Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[epan]

Well, gay “marriage” will definitely be detrimental to children:

Family Expert on Studies: Same-Sex Parenting Does Affect Children

So much for the gay “gene” excuses.

And also: The Negative Effects of Same-sex Marriages

And let’s bring to light one of the the best kept secrets of so-called gay-“marriage”:

It is rarely a monogamous relationship.

Yes, you can pick quotes that you like out of the NLLFS, but overall the study does not help your argument, at all. You might want to read the whole study, and pay attention to its conclusions, before you start cherry picking from it.

 

[holyrood]

You can marry who you are attracted to and enjoy over 1000 benefits that come from the civil government. Many American citizens-who are not members of, nor committed to any faith-cannot. That’s what it’s based on. Not the Church, not the Bible. Civil law.

No, I cannot marry anyone to whom I am attracted. I can’t marry my sister, my brother, my aunt, uncle, cousin, mother, father, anyone under a certain age, anyone under other ages without their parents’ consent, or anyone who is already married. If I happen to be married already, I cannot marry anyone to whom I’m attracted.

I’m not having this argument again…mostly because neither of us will change the other person’s mind. It wastes both of our time.

Enjoy not having the argument, but you understand, this point would cease to be an issue if proponents of creating same-sex ‘marriage’ out of whole cloth would cease to put forward what is inherently false. I cannot marry anyone to whom I’m attracted. Someone with SSA can marry within the exact same boundaries and limitations within which I am allowed to marry.

Forgive me if I misread your intention, but I hope you weren’t suggesting that because you announce you will not have this argument that somehow I should not or may not speak the obvious, that every adult in this country has the same exact boundaries within which they may marry another. We all have limitations on whom we may marry.

What I will say is that by telling people that they can be “cured” of their gayness, or that they “chose” their gayness…you’re telling them that there is something wrong with them and it’s their fault that they haven’t fixed it.

Except I never said this.

and I guess you met all the gay people who had abusive childhoods and didn’t leave any for me to get to know.

I’ve said twice that every homosexual person I’ve known, or whose sibling or parent has relayed information to me, has had a background of abuse. Being snotty and sarcastic changes nothing. I freely acknowledge that there are some out there who do not have an abusive background. That does not change what I have heard, witnessed, experienced, and seen with my own eyes. And forgive me, but when the story is that common, I do give it some credence as having some bearing on the issue. I see no benefit in your sarcasm.

 

[epan]

I absolutely reject your theory that SSM has any relationship to the destruction of traditional marriage. The theory speaks against itself…if marriage is losing favor in America if not throughout the world, why would another group want to ally itself with a dying movement and thereby gain credibility by entering into the failing institution?

I think there is ZERO relationship between the decline in marriage among heterosexuals and the push for homosexual marriage. I think the former is a victim of 60s mentality, of being against conventional wisdom of substituting feelings for wisdom, and convenience for commitment. This is not the same world it was when I was growing up. No fault divorce has been a HUGE factor and that has zero to do with Bob wanting to marry Bill.

I’m not sure who was behind the push for no fault divorce although I’m envisioning attorneys looking for more dough. But it was shoved along with lies that it was better for the children not to be in a home were the parents were fighting all of the time. Or that it was better for each spouse to find themselves and be true to their own happiness. Ideas such as duty, loyalty and commitment went out the door. This includes commitment and loyalty to children and church. I don’t think the two trends were simply coincidental. What has been learned is that divorce is virtually always hard on the children. Divorce creates more dependence on the state as often mothers get the kids and dad is sporadic at best paying child support. Easy divorce, particularly when there are children involved, is a recipe for disaster. Further epan you are incorrect about the 50% of marriages end in divorce by inferring that EVERY marriage has a 50 50 chance. In reality the majority of first marriages do not end in divorce but the 2nd, 3rd etc have a MUCH higher rate.

As to the energy to ‘save’ marriage, what do you suggest? The government is sabotaging marriage, particularly in the minority communities with the structure of benefits that favor single mothers and irresponsible fathers. How about some energy to track down Baby Daddy and get him to pay up? The government fights abstinance programs even though they have proven effective. By now minority populations have so many generations of unmarried mothers and fatherless homes that the young people simply don’t consider marriage as part of their future. They simply follow the pattern of their mothers and grandmothers. I’m a fan of a program called “Best Friends” that attempts to get inner city minority girls on a more positive track…stay in school, avoid drugs and don’t get pregnant. I heard the founder interviewed and she said 90% of the girls in their program have NEVER seen a traditional family model. They don’t know a dad who gets up every morning and goes to work. They don’t know a mother who is also a wife to their father. Her comment is that if this keeps up, marriage will be seen virtually only in the middle and upper class white areas.

If we want to save marriage, we have to divorce Uncle Sam! And quit tinkering with an institution that has been the building block of stable societies since the beginning of time. Same sex “marriage” is just another nail in the coffin, not an additional pillar of support.

Lisa

It is not just the decline in numbers, though that is part of it, it is also the elimination of gender roles and permanency. It is a complicated sequence of events, but there is a direct relationship.

You might want to listen to what Dr. Jennifer Morse has to say on the topic, if you want another view. I have not seen anything where she has fleshed it out in the detail which I have here. I imagine that she probably does in her latest book.

Both the anti gay marriage and the pro gay marriage camps agree on this. It is the changes in heterosexual marriage which pave the way for even considering the possibility of gay marriage.

 

[holyrood]

Many American citizens-who are not members of, nor committed to any faith-cannot. That’s what it’s based on. Not the Church, not the Bible. Civil law.

Are you suggesting that marriage between two people of the opposite sex is purely a Bible-based construct?

If so, can you explain why no society in the history of mankind has ever had marriage between two people of the same sex? Not pagan societies, not Buddhist, Moslem, poly-theist. No society ever. There have been societies that accept relationships between two men or two women, but marriage…never. Are we as a people really that much smarter than thousands of years of history, than the weight of experience of every single nation and civilization from now back to the beginning of time? What is it we know that they didn’t?

Why is it that even civilizations that accepted same sex relationships never recognized or created same sex marriages?

 

[holyrood]

… American citizens who work hard, pay taxes and just want to have what other American citizens have without having to pay lawyers and jump through hoops to get it.

1. 
   *]All American citizens already have the same limitations and rights as to whom they may marry. Sorry, I’m not letting this falsehood pass. No discussion will go anywhere as long as one party continues to insist on something that is simply not true.
   *]“I want” is a poor basis for changing the entire definition of an entire institution, for creating something that, perhaps for good reason, has never existed in any civilization, ever, in history.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Yes, you can pick quotes that you like out of the NLLFS, but overall the study does not help your argument, at all. You might want to read the whole study, and pay attention to its conclusions, before you start cherry picking from it.

Cherry Picking?

The U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) found that 49 percent of girls raised by lesbian mothers identified as either bi- or lesbian, compared with only 7 percent of girls raised in heterosexual-headed households.

How does that NOT give credence to the argument that homosexuality is a learned environmental dysfunction?

And then there’s this little jewel:

Aside from looking at the findings and effects on the orientation of children raised in same-sex homes, Stanton also looked at the methodology used to conduct the research.

He told The Christian Post that** it was not “representative or objective in any way,” **which is a problem since it’s the longest, largest study of same-sex families to date.

He said that the research only focuses on a small population sample of “highly educated upper middle class women that are in their 30s” – all from Boston, Washington, D.C., or San Francisco. He said most of them were recruited through gay activist channels and the parents self-report the well-being of their own children for the study.

It’s this kind of agenda-driven “research” garbage that explains the sudden explosion of media hyped “scientific evidence” that proclaims homosexuality suddenly “healthy” and perfectly “normal”.

This is same settled-science bilge from the Progressive Left that brought us the great global warming charade.

 

[holyrood]

It’s only a matter of time before traditional Christian doctrines will be deemed “hate speech”. Soon followed by a repeal of the Church’s tax-exempt status. And then quickly followed by endless audits and never ending tax increase. That is, until the “hateful” “bigoted” Christians get their minds right.

And please, don’t even delude yourself and say it won’t happen. It’s a certainty.

In case no one has yet pointed it out: it’s already happening.

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

freerepublic.com/focus/news/723946/posts

exministries.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/pastor-scott-lively-is-sued-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/

christiannews.net/2012/07/10/intolerant-police-shut-down-canadian-preacher-for-sharing-gospel-with-homosexuals/

chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/

blog.speakupmovement.org/church/uncategorized/oh-canada-the-homosexual-agenda-steamrolls-religious-freedom/ :

On January 10, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals in Canada released an opinion holding that marriage commissioners in Canada could not refuse to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies on the grounds that doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/preacher_arrested_in_u.k._for_calling_homosexual_conduct_sinful/ This one was covered in a link above, but the description of a police officer approaching the man and making it clear that he (the police officer) was gay and the man better stop sounds to me very much like an abuse of power.

 

[holyrood]

Catholic Charities CHOSE to get out of the adoption business because they CHOSE to follow a higher law.

This is a bit like saying Maximilian Kolbe and Betsy ten Boom CHOSE to die at the hands of the Nazis. Or a woman with a knife to her throat ‘chose’ to have sex with a stranger in an alley. Or Maggie ‘chose’ to take her shirt off for the Governor.

 

[epan]

Cherry Picking?

How does that NOT give credence to the argument that homosexuality is a learned environmental dysfunction?

And then there’s this little jewel:

It’s this kind of agenda-driven “research” garbage that explains the sudden explosion of media hyped “scientific evidence” that proclaims homosexuality suddenly “healthy” and perfectly “normal”.

This is same settled-science bilge from the Progressive Left that brought us the great global warming charade.

The conclusion of the report is that the children of lesbian couples are as well adjusted in all areas tested, and better adjusted in some of them, than kids raised by opposite sex couples. That is pretty much the conclusion.

The report makes no attempt to consider the etiology of homosexuality.

Your points are actually… errr… pointless.

The main critiques of the study are threefold. It was funded by a pro gay organization. The sample was limited to an urban population. The study was self reporting.

The defense of the critique, is that it was the first such long term study, and that was the available sample at the time.

Childhood development studies often are by necessity long term studies.

As with all studies, it has its strengths, and its weaknesses. This is why scientists and medical professionals consider all the information that they can find, and also consider these sorts of variables in coming to conclusions.

You are really barking up the wrong tree.

 

[holyrood]

C’mon…you guys really have to share the crystal ball!! You all just KNOW what the future is going to be. Surely you can at least help me win my March Madness pool!



Just trying to lighten it up a little…it gets way too depressing and serious here sometimes.

Why in the world would this require a crystal ball? It’s already happening.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

It is the changes in heterosexual marriage which pave the way for even considering the possibility of gay marriage.

Yes of course.

Societal acceptance of relaxed moral norms in general leads to more and more depravity both in scale and in deviance. And this is news? This is as old as the lessons of Sodom and Gomorrah themselves.

When you have to resort to justifying depravity by citing other societal dysfunctions, then rest assured your justification is morally bankrupt.

 

[holyrood]

Yes, you’re right: Repeating that homosexuality is suddenly "normal’ over and over doesn’t magically make it make sense.

So what exactly makes it “normal”?

And why are you advocating special privileges for a dysfunctional desire?

The original question regarded what new discovery or knowledge has suddenly made homosexual behavior normal. I notice the question was evaded rather than answered.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I don’t know, I’m not buying the arguments that it is different when it hits close to home.

I have a cousin who is openly gay and a couple of friends who are openly gay. They know I don’t approve of ‘gay marriage’ or their ‘lifestyle’ and never will. We treat each other with respect and compassion. Our opposing views have not dented our relationship, we acknowledge the boundaries of our relationship.

I’ll just say that my ‘gay’ friends and I have had many robust debates and conversations on this and other issues about which we view differently and we have still managed to stay friends/family.

I think this Senators actions boil down to his lack of moral courage.

Are you willing to openly deny Christ and his Teachings?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The conclusion of the report is that the children of lesbian couples are as well adjusted in all areas tested, and better adjusted in some of them, than kids raised by opposite sex couples. That is pretty much the conclusion.

Yes. As long as you consider an inordinately high percentage of same-sex attraction among children "normal. But of course this entire “study” is pro-gay so…circular reasoning much?

The report makes no attempt to consider the etiology of homosexuality.

Your points are actually… errr… pointless.

Uhm… the fact that the children who where raised by these dysfunctional people actually ended up with an unusually high degree of dysfunctional sexual attractions of their own does rather inadvertently suggest that homosexuality has a rather significant environmental factor to it - no?

So yes. They actually did reveal an etiology.

The main critiques of the study are threefold. It was funded by a pro gay organization. The sample was limited to an urban population. The study was self reporting.

The defense of the critique, is that it was the first such long term study, and that was the available sample.

As with all studies, it has its strengths, and its weaknesses. This is why scientists and medical professionals consider all the information that they can find, and also consider these sorts of variables in coming to conclusions.

You are really barking up the wrong tree.

What???

So you admit the entire study is agenda-based and completely bias in it’s selectivity, and thus it stands to reason that the conclusions as well as the entire study as a whole is…er…rather pointless.

And you had the audacity to claim that my point was pointless?

Do you even read the inane irony of your own written thoughts? Seriously.:ehh:

 

[holyrood]

A powerful piece on what one man’s experience growing up in a lesbian household and the gay movement’s attempt to squelch stories such as his:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

A few quotes worth highlighting:

I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household.** Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak**, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

Many have dismissed my story with four simple words: “But you are conservative.” Yes, I am. How did I get that way? I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions.

Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

A powerful piece on what one man’s experience growing up in a lesbian household and the gay movement’s attempt to squelch stories such as his:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

A few quotes worth highlighting:

Thank you holyrood.

I was looking for that piece. I remembered reading it a few months ago but I couldn’t find it on Google tonight. BTW, it’s amazing how the liberal-progressive search engines like Google overtly bury articles that are detrimental to the pro-gay cause.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Oh and, I’ll keep bringing this up:

The vast majority of Same-Sex “marriages” are not monogamous.

And anyone who tries to spin that depravity as some sort of “healthy” and “normal” environment for children, is morally bankrupt.

Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Open Monogamy In Gay Relationships

"Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.”

Not even close. While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 percent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships."

And we’re suppose to believe that this is a healthy environment for children?

There’s a reason nature prevents homosexuals from reproducing.

 

[epan]

Yes. As long as you consider an inordinately high percentage of same-sex attraction among children "normal. But of course this entire “study” is pro-gay so…circular reasoning much?

Uhm… the fact that the children who where raised by these dysfunctional people actually ended up with an unusually high degree of dysfunctional sexual attractions of their own does rather inadvertently suggest that homosexuality has a rather significant environmental factor to it - no?

So yes. They actually did reveal an etiology.

What???

So you admit the entire study is agenda-based and completely bias in it’s selectivity, and thus it stands to reason that the conclusions as well as the entire study as a whole is…er…rather pointless.

And you had the audacity to claim that my point was pointless?

Do you even read the inane irony of your own written thoughts? Seriously.:ehh:

you just excused yourself, and not for the first time, from rational discussion.

your rants contribute nothing. do you understand that extreme distortion and untruth only weaken your argument.

i’ll mark on my ignore list. feel free to rant on for those who will listen.

 

[RobbyS]

He seemingly changed his position after his son ‘came out’ as homosexual

Two House republicans whose names I have never heard of and 1 republican senator have announced support for redefining marriage

AP: Analysis Shows GOP Legislators Who Support SSM Lose Their Seats

If ‘marriage’ brings homosexual couples stability then why where marriage has been redefined does a small percentage of the homosexual population marry and when they do marry most of the marriages end in divorce. Studies have shown gay marriages last for a shorter duration than heterosexual marriages. Research from Stockholm University found that in Norway, male male marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, female female marriages are 167% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, divorce risk for male gay ‘unions’ is 50% higher than for heterosexual marriages, divorce risk for female gay ‘unions’ is nearly double that

‘Joy’ that marriage may bring is not a reason government accepts as a compelling interest to legalise or subsidise a variety of things. Government does not subsidise chocolate even though it increases happiness through endorphins, and government prohibits polygamous marriage, even though people can argue if they were alllowed to marry multiple people it would make them more joyful

Gays have often complained that marriage law, which is designed to subsidize families with children also extends to men and women who have no children nor any intent to have children. Fairless, of course, dictates not that two men or two women who live together ought not to be priviliged a like manner, but that the childless couples be denied such priviliges. No one, of course, is going yo suggest the , because there are now so many couples in our society, and they vote. “Gay marriage” is but the ratio ad absurdum of this new convention.