B
Biblepoe
Guest
In that case, you have to ask the one who was introducing that information, Bradski.
- Status
E
epan
Guest
The Earth is not underpopulated. There are 7 billion people living on it.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
So we can all agree that any arguments based on that information are strictly opinions, until said valid research is available for review.
L
LisaA
Guest
You cite one study that cannot be verified and thus claim victory…nice try. I don’t assume how you came up with a conclusion when you simply express an opinion.
SSM has already had detrimental consequences on businesses and on social services organizations which are prevented from their mission because their religious beliefs do not allow them to support or participate in such relationships. Further as has been stated repeatedly, experiments, redefiniition and changing the concept of marriage has proved to be detrimental to society and to the innocent individuals who are impacted by these changes. That is why issues like unwed motherhood and no fault divorce are pertinent to the discussion. They are, like SSM, social experiments that we were all told would have no detrimental consequences. But they did. Therefore those advocating SSM who claim that yet ANOTHER and even more perverse social exeriment will not have a detrimental impact on society have neither evidence nor history on their side.
Lisa
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yes Lisa, plus last time I checked Protestant and Catholic Christians, Jews, and Moslems together comprised a majority of American society and in its opposition to the fundamental morality of these religions, same sex “marriage” is harming adherents to these religions, whether they realize it or not. Same sex “marriage” then is indeed harming a majority within our society.
Then there are all the happily married heterosexuals who now have the very definition of their matrimonial relationship diluted and weakened.
Finally, the increase in government benefits that will be payable to those in same sex and further aberrations of “marriages” will be an additional burden on taxpayers. How does this not “hurt society?”
Then there are all the happily married heterosexuals who now have the very definition of their matrimonial relationship diluted and weakened.
Finally, the increase in government benefits that will be payable to those in same sex and further aberrations of “marriages” will be an additional burden on taxpayers. How does this not “hurt society?”
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Here is a link to a metaresearch report which does cite original research and statistics: downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf
B
Biblepoe
Guest
Rather, we can agree that same-sex marriage does not evidently hurt opposite-sex relationships until evidence shows that it does.So we can all agree that any arguments based on that information are strictly opinions, until said valid research is available for review.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Then why are places like New Zealand, Germany, and France underpopulated and rely heavily on immigration to keep their population up?
If the world’s 6.9 billion people lived in one city, what would it look like…
persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/
The world is not really overpopulated.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
My conclusion, which is that statement like the following have not been demonstrated with regard to same-sex marriage, is that no evidence has been cited to back them up:
If you are talking about businesses being banned from discriminating, you should know that there are business owners out there who would like to discriminate against mixed-race couples based on their religious persuasions.
If you had evidence that expanding the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is detrimental to society, you would have referenced it. You didn’t (at least not here with me). That’s a fact, not an opinion.
So your argument is that because something is new, or a “social experiment” as you put it, it is related to every other “social experiment”. That’s a non-sequitur.
Mixed-race marriages were “social experiments” in the past. Would you argue that because mixed-race marriages in the past were “experiments” they somehow linked to abortion and unwed motherhood?! Regardless, if same-sex marriage does cause problems, we would have experienced then by now, yet no evidence has yet been presented that any of these “experiments” have shown that.
E
edwest2
Guest
The fact is, what works, works. Once the right answer is found there is no other right answer. So, a brief review of the players and how a country founded on moral, religious principles would be talked into accepting the bait. Bait which is constantly repackaged and relabeled to sound new. It isn’t, it just looks like it is. And looks are deceiving.
1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill for public use. Keep in mind, most people lived on farms and in rural areas.
1966 The viciously anti-family National Organization for Women is founded. It’s first President was Betty Friedan, who compared the family to “a comfortable concentration camp.”
1967 In order to attack the Catholic Church and increase sales of The Pill, the propaganda campaign began to switch into high gear.
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html
Read the headline. Contraception - Freedom from fear. Fear of what? Babies. What was a ‘bundle of joy’ and a gift from God, needed to become undesirable in order to sell product.
And in order to poison the minds of Catholic educators, and thereby, all of their students each year, some were convinced to break from Church authority.
catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
1968 Pope Paul VI, mindful of what was obviously happening and aware of those within the Church who were calling for married priests and a relaxation of constant Church teaching about artificial birth control, had Humanae Vitae issued. Of course, this sent shock waves into the dissidents within and outside of the Church.
Their reaction was unprecedented in the history of the Church. It threatened to derail other plans. Keep in mind that average Catholics viewed their daily lives as inseparable from what they had been taught about their faith and that local, State and Federal governments respected Christianity. The media respected and reflected our faith.
1969 Time to put the deceptions in motion for the birth control of last resort - abortion.
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/
We were lied to. Deceived. And the media was manipulated. I use this as a textbook example of all that followed. Dr. Nathanson went on to become a Catholic.
1971 saw the publication of an insert in New York magazine called Ms. (yes, that’s where that word came from). It’s first newstand issue would appear in 1972. It was basically a Playboy for women and was cofounded by radical feminist Gloria Steinem, who said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” The Women’s Liberation Movement was based on the basic Marxist class warfare formula:
The eternal enemy - all men.
The eternal victims - all women.
The end goal: to turn false and contrived information, blended with facts, into a separation of the sexes to the point where a species relationship no longer existed. They also claimed that everything was owned and controlled by men and the overthrow of the patriarchy was required, but that turned out to be a lie. The goal was to cause what they hoped would be the destruction of the established process that existed where young men and young women would meet, create friendships, earn trust, get married and have children. That just had to go. Needless to say, the very real problems that existed between men and women were of little concern, and what was offered was not a series of solutions but window-dressing to give the illusion of aid. In fairness, while they did some good things, you had to buy into their anti-men/anti-family ideas at the same time. They were not solution oriented.
Just have a look at what they are today. www.now.org/
1973 What is most relevant is that gays inside the American Psychiatric Association and radical gay activists outside the organization took a vote to declare what was a disorder yesterday, not a disorder the next day. Simple. It didn’t matter that all the data, patient interviews and published observations existed. It just didn’t matter anymore. Of course, there was outrage within the psychiatric community.
Then, in a stomach turning feat of pure irrationality, the United States Supreme Court would consign millions of the unborn to their deaths the same year. I could not believe it. The government I had trusted and respected had turned on women. The abortion clinics opened and the women were lied to: it’s just a blob of tissue, it’s not a baby until it’s born…
But the 1970s saw millions of dollars spent on ways to get the public addicted to orgasms through “adult” bookstores, “adult” theaters, strip clubs (still called gentlemen’s clubs) and topless bars.
And then the media gradually, slowly, began to drip poison into our veins. I thought the 1970s weren’t too bad on TV but the movies? Bad. Things just got worse in the 1980s. Throw in No-Fault Divorce and porn on cable.
By the 1990s, into the abyss.
Meanwhile, the ACLU was suing cities because they had a Nativity in front of their City Hall. There were religious monuments in public buildings! OUT!!! Lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. And they told us they were protecting our religion by taking it away from where other human beings had put it.
Out of sight, out of mind. Someone “might” be offended. They worked very hard to take religion out of public life.
So, I hope this provides a little insight into how we got here. Sex not love. Dog sex, not human sex, and soon… worse.
And remember, at every step of the plan, they said, “Oh no. We’d never do that.” And they did - in every case - they did.
Peace,
Ed
B
Bradski
Guest
It is available for review. You can buy the book from which the op ed was quoting. You can even access the book via Google and see all the references at the end of it. And here’s some more info: slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/05/prenuptial_jitters.2.htmlSo we can all agree that any arguments based on that information are strictly opinions, until said valid research is available for review.
There’s enough out there to keep anyone happy who wants to look at the facts and I posted the quotes earlier to refute the claim that in Scandinavia there has been a detrimental effect. That statement is plainly incorrect.
The page to which you linked only addressed the number of gay people getting married wherever it has been allowed. Which is a completely different matter and totally unrelated to the question at hand.
Which leads to the question: if it can be shown that there are no detrimental effects, would you accept that finding or ignore it?
And I appreciate that you have to bring in Protestants and Muslims into your societal mix. You need those to make up the numbers against SSM as the majority of your own faith supports it. Not saying that that makes it right, of course. Just saying is all.
B
Bradski
Guest
And as you never cease to bring up the fact that gay couples cannot produce children (whether they can call their relationship a marriage or not), what on EARTH has the world’s population have to do with the matter in hand?
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Then why doesn’t “gay rights” fall under the acceptance of all people? Why is it now a seperate, special, isolated issue that is taught? Sounds like indoctrination of children.
Frankly I don’t know why European countries do the things they do. In Belgium, they’re considering giving children the consent to choose if they’d want to die. Coincidentally, they’re also considering pedophilia. I mean if a child has the legal consent to choose to die, surely they have the legal consent to have sex with anyone they choose. Do you think that’s reasonable? Or even human?
Children could choose to die under new euthanasia law considered in Belgium
Please tell me this further assault on destroying families isn’t creating violence, death, and the overall destruction of society.
Oh but we will. Once the future generations grow to understand marriage as this new redefinition, it will be replace traditional marriage or come close to that eventually. As we see now, 50% of Catholics are for it, I think their children will be completely lost along with the meaning of real marriage.
Heterosexual people are also for gay marriage, even if they’ll never engage in that kind of activity. It further promotes the infectious idea that marriage can be anything that gives you pleasure and marriage doesn’t require commitment or new life.
No children = No new people = No society.
It opens the gates to future perversions with the lowering of the criteria. 50 years ago everyone was disgusted by gay marriage, now everyone is enthusiastic about it. In the next 50 years we’ll be having this conversation about incestous polygamous pedophilia and bestiality.
And as someone else already mentioned, take a look at all the societies which tolerated gay marriage. Where are they now?
Gay marriage is not a progressive thing, rather it is regressive.
It should based on what benefits society and what makes sense.
The government wouldn’t give a blind man a driver’s license, would it?
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
No children = No society.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
And those who have no faith are not qualified to judge whether or not same sex “marriage” harms those who do.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
Just because someone disagrees with something morally doesn’t mean that one is harmed by it.
We also live in a country in which it is against the Constitution to enshrine a religious belief as law. Without a law like the First Amendment, a Muslim-majority country could ban Catholics from marrying due to the religious belief that marriage is defined as a union between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Would you like to live in a country like that, or would you prefer that the government not adhere to any particular religion’s definition of marriage?
The definition of a civil marriage doesn’t change the definition of a Catholic marriage. Thus, heterosexuals who marry in an anti-gay church aren’t having the definition of their marriage changed. After all, those who married into anti-mixed-marriage churches didn’t have the definition of their marriage changed.
So you want same-sex couples to pay more than their fair share to subsidize opposite-sex marriages, while not allowing them to reap the same benefits with those who they love. That’s a very unfair, discriminatory form of socialism.
So you think that some of the information there constitutes evidence. Well, let me know specifically what facts their constitute evidence and lets discuss. I’ve been skimming through it, and so far I’ve seen anecdotes, non-sequiturs, and references to studies that are rejected as faulty.
E
edwest2
Guest
Ah, but don’t you know, we’re a “secular country”? You didn’t? Or as one non “reviewer” on amazon wrote: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”And those who have no faith are not qualified to judge whether or not same sex “marriage” harms those who do.
William F. Buckley, Jr. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
So, we can’t even think it, much less write it down. If it were a secular/liberal argument then we’d be ‘equal.’
Peace,
Ed
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I’m not surprised that one of the motivations of homosexuals in forcing SSM on society through legalization is to see themselves or their partners eligible for Social Security survivors benefits upon death of partner. What the report overlooked is this one: opening or extension of immigration benefit to non-U.S. citizens, as same-sex spouses of citizens. This has been an expressed gripe by a non-Catholic CAF member, a UK resident / subject, a homosexual who feels that it is one of the many rights that are unfairly withheld if SSM does not become the law in every state in the U.S., with full federal benefits for ‘married’ homosexual pairs. IOW, nothing short or less than the full monty, otherwise, that would be discriminating towards homosexual pairs that are committed and loving as any wedded heterosexual pairs.
Except this particular benefit potentially leads to any variation and all of the following disadvantages or harms to American society: shifting of (more of) the gay population from other parts of the world into the country who see the U.S. as the land of opportunity (mail order same sex partners for marriage, anyone?), sham same sex marriages, which could turn out to be a homeland security issue or simple exploitation of vulnerable homosexual nationals, immigration providing another weak point in the federal system to be abused.
As an aside, remember to what was the downing of the Twin Towers attributed? A failure of imagination.
,
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
I wouldn’t be so quick to include my country in such a hasty assessment. I don’t know about you, but I live here.
A most interesting choice of words in a single sentence:
“same-sex marriages” and "opposite-sex ‘relationships’ "
“Seemingly without any problems for opposite-sex relationships” is leaving out the children of married couples . The children are the first victims of the gay militant offensive to undermine the family. And as those children become victims, simultaneously, parents’ sacred rights to the education of their children get trampled . . . in the sophistic name of “equality” , the sacred right of a mother and father - whose union is the sustaining core of our human existence, gets obliterated.
And messed-up children indoctrinated by the gay militant intimidated state while their own parents believe otherwise = -
Menticide
- Status