriage equality isn’t some nefarious plot to make homosexuality compulsory for all people; it just doesn’t work that way. Most people are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change when Gay couples are permitted to do the same.
And THIS is one of the things that the younger generation is also starting to realize.
Report comment to moderator
PolishBear 08.26.10 AT 1:08 PM
There are several factors that have turned the tide in favor of marriage equality for Gay couples … not the least of which is the fact that most people, ESPECIALLY young people, are fully aware of friends, family members, and co-workers who are Gay.
–
Could it also be the fact School’s have pushed the issue as being ok, music has pushed the issue as being ok, TV and Movies have pushed the issue as being ok?
Could it also be the fact that these groups have gone out of their way to paint anyone who stands against the GLBT Community as beign evil?
Report comment to moderator
And THIS is one of the things that the younger generation is also starting to realize. — PolishBear
again it could also be the fact that the younger generation has been taught one side of the issue. An in the process taught that those who disagree are bigots…
Report comment to moderator
#28 –
The fact that children do need a dad and a mom is not undone by the fact that they can survive and grow up without them. It simply means we (our nation and culture) should do all we can to provide them with that family model, since it is the best way to raise them. When we intentionally fail to rise to that decent standard, we increasingly hurt our children. When we help them cope with less that perfect circumstances that were unavoidable and/or unintended, that is kindness.
I can survive without glasses, but I can still say that I need glasses because it makes my sight and my life so much better when I have them. But if I had to live without glasses, I could. But it is wrong to INTENTIONALLY fail to provide or to deprive me of the best resource possible to live well.
Report comment to moderator
PolishBear – the standard of marriage changes.
Report comment to moderator
Polishbear mentioned “marriage equality.”
There is absolutely no “marriage equality” for bisexuals. None. How outrageous is that? Nor is there any such equality gay triples or quadruples, nor for heterosexual triples or quintuples and so on.
“Marriage equality” is unachievalbe until it is equally available to all consenting adults who seek to marry. Until we apply an full and fair “anything goes” definition of marriage, there will be no “marriage equality.”
Report comment to moderator
36: “Could it also be the fact School’s have pushed the issue as being ok, music has pushed the issue as being ok, TV and Movies have pushed the issue as being ok?”
I think popular culure has gradually and increasingly reflected what most people already understand: That Gay people are part of the fabric of society. 30 years ago most Americans didn’t know any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most of them DO. It has nothing to do with some kind of insidious media plot. It’s just REALITY.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder: If we could begin to “out” the people who cheat on their taxes, would we find that they are the normal, nice, neighborly, good people that live all around us. Does that mean we should take polls and change laws to make cheating on taxes acceptable and legal. It is true that what becomes familiar to us and common around us takes on an air of “rightness.” Being common, open, and accepted does not change the essential nature of wrong behavior. Something is wrong simply because it is wrong, not because 51% of the people consider it so.
As Francis Schaeffer once said concerning majority-determined morality: “If the majority is right, Hitler had a perfect right to kill the Jews.”
The basic nature of homosexuality has never changed; only the cultural acceptance of it is changing.
BTW… Treating people who do wrong things with cruelty is not right no matter how many people would condone it.
Report comment to moderator
#35 – “[Marriage], as a longstanding insitution for society at large, is still the glue that holds our civilization togetther.”
Polishbear, marriage is the glue that holds civilization together because it (as traditionally defined only) provides children with a mom and a dad in the home. Other alternatives, like same-sex couples, triples, quadruples (etc.) and bisexual combinations do not serve as glue. They will slowly unravel our civilization.
Report comment to moderator
#41 – Polygamists and polyamorists are ALSO part of the fabric of society (and this will only increase). Isn’t it unjust to redefine marrage only for homosexuals and not for others who also want “marriage equality”?
Report comment to moderator
DEAR JOEL MARK:
When we talk about “marriage equality,” we’re not talking about polygamy or incest or anything other than allowing Gay people the same thing that Straight people have always taken for granted: The right to marry someone else.
If Straight people have to right to get into legally sanctioned “triples of quadruples,” let me know. But as you already know, that’s not what this is about.
Report comment to moderator
PolishBear – I disagree with your statement at 41….
The reason culture changes is because a certain group want to change people views. to do this you target children first, knowing that when they become adults, you have control how they view things…
You control the higher education system.. Why? so when these people who have finish their higher education, they will go back to the children and spread what learn to them…. Knowing that when they become adults, you have control how they view things…
Then you control the TV and Movies and Music, so that you control what is being showing to reinforce what is being taught to the kids. In order when these kids grow up, you have control how they view things…
An that PolishBear, that is what has happen over the past 30 years.
Report comment to moderator
Words (labels) are so very interesting. If homosexual people are “gay”, does that imply that heterosexual people are “sad”? If heterosexual people are “straight”, does that imply that homosexual people are “crooked”? Both are incorrect, why do we use such misleading labels?
BTW, I don’t believe the Bible declares that people are sinners because they are homosexual; but that people are homosexual (or tax cheaters, …. etc.) because we are sinners.
Report comment to moderator
When we talk about “marriage equality” -
PolishBear – that is not true, you are talking about refining marriage from being between one man and one woman. Which is what we have today.. To being define as being between one man and one woman,. One man and one man, one woman and one woman….. The next’s step of refining marriage can now be open again… Under the “marriage equality” to be included one man and two woman or one woman and two men, or one man and two men, or one woman and two women… The reason, once the door opens to redefine marriage the first time. We lose control or rights to say no to the next’s group.
Report comment to moderator
DEAR PASTOR ROY:
I know the ol’ “slippery slope” argument is tempting to use. And I’ll admit: People on all points of the political spectrum are guilty of this. I prefer not to, since linking disparate political and legal issues usually ends up being … well, rather absurd.
Report comment to moderator
PolishBear first of there is no “slippery slope” argument. It is fact. once you open the door to refining marriage, (which is what you want) you lose the right to tell other who are in a “loving relationship”, that they can not refine marriage to meet their needs..
Report comment to moderator
PolishBearm all it takes is one group to fill a law suite challenging the laws against Polygamists and polymerizes. An that their relationships are between “loving adults” on what legal grounds, do was as a Nation, tell these people that they do not have the rights to refind marriage to meet their needs?
Report comment to moderator
#33: “That’s because folks on this site are intelligent, realizing that various rhetorical labels, qualifications and categories that we create for “marriage” do not change the fact that it, as a longstanding institution for society at large, is still the glue that holds our civilization together.”
Consider that, biblically speaking, the remarriage of individuals who divorced for non-sanctioned reasons aren’t recognized by God. See Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.
And yet such remarriages are not only recognized by our secular government, they’re also exceedingly common. And this has been the case since…forever, pretty much. (The legal recognition, not the prevalence).
According to your logic, shouldn’t this legal recognition of an explicitly unbiblical marriage practice have unraveled civilization as we know it long before now?
#38: “The fact that children do need a dad and a mom is not undone by the fact that they can survive and grow up without them.”
Define “need”. When a child raised by a widow or widower doesn’t perform noticeably worse on any reasonable metric when compared to children from two-parent households, can you really say kids “need” both parents?
Besides, the idea that children “need” two parents argues against gay adoption (and/or artificial insemination of single women or women in same-sex relationship) and not gay marriage. Your concerns about the welfare of children would be addressed by a system that permits same-sex marriage but not same-sex adoption.
Of course you can argue that permitting same-sex marriage makes it that much more likely same-sex adoption will be permitted, but that creates a slippery slope. For instance, the fact that homosexuality is legal at all makes it more likely that adoption by same-sex couples may some day be permitted. Does that then imply we should criminalize homosexuality?
#43: “marriage is the glue that holds civilization together because it (as traditionally defined only) provides children with a mom and a dad in the home. Other alternatives, like same-sex couples, triples, quadruples (etc.) and bisexual combinations do not serve as glue. They will slowly unravel our civilization.”
Consider that polygamy was legally permitted (and possibly normative) in ancient Israel, not to mention umpteen other ancient civilizations. Was it the cause of their unraveling? If so, why did God permit polygamy (and divorce) in the nation of Israel when:
1. Both are clearly contrary to his plan for human marriage, and
2. He clearly had no problem with criminalizing other aberrant sexual practices (incest, bestiality, etc.)?
We know that God permitted divorce because the peoples’ hearts were hardened. Perhaps that’s also why he permitted legal polygamy? Do you have reason to suspect that in 21st century America the peoples’ hearts are no longer hardened?
Report comment to moderator
To: CONANTHELIBRARIAN @ 8/25/10; 4:55pm
“Opponents never seem to care about the difference between civil law and religious law. Civil law applies to everyone who lives within the jurisdiction it covers.“
(True. Though history clearly demonstrates that no man is capable of following all civil law, and for his crime, if caught, he is adjudicated accordingly by the State.)
“Religious law applies only to people who are part of the religion (except in theocratic governments, which we are not.)”
(False. God has no borders. All man is subject to religious law, though history clearly demonstrates that no man is capable of following all religious law, and for his crime, he is adjudicated accordingly by God.)
“Therefore, it would be entirely possible for the government to create a same-sex marriage law available to the populace at large, while members of religions that don’t believe in same-sex marriage will be free not to take part.”
(The State has no jurisdiction over God’s Laws despite the State’s claim to divinity over the common populace of America. God, through granting man free will, has suspended His authority of civil law until a time of His choosing. Man can pass a same-sex marriage law. God will deal with it on His own schedule and in His own way.)
“Just as right now I can buy a bottle of whiskey, and my neighbor who believes drinking alcohol is a sin is not forced to partake.”
(I suggest you stop drinking the whiskey and start thinking.)
“This should be the clear and obvious solution.”
(Well, it isn’t.)
Report comment to moderator
Polish Bear wrote; “When we talk about “marriage equality,” we’re not talking about polygamy or incest or anything other than allowing Gay people the same thing that Straight people have…”
You are being inconsistent, unfair and blatantly dscriminatory, Polishbear, against consenting adults who are bisexuals, polygamists and/or polyamorists who want “equal marriage” rights.
Polishbear, many straight people believe they have the right to get into legally sanctioned “triples of quadruples.” So there, I have let you know.
Report comment to moderator
#52, Buddyglass,
I think that all people should have an equal say in the debate for what laws we have and hold and how we enforce or change them in America. And I don’t think one religion gets to have more say in the debate than another or then a secularist. I just pointed out that settled law for marriage should not be applied for one group in one way and for another in another way. That sort of identity politics applied to law is not just. If it is a law, there should be equality under that law–not one for for one group (religious law) in society and another form for another group (secularist law).
So, you missed my point, Buddyglass. Remarriage debates are irrelevant to the point I am making about equality under the law.
How Christians choose to interpret God’s law and live their lives under it was not my point at all. But we don’t use ident6ity politics to make certain laws for one group and other laws for another.
Report comment to moderator
#52 – “Define ‘need’.”
As I already stated, Buddyglass, I can survive without glasses, but I still say that I “need” glasses because it makes my sight and my life so much better when I have them. It is wrong to INTENTIONALLY fail to provide or to deprive me of the best resource possible to live well. So it is with the fact that children need a mom and a dad in the home to raise them. What I am arguing against are policies that INTENTIONALLY promote other options that increasingly deprive children of what they need–a mom and dad in the home to raise them.
Did I say, intentionally? Yes, and that is what same-sex marriage advocates are doing. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, adoption agencies will certainly be forced to give children to homes that INTENTIONALLY do not provide the child with a mom and a dad, or else be sued (or threatened with suits) out of existence. In fact, it has already happened in Massachusetts.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
My argument is not well addressed by your anedotes and hypotheticals about widows and widowers. Decent people in those categories would be the FIRST to rush to say that they deeply wish the other parent was still there for their child(ren). It would not have been their CHOICE to be a single parent, and for the reasons I have already made (children need a mom and a dad in the home to raise them).
I am arguing against both homosexual adoption and same-sex marriage. They often hong on each other’s coittails, in both case to the detriminet of children and what they need.
Report comment to moderator
BG, regarding the sins of Israel, including wandering from the basic definition of marriage in Genesis two, they did indeed unravel that ancient nation. Read the Old Testment. They unraveled horribly many times in their history. God was NOT at all pleased with Solomon’s many wives either.
Mosaic law allowed for some divorce (according to Jesus) for the following reason; because of the hardness of their hearts. And Jesus clarified the definition of marriage to trump that slide from God’s intent. Jesus said:
* “‘It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,’ Jesus replied. ‘But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” Mark 10:5-9.
In the Bible, we are dealing with real human history with all it’s flaws. And God continued to love flawed people and guide them closer to His will. That’s part of the story of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals who think they have a real marriage simply because they sign a government-approved contract are fooling themselves. They might be legalized for financial and insurance benefits, but that doesn’t make a real marriage any more than me adding my son to my bank accounts or insurance policies or telling HIPPA he can see my medical records.
Homosexual households are not and will not be real marriages any more than heterosexuals who just shack up together. Never. They’ll get a government stamp of approval and be celebrated in some bizarrely “progressive” circles. Mostly they’ll be politely tolerated.
“Defining deviancy down” is easy when all we base our laws on is feelings. Same-sex “marriages” might get a sop of an additional line in dictionaries, but never in God’s word.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – That is why they will not stop with government-approved marriage.. They win here, they will then move onto the Church and start to force the Church to approve of their marriages…
By demanding churches to conduct their weddings, when we say no they will run right to the courts. An demand that Church open theiir doors to them….
Report comment to moderator
#59: “Homosexual households are not and will not be real marriages any more than heterosexuals who just shack up together. Never. They’ll get a government stamp of approval and be celebrated in some bizarrely “progressive” circles. Mostly they’ll be politely tolerated.”
Exactly. Which is sort of an argument for state-recognized same-sex marriage not being that big of a deal.
Report comment to moderator
The diffence in the case of a widow or widower’s having to raise children single-handedly is that the dead parent never really leaves them. The living parent can still pass on everything they know about him/her. The children might never have technically “known” that parent, but they would still have some idea of who he/she was, along with all the values and expectations for his/her offspring had he/she lived. Granted, it would be an imperfect picture. But it’s still far better than having to learn how to approach life with the example of only one or the other of the two genders(whether we’re talking about same-sex adoptions or single mothers who choose to cut dad out of the picture).
Report comment to moderator
The culture warriors might want to consider why they are losing this one.
#1. The photos of happy couples getting married did indeed do a lot to dispel the demonic image of homosexuals propagated for a few thousand years by the church.
#2. Depriving homsexuals of the rights attendant on marriage is simply not fair. Americans do not like the government telling them what to do or what not to do, and these folks are, after all, neighbors, sons and daughters. The Christian Conservatives were also abandoned by their Libertarian allies.
#3. This likely explains Fox’s “position”: They generally have more disposable income than hetero couples. They are often the ultimate, DINK (double income,no kids) consumers and Fox’s advertisers don’t want Fox alienating them. In other words, the CHristians were also abandoned by their big business allies.
Report comment to moderator
JM: “I think that all people should have an equal say in the debate for what laws we have and hold and how we enforce or change them in America.”
You’re in luck: they do.
JM: “And I don’t think one religion gets to have more say in the debate than another or then a secularist.”
You’re in luck: none do.
JM: “I just pointed out that settled law for marriage should not be applied for one group in one way and for another in another way.”
I don’t think you actually mean this. For instance, the laws re: marriage treat children differently than adults. They’re explicitly written that way. Currently they also explicitly treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples in so far as they prohibit marriage by same-sex couples.
JM: “So, you missed my point, Buddyglass. Remarriage debates are irrelevant to the point I am making about equality under the law.
Maybe I did miss your point. What I was responding to is the argument that legalizing same-sex marriage would negatively impact the “true” institution of biblical marriage, which will always be one man and one woman. I mentioned remarriage to highlight the fact that our country’s civil laws regarding marriage have always been out-of-sync with true biblical marriage insofar as they have permitted non-sanctioned remarriages.
JM: “As I already stated, Buddyglass, I can survive without glasses, but I still say that I “need” glasses because it makes my sight and my life so much better when I have them.”
If, in your analogy, you can’t quantify how your life is made better by wearing glasses, then I’d say you don’t need glasses. In the case of kids, if we can’t demonstrate that children raised by widows/widowers are any worse off than kids raised by two parents, then I’d say that means kids don’t “need” two parents.
A more convincing argument might be that parents benefit from there being two parents.
JM: “If same-sex marriage becomes legal, adoption agencies will certainly be forced to give children to homes that INTENTIONALLY do not provide the child with a mom and a dad…”
Not necessarily. Certainly not if you can demonstrate that single-parent (or same-sex two-parent) households are damaging to children. For instance, adoption agencies already give preference to two-parent homes over single-parent homes.
In any case, if your argument against same-sex marriage is that it will lead to same-sex adoption, on what basis do you not also advocate criminalizing homosexuality in general? Certainly legal homosexuality increases the likelihood of same-sex adoption eventually becoming more common.
JM: “regarding the sins of Israel, including wandering from the basic definition of marriage in Genesis two, they did indeed unravel that ancient nation.”
And yet God did not command Israel not to recognize polygamous marriages as legitimate. On what basis would do you advocate its illegitimacy today? If the argument is that it runs counter to God’s plan for marriage (which it does), then we should probably refrain from granting legitimacy to non-sanctioned re-marriages.
JM: “Read the Old Testament. They unraveled horribly many times in their history.”
Demonstrate that Israel fell apart because of polygamy. And not, you know, sacrificing to idols, denying justice from the poor, etc.
JM: “In the Bible, we are dealing with real human history with all it’s flaws. And God continued to love flawed people and guide them closer to His will. That’s part of the story of the Bible.”
Yes it is. It also demonstrates pretty clearly that God allows the state to recognize certain things (e.g. divorce) that are diametrically opposed to his plan for human relationships.
Report comment to moderator
#62 – NARISSARA,
Thank you. That was one of the most insightful posts I’ve read in a long time. You make this blog so worth reading and participating on. I have heard that kids whose father may die in service to the USA often grow up proud of the dad’s service and they avoid most of the unhealthy trends that many children suffer from who never had or knew a dad.
Report comment to moderator
#63 – Arcadia:
Photos? You think that posing for images can dispel convictions of a few thousand years?
Ar4cadia, don’t you think that depriving bisexuals and polygamists of the rights attendant on marriage is simply not fair? Americans do not like the government telling them what to do or what not to do, and these folks are, after all, neighbors, sons and daughters.
Report comment to moderator
#64 – “You’re in luck: they do.”
Buddyglass is dead wrong in his first point. Seven million voters in California do NOT have equal say to one federal judge on what laws we have and hold on marriage. Judge Walker got to vote in 2008 with millions of other Californians. His side lost. But the unjust judge got to reverse the election on his own irrational whims.
Report comment to moderator
I did mean what I wrote Buddyglass. You apparently don’t know or understand what I think. But thanks for attempting to understand.
BG, Israel unraveled horribly many times (exile, erosion being conquered, etc) for her sins, sexual chaos included. Sin operates in a sort of web of interactive influence that makes it unproductive to try to isolate the specific impact of one particular form os sin to describe the big picture. I do not advocate going back to polygamy or redefining marriage to please polygamists or homosexualists or bisexuals. I advocate following the definition of marriage articulated in the quote at Mark 10 at #58. If I cannot get the whole culture to follow it with me, I go forward constructively and keep praying and working. This does not mean I cannot advocate getting the culture to see the wisdom of Jesus on this point.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, comparing children of widows to children in married homes isn’t a fair comparison, because marriage is still involved, and kids were not deliberately abandoned or deliberately raised in a home with only one parent or two parents of the same sex. Looking at homes in which a parent was never married, or homes in which parents have divorced, is a much better comparison, and statistics show those children do not thrive.
Report comment to moderator
JM: “Buddyglass is dead wrong in his first point. Seven million voters in California do NOT have equal say to one federal judge on what laws we have and hold on marriage.”
Ah. So when you say “equal say” you mean “do away with representative democracy and the system of courts outlined in the constitution and instead decide everything by referendum”. Gotcha.
Everybody has equal say in that they elect representatives who appoint (and confirm) federal judges. Those judges then decide the constitutionality of laws. That’s the way it works.
JM: “Sin operates in a sort of web of interactive influence that makes it unproductive to try to isolate the specific impact of one particular form os sin to describe the big picture.”
God himself didn’t see fit to instruct Israel to treat polygamy as a crime, despite it being sinful and destructive to society. Was that an oversight?
If sin (in a general sense) destroys society, should we then criminalize all sin? Or is there some other set of criteria we might use to determine whether a given activity should be criminal or not?
If you’re worried about sin in general, why do you stop at opposing the legitimization of same-sex marriage? I mean, shouldn’t you be calling for any homosexual act to be treated as crimes? If not, why not?
Cheryl: “comparing children of widows to children in married homes isn’t a fair comparison, because marriage is still involved”
He didn’t say “kids need marriage” he said “children do need a dad and a mom”. In one sense, every child has a dad and a mom in that they have a genetic mother and a genetic father. But I’m assuming JM meant that children need a dad and a mom in the household. That is something the children of widows and widowers do not have, and yet they seem to turn out more or less alright. So it is not the case that “children do need a dad and a mom”. As it turns out, children can make do with a single parent who is loving and responsible.
Yes, I know the stats for children of divorce or that were born illegitimately. We’ve discussed them at length on other threads. My general feeling is that the set of people who are going to get divorced and/or conceive out of wedlock are already predisposed to being bad parents.
Report comment to moderator
Using ancient Israel is such as weak argument, Joel Mark, and you know it. Shame on you.
Or, rather, congratulations for attempting to conflate two completely different topics. You’ve done the best so far!
Whether or not I agree with your points is irrelevant, because you are going to lose this particular argument. Every point you make is weak and easily disproved. Seriously. Cut it out.
Until you can come up with something better than
a.) God doesn’t like it!
or
b.) It hurts children in unspecified ways!
you are going to have to quiet down with the authoritative comments and bold text.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: “Buddyglass is dead wrong in his first point. Seven million voters in California do NOT have equal say to one federal judge on what laws we have and hold on marriage.”
We don’t have a direct democracy. We don’t decide every matter by majority vote of the public. In particular, on matters than involve protecting the rights of minority groups, we depend on the judicial branch to overturn laws that violate Constitutional protections.
The judge is accountable to higher courts, so if his ruling really was, as some insist, biased by his personal desires or done on a whim, it will be swiftly overturned.
Meanwhile, when a city or state holds referendum and gay marriage wins, I hope you will remember your forceful insistence on how the will of the people should prevail, and defend that vote against all opposition as reflecting the majority’s desire.
Report comment to moderator
LRC at #53: Sorry, I overlooked your comment earlier. Responding now.
(False. God has no borders. All man is subject to religious law, though history clearly demonstrates that no man is capable of following all religious law, and for his crime, he is adjudicated accordingly by God.)
If same-sex relations are sin, then God will deal with those who engage in them. This is true regardless of whether a state or nation’s laws allow them to go on without earthly penalties.
We in America live in a pluralistic society that does not enforce religious convictions by weight of law. Roman Catholics and most conservative Protestant denominations take a dim view of divorce and remarriage, but state laws allow it.
If two people remarried after divorce are living in a state of perpetual adultery, then God will judge them accordingly, but the state does not.
I argue that same-sex unions should be treated the same way.
(The State has no jurisdiction over God’s Laws despite the State’s claim to divinity over the common populace of America. God, through granting man free will, has suspended His authority of civil law until a time of His choosing. Man can pass a same-sex marriage law. God will deal with it on His own schedule and in His own way.)
That’s fine. If you are right, then homosexuals and those of us who advocate for them are in big trouble. Obviously I don’t share your belief, or I wouldn’t take the side that I do. So let God deal with me if I’m wrong, but meanwhile, allow same-sex marriage under the laws of the states.
Report comment to moderator
It appears to me that homosexuals have been getting along fine without being “married” for thousands of years. They obviously don’t “need” to be married any more than children “need” both a dad and a mom.
Why do only people who have same-sex sex get to be “gay”? I want to be “gay”. I have sex with my wife and am very happy about it. It seems terribly discriminatory to limit the use of the term to same-sex relationships. The definition of the term “gay” must be modified to include everyone who wants to use it. There otta be a law.
And ConanTheLibraian, heterosexual Christians and repressive American laws are indeed the least of your worries. The rampant diseases that travel with promiscuous sexual relationships and the reality of our accountability to God should be of much greater concern to you and others who tend to minimize these elements of their lives.
Report comment to moderator
#74: “It appears to me that homosexuals have been getting along fine without being “married” for thousands of years.”
Define “fine”. The inability to marry one’s partner clearly renders off limits certain legal protections and responsibilities. The fact that gay couples can “get along” without state recognition of same-sex marriage is a pretty low bar to use.
There are plenty of freedoms I could “get along fine” without. That doesn’t really argue for the legitimacy of denying them.
“Why do only people who have same-sex sex get to be “gay”? I want to be “gay”.”
“Gay” as a word has meaning only insofar as people ascribe meaning to it. Once upon a time it meant “happy”. That meaning is no longer the prevalent one, having been replaced by “homosexual”. You’re certainly free to call yourself gay, but you’re unlikely to singlehandedly change the meaning of the word throughout the entire culture.
Unlike marriage, though, one’s sexual orientation doesn’t confer any special rights or responsibilities or affect how one is treated by the law. As such, sexual orientation is not legally recognized by the state in the same way marriage is. So, unlike gays who push for the state to recognize their marriages, you can’t really push for the state to legally recognize your “gayness” since the state doesn’t legally recognize “gayness” in the first place.
“The definition of the term “gay” must be modified to include everyone who wants to use it. There otta be a law.”
Only, same-sex marriage proponents aren’t really arguing for a change in the definition of marriage, since the definition of a word consists of how it is understood by the set of listeners.
Were same-sex marriages granted legal recognition, you would still be free to define “marriage” however you choose and decline to view these same-sex unions as “real” marriages in a cosmic sense.
Report comment to moderator
Neil evans: And ConanTheLibraian, heterosexual Christians and repressive American laws are indeed the least of your worries. The rampant diseases that travel with promiscuous sexual relationships and the reality of our accountability to God should be of much greater concern to you and others who tend to minimize these elements of their lives.
And what does “promiscuous sexual relationships” have to do with this? Homosexuals who wish to get married are asking for a legal covenant that excludes promiscuity. And many of them are already in monogamous partnerships, lacking only the legal protections that heterosexual couples can have.
Accountability to God is a matter of belief. Just because you believe homosexuals will be judged by God does not give you the right to dictate what the laws of the state should be.
Buddy Glass already addressed your comment about “getting along fine.” I would just add that your definition of “getting along fine,” includes having to hide in a metaphorical closet for fear of social stigma and sometimes violent reprisal … which is not really fine.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone certainly is permitted to do whatever is right in their own eye, in virtually any context. But there ALWAYS comes a day of reckoning. Whether it be voting, eating a greasy hamburger, getting a divorce, following Jesus Christ/Mohammed/Buddah.., or sexual relations, there are consequences that come. We may choose any behavior we wish but we cannot choose the results of those choices. I know that I very easily accumulate justifications for the wrong attitudes and behaviors that I enjoy.
Nature’s God is much more patient with us than are the natural laws of the world around us. Gravity exacts an immediate judgment (and blessing). But His patience will not last forever. It seldom lasts more than a century.
Parse to your hearts content. The final word has yet to be spoken, and I’m pretty certain that neither polls nor our nuanced definitions will have much influence.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe that I am seeking “to dictate what the laws of the state should be.” I am simply entering the public debate seeking to participate to the full extent provided by our wonderful system. I suppose that to whomever loses in any particular issue the results seem dictatorial. And all the more-so when the issue is as personal and passionate as the present one.
Report comment to moderator
JM Photos? You think that posing for images can dispel convictions of a few thousand years?
They’ve got photos. You don’t.
But you guys are good. Despite mountains of scientific evidence, you still have lots of people believing that there is a heaven “up there”, that folks rise from the dead, that there were once 1,000 year old people and giants, and that dinosaurs and people co-existed. Not to mention that all the animals existed for some unspecified period of time with nothing to eat. And of course there are all the witches and ghosts and other things that go bump in the night.
Ar4cadia, don’t you think that depriving bisexuals and polygamists of the rights attendant on marriage is simply not fair? Americans do not like the government telling them what to do or what not to do, and these folks are, after all, neighbors, sons and daughters.
So far at least, in this country, with the exception of some Mormons, marriage is a two-person scheme. Introducing any kind of plural marriage would definitely upset a whole host of economic applecarts.
Report comment to moderator
Bad formatting day. Paragraphs 2 and 3 above are me. 4 is part 2 of JM’s post to me and 5 is me.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, if you’re big on scientific evidence, and down on superstition and fairy tales, it’s curious that you’ve come to believe the concoction you provided recently where prescriptive morals somehow arose from inanimate goo.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans: I don’t believe that I am seeking “to dictate what the laws of the state should be.” I am simply entering the public debate seeking to participate to the full extent provided by our wonderful system. I suppose that to whomever loses in any particular issue the results seem dictatorial.
Well maybe. But consider this:
If we allow same-sex marriage, then same-sex couples can marry, and while a lot of people may disapprove, nothing actually changes for them. No heterosexual marriages dissolve or don’t take place. Other than having to tolerate the existence of same-sex married couples (and deride it as ’sham’ or ‘pseudo’ if they feel compelled to), opponents really lose nothing.
If we forbid same-sex marriage, then its opponents are happy and satisfied. But those people who want to marry same-sex, and those who support their right to do so, lose a very real and tangible benefit.
So what is ‘dictated’ if it is allowed? Only that those who don’t like it must tolerate it, just as those who don’t like alcohol, strip clubs and rap music must tolerate those things.
What is ‘dictated’ if it is denied? A significant minority of people can’t access the social and legal benefits of marriage even though they have committed monogamous relationships every bit as strong and real as opposite-sex pairs.
On balance, allowing it does less harm.
Report comment to moderator
DC INNES proposes that college grads are both more “politically charged” than non-college citizens and less informed about civics.
In my experience, college grads know more, not less, about government, history, and economics. The exception may be practicing physicians and science researchers who have no time for political engagement.
What would civic literacy have to do with one’s view of gay marriage, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I must leave very soon for the weekend so I can’t continue.
I think I understand somewhat the earnestness of your feelings and thoughts and do respect you for that. I hope that you can understand that in spite of the harsh statements that are made regarding homosexual people, I, for one, speak earnestly because I sincerely care about them. Can you see that if I really believe that a persons eternal relationship with God (and present life) is at stake then it becomes a VERY serious issue and one worth earnest warnings. I am sure that I say things that come across as judgmental and uncaring; and for that I am truly sorry. But I cannot deny my belief that the issue is not simply legal, societal, or preferential.
Thank you for your patience with me.
Have a good weekend.
Report comment to moderator
Neil: Can you see that if I really believe that a persons eternal relationship with God (and present life) is at stake then it becomes a VERY serious issue and one worth earnest warnings. I am sure that I say things that come across as judgmental and uncaring; and for that I am truly sorry. But I cannot deny my belief that the issue is not simply legal, societal, or preferential.
Sure, I understand that. We all have deep convictions about things …. different issues and different positions on them for different people, but a conviction is a conviction.
My only response to this is that the allowance or denial of same-sex marriage does not have any effect on same-sex relationships or orientations. Homosexual people will continue to form partnerships regardless of whether they have access to marriage. In denying marriage, society isn’t modifying their behavior or basic orientation.
From the standpoint of the relationship with God, this is a matter of subjective belief. Many people don’t share your belief, and don’t want to live under rules that are based on beliefs they don’t share. I submit it’s better to persuade people to change their minds and come around to your way of thinking, rather than to impose conformity by law.
Have a good weekend yourself. I’ll try to remain calm until you return.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals have an ethical duty to accord more respect to gay couples who remain yoked together than they give to heterosexuals who divorce.
If “the” definition of marriage allows serial relationships between multiple men and women, then “the” definition of marriage might as well say, “marriage is a relationship between two persons.”
If fudging the numbers doesn’t matter, why get so hot and bothered about gender?
Gay marriage is an indispensable component of modern marriage. Gay marriage celebrates the institution as free, as a choice based in elective affinity. When you say no to gay marriage you say no to romantic love. Moreover, gay marriage emphasizes the traditional, conservative mandate to take existential, biographical responsibility for a person — the one person– with whom you have sex.
If gay people are refused the fundamental right to marry, many straight people will rightly feel the institution of marriage to be trashed, and not worth the charade.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller #8
Can you guess why your little deal won’t work? College Student can marry whoever he wants whether or not he accepts the agreement, although some of his professors doubtless question his right to raise children.
You actually think your ideas are you own? Look up the positions held by the more radical proponents of the universities. However much they shock you now, you will firmly hold to them in thirty years.
Or, if you’d rather not wait, look up what was brewing in the intellectuals’ minds thirty years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Surely the Supreme Court justices know that it all turns on the “marriage” definition.
They’ll probably go with the atoms-only mythology of “trends” and societal “evolution”.
It’ll be a real back-slapper, with complimentary refreshments for all attending frolickers.
“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.” (Da 5:1-4)
These things happen.
:-O
Report comment to moderator
#86,
Evangelicals already have more respect for homosexuals than do most homosexualists who think that homosexuals are nothing but choiceless animals or robots when it comes to choosing how and who to love sexually. It is dehumanizing to deny that homosexuals are capable of choosing their lifestyle and manner of loving. Evangelicals do NOT dehumanize homosexuals.
That is respectful. I wish the homosexualists would try respecting and caring for homosexuals as much as evangelicals do.
The institution of marriage (one man and one woman) is being disolved and defiled intentionally by those who want to make it a charade by redefining it to suit the preferences of one particular identity politics group (homosexuals) and yet still deny it to others (polygamists, bisexuals and others).
Report comment to moderator
#70 – “So when you say ‘equal say’ you mean ‘do away with representative democracy and the system of courts outlined in the constitution and instead decide everything by referendum’.”
Huh? No, I do not mean that at all, Conan. Please say what you mean for yourself and kindly refrain from ineffectively trying to distort what I mean. I mean “equal say” on equal terms in the debate.
Report comment to moderator
Conan wrote; “If you’re worried about sin in general, why do you stop at opposing the legitimization of same-sex marriage?”
Huh? Who says I stop there? As a pastor, I have indeed committed my life to a broad-based loving (to thye sinner) and truthful opposition of sin in general and in specific.
Report comment to moderator
#71,
Please get a clue Bob. Using ancient Israel as an arguement was what Buddyglass did. I was just responding to him. Deal with my argument and tell me how mine is weak.
And shaming is indeed a weak argument on your part Mr. Bob Dylan Dosen’t Believe You.
Report comment to moderator
#74 – Neil Evans wrote; “It appears to me that homosexuals have been getting along fine without being ‘married’ for thousands of years.”
I disagree with that, Neil. Homosexuals have incurred suicide rates among their ranks up to four times higher than the rest of the population for much of the last several decades (the rate fluxuates). They are certainly not nearly as oppressed as other various racial groups in the past who did NOT respond to their oppression in suicidal ways (these various racial groups were much more courageous in the face of real discrimination to resort to suicide so often).
Homosexuals also abuse or exploit young boys at rates that far surpass that of heterosexuals who abuse or exploit young girls or others.
Homosexuals have certainly not been getting along fine, Neil. And redefining marriage will do nothing to change that, except only for the worse. Until they repent of their sin (something all sinners must do), they will never get along fine (especially in the long term) in a way that God wills for them.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Conan wrote; “If you’re worried about sin in general, why do you stop at opposing the legitimization of same-sex marriage?”
That wasn’t me. That was Buddy Glass at #70.
Report comment to moderator
I fear the unintended consequences of what appears imminent. Tollerance is both secular, and biblical in nature. Yet, soon, perhaps in my lifetime, the small but militant sect of this movement may succeed in driving the Church underground.
Report comment to moderator
Sooo … the small percentage of the population that is homosexual (no more than 10 percent, probably less) poses a big enough threat to the very large percentage that calls itself Christian (anywhere from 70 percent to 90 percent, I’d estimate) that you think it could drive the church underground?
Isn’t that just a little bit … um … unlikely?
Also, what do you mean “succeed?” Nobody is trying to drive the church underground.
Report comment to moderator
Same sex marriage? Never heard of such a thing. Or if it is even possible. Maybe another example of the human condition. Where we all long for love and to be love, slip into some perception of love convinced this is it. All I know is same sex marriage is not for everyone. Nice, real nice there are (is) another choice besides sleeping with your fishing buddy the rest of your life. (ugh!)
Report comment to moderator
#94 – Thank you for the correction.
Report comment to moderator
Polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage.
The state may prohibit polygamy without interfering with the fundamental right to marriage. This principle is well established, and it is based on the reasonableness of discriminating between marriages of two persons and marriages of more than two persons. Polygamy is different in kind as well as in number.
People who argue that the only barrier to the (re-)introduction of polygamy is the rule against same-sex marriage aren’t sincere. They know that polygamy and monogamy are qualitatively different. All they are doing by invoking polygamy is disparaging homosexual love.
After a careful trial of the evidence, it turns out that gay marriage does interfere with the fundamental right to marriage. Number has a lot to do with marriage, but low and behold, gender nothing much at all. Consequently, the state lacks a reasonable basis to discriminate, apart from religious prejudice. We may take it for a known fact. (I predict that Judge Walker’s findings of fact will never be disproved.)
Report comment to moderator
should be: . . it turns out that prohibiting gay marriage does interfere . . .
Report comment to moderator
#99 – “Polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage.”
Ah, then you completely giving up the whole notion of “marriage equality” for all?
And you are giving up the whole argument of alleged “discrimination” against homosexuals as a pretext for changing the definition of marriage to suit homosexluals and NOT polygamists?
Report comment to moderator
#99 – Scroop Moth wrote; “The state may prohibit polygamy without interfering with the fundamental right to marriage.”
I agree because I know that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, and that definition naturally omits polygamous and homosexual “marriages.” But if the state changes the definition of marriage to suit homosexuals, then it would be blatantly discriminating against polygamist marriage advocates for consenting adults if it did not change the defintion of marriage for them too.
I fully and sincerely agree that polygamy and monogamy are qualitatively different, just exactly as well as I know that heterosexuality and homosexuality are qualitatively different.
Gender has everything to do with marriage and number has a lot to do with it too. It is entirely just to simply define marriage as one man and one woman and reject the various speical interest sexual groups who want the definition of marriage to change just for them and not for other special interest sexual gfroups.
Report comment to moderator
If we change the definition of marriage in America, we ALSO at the same time radically altar the definition and nature of dating and of education and of language itself. We radically undermine the most basic institution of society.
We change and destabilize the essential definitions of concepts and words (and relationships) like family, mother, father, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, and grandparent.
We radically change our entire legal system and process regarding family law. It becomes literally discriminatory to use words like “mother” and “father” on legal and government forms rather than the more bland indefiniate word “parent.” Words like “husband” and “wife” will also have to be replaced with the word “partner.”
Report comment to moderator
If same-sex marriages are legalized, the word bigot will be stretched to apply also to those who use discriminatory gender-specific words like “mother” or “father” for the parenting role. That will have to be banned too because they are gender exclusivist terms by definition.
Report comment to moderator
If same-sex marriages are legalized, the word bigot will be stretched to apply also to those who use discriminatory gender-specific words like “mother” or “father” for the parenting role. That will have to be banned too because they are gender exclusivist terms by definition. </i<
No it won't. That's just ridiculous.
I understand you can't abide the idea of same-sex marriage because of your belief about what marriage fundamentally is, and while I disagree, I respect that. Don't muddy it up by injecting total absurdity into the debate.
Report comment to moderator
It is most unjust to base public law on religious definition.
Law needs to be based on evidence. When a law lacks a reasonable basis in human experience, then such a law isn’t legitimate.
The proponents of Prop 8 had a fair chance to prove that gender is an essential component of marriage, but they utterly failed. The proponents offered very little evidence at all. Instead, they asserted religious authority — what they call “definition.” That’s unreasonable. There’s no rationale — not the barest minimum of a rationale — for denying gay people the fundamental right to marry. That’s the facts.
At it’s core, marriage is an exclusive relationship between two persons, based upon elective affinity. Banning gay marriage diminishes the institution by removing free choice.
Besides, banning gay marriage is so unromantic.
Report comment to moderator
Sctroop Moth,
Our basic rights are established not by governments or politicians. They are established by our Creator/God, according to our Founders. So since we base our laws on our notions of inalienable rights, we are in effect basing our laws on our belief in a Craeator/God (i.e. religion). You are free not to believe in a God, but this nation and its laws are still rooted in Judeo-Christian principles at its core.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
The proponents of Prop 8 (along with our entire history) did demonstrate that gender is an essential component of marriage, but the federal judge utterly failed to grasp the facts. He had a predetermined bias that blinded him from the start.
That gender is an essential part of marriage is as basic as the notion that sex is essential to procreation and love is essential to parenting.
At it’s core, marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman, based upon elective affinity.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if this is an issue that the church should spend much energy on. It sure seems far afield of what it’s all about to be a lover (or even a fearer) of God. Very much a tangential issue in the bible.
The secular reasons to oppose gay marriage seem much stronger, but scripture teaches us not to get bogged down in the affairs of the world.
Perhaps we should just briefly mention that a culture that does not produce quite a few well raised children is doomed to the dust bin of history, the get back to the central mission of the church.
Report comment to moderator
Corky: Perhaps we should just briefly mention that a culture that does not produce quite a few well raised children is doomed to the dust bin of history, the get back to the central mission of the church.
The problem with that argument is that homosexuals are not going to be creating children in any event. Denying them marriage is not going to make them suddenly decide they were heterosexual after all and go on to procreate.
If childbirth is your concern, the much larger factor is the large numbers of heterosexuals who choose not to have children, married or not. Unlike homosexuality, that’s simply a matter of attitude, and they’ve absorbed a self-centered mindset that leads them to chosen childlessness.
Report comment to moderator
#32: “…allowing Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted simply isn’t that big a deal anymore.”
This is really the crux of the issue. What are some of these legal benefits? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, tax benefits enjoyed by married couples, availability and applicability of laws pertaining to adoption, inheritance laws, benefits available to spouses of military Servicemembers, and I am sure there are others. These are all legal benefits created by the state.
If we want to live in a nanny state, then the civic benefits the nanny doles out by way of income redistribution – with deference/preference often being given to married couples – then obviously all “couples” will want to avail themselves of such benefits as a matter of constitutional right.
Of course, that is a bit simplistic. I think there are a number of inter-related factors at work in our culture that have made the nanny state possible – a carbon-based economy that has generated great wealth, technological sophistication, and cheap, plentiful “food” products; moral relativism; an attitude of entitlement – and which make homosexual relationships economically and socially viable.
But let us see what happens when the oil runs out (or even becomes prohibitively expensive), and governments collapse under absurd levels of debt, and existence once again becomes hard and life precarious. We will see then how much enthusiasm there is for all manner of “alternative” lifestyles.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
What is the “factual basis” for this statement: “There’s no rationale — not the barest minimum of a rationale — for denying gay people the fundamental right to marry.”
When did marriage become a fundamental right, commensurate with the rights enshrined in the constitution? If it is a fundamental right, does that mean every citizen must be married?
Report comment to moderator
This is no longer just a political debate. It’s juridical. Oponents of gay marriage failed to provide evidence in court. Therefore, there is none. Yes, i’s a shocker. They lack evidentiary and Constitutional grounds to stop gay marriage.
Justice Kennedy may very well reinstate Prop 8, but I predict he will accept all of Judge Walker’s findings. Justice Kennedy might say something like, “Judge Walker is right, but let’s defer. The Constitution gives the courts discretion with regard to the time and manner of enforcing fundamental rights. Because the legislative system is grappling with this, let’s give it a pass for time being.” In other words, Judge Walker is right but premature.
A ruling like that from SCOTUS would give opponents of gay marriage time to think up a reasonable basis or realize they never will. When people don’t realize they’ve lost the argument because they don’t have an argument, the court has to be very fearful about PR.
Nobody disputes that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause.
Judge Walker wrote, P. 109.
“The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional
support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)
(“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom
to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage
is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
and intimate to the degree of being sacred.It is an association
that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social
projects.Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
involved in our prior decisions.”).”
Report comment to moderator
P.S. The 14th Amendment, in part:
. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Report comment to moderator
Secular marriage is about encouraging specific behaviors that will benefit the society, mostly creating and doing a good job raising children, and perhaps an attempt to keep people from spending all their energies in “The Hunt”. As Conan says, secular marriage is failing at it’s own goals, and needs a redesign, but including gays won’t help even from a secular point of view.
When looked at that way marriage is not a right. Its more like buying a house. We want home ownership, there are tax advantages. Unfair! Well, yes, but that is the point. To encourage a specific behavior.
But I still think we followers of God are getting sidetracked. Why is the definition of secular marriage so all fired important to us? Secular marriage is not Christian marriage. If we drew the distinction more brightly perhaps Christian marriage might be a way to help the world glimpse God.
Report comment to moderator
A note to all the unbelievers on this site:
The return of Jesus is very soon. Political opinions over issues such as so-called gay marriage are inconsequential in the face of His return. Believe me, you do not want to be left.
Report comment to moderator
RGL This is really the crux of the issue. What are some of these legal benefits? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, tax benefits enjoyed by married couples, availability and applicability of laws pertaining to adoption, inheritance laws, benefits available to spouses of military Servicemembers, and I am sure there are others. These are all legal benefits created by the state.
Oh I see, it’s all about golddigging.
Except it’s not. Other benefits: If a person is incapacitated in the hospital, a spouse has rights and privileges that a friend, pal or unmarried partner does not. If a gay man’s partner is not legally connected and the man is unconscious in the hospital, his parents get priority over his partner and, if they are vindictive anti-gay people, can prevent the partner from visiting.
And there is inheritance and survivorship. If the man dies and hadn’t made a will, his life partner may stand to inherit nothing, as the parents become the presumed beneficiaries. And even if he did make a will, wills can be challenged and unmarried partners have less leverage than legal spouses to fight a contestation.
Report comment to moderator
#117 Conan
FALSE. Yes, it is about ‘golddigging’ if you want to put it that way. Civil Unions provide ALL of the benefits you described and that’s never been enough for homosexual activists.
In CT we ratified civil unions through the legislature, and that same day, homosexual activists filed in court saying it was intrinsically unequal. So the judge overturned the legislature and Connecticut was forced into homosexual ‘marriage’.
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!