Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[SuperLuigi]

So, since I guess the answer is to end marriage completely,

I think that’s just a cop-out to avoid a contentious issue and remain ignorant on the details.

and all married couples in the US should give up their benefits. That way nobody ever has to worry about any of the consequences of that slippery slope!

That’s not really a bad idea. Let’s face it: even with martial benefits, too many heterosexual couples are too selfish to have enough children to keep up with native population growth, to say nothing about funding all these entitlements everyone from the progressive movement to the TEA PARTY whine about.

I’d give up my “benefits” in a heartbeat if it put the brakes on progressive sexual views.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pew did a poll to try to figure out why this trend is moving so rapidly. So, they asked people who had changed their minds what the reason is. The largest percentage gave the same reason as Sen. Portman. Because of someone whom they know who is gay.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/21/support-for-gay-marriage-is-soaring-heres-why/?wprss=rss_story-courts_law-NW3&tid=pp_widget

Eventually, the support for this nonsense will bottom out.

For now, we, unfortunately, live in a culture that glorifies this fake emotional martyrdom for others, and it’s perfectly okay because it’s for someone else, not for me. :dancing:

 

[epan]

Epan

That’s the problem.

Gay relationships would be funded through taxes which I pay. Not to mention government mandates that REQUIRE businesses to work with and pay people in such a manner as violates their consciences.

texasgopvote.com/comment/8273

bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38581



You mean like those Roman orgies or the ancient Greek view on homosexuality?

How’d that work out for them?

Civilizations move in cyclical, not linear patterns.

Please don’t lower yourself to condescension. You won’t win anyone over to your point of view that way.

If you take the time to read the amicus brief filed by the 70 major corporations, you will find that there is a strong argument that gay marriage will cost us far less than the current situation.

Or do you think that the likes of Microsoft, CBS, EA, Zygna are in business to lose money?

It seems that you could use a better understanding of the economics involved. I hope you are not so naive as to think that these companies are in the habit of paying legal fees worthy of US Supreme Court review, and trying to influence legal decisions, in ways that they will lose money?

The comparison of the current social and legal situation to Rome is specious and disingenuous, at best. The analogy does not apply.

 

[epan]

Eventually, the support for this nonsense will bottom out.

For now, we, unfortunately, live in a culture that glorifies this fake emotional martyrdom for others, and it’s perfectly okay because it’s for someone else, not for me. :dancing:

Interesting claim, because it is still on the rise, apparently. When do you predict the bottom of the curve? How many marriages will have been performed? And, then what? Are you suggesting that there will be a move to invalidate those marriages, or to stop new ones? How likely do you think that is?

I see a lot of confusion here between the moral argument and the social reality. There is a difference, and I think that a better understanding of the social and legal reality would be more effective than imagining that things are different than they are, because you wish it so.

If 70% of people born after 1980 support gay marriage, how do you think that this trend will bottom out? As more of them come to voting age, it is more likely that voter support will increase from the current 51% to 60% and then higher.

 

[Crude]

Interesting claim, because it is still on the rise, apparently. When do you predict the bottom of the curve? How many marriages will have been performed? And, then what? Are you suggesting that there will be a move to invalidate those marriages, or to stop new ones? How likely do you think that is?

I see a lot of confusion here between the moral argument and the social reality. There is a difference, and I think that a better understanding of the social and legal reality would be more effective than imagining that things are different than they are, because you wish it so.

If 70% of people born after 1980 support gay marriage, how do you think that this trend will bottom out? As more of them come to voting age, it is more likely that voter support will increase from the current 51% to 60% and then higher.

That entirely depends on what happens between now and then. As we’ve seen recently in France, it’s possible for the trend to run in the reverse. Assuming we learn a few lessons from how this was handled in France, and more general lessons besides.

After all, you realize that there’s been a dramatic shift in support in the past 10 years from one direction the other? A change in the other direction is also possible.

 

[epan]

I suspect you don’t understand Scalia very much. You’re talking about a man who not only dissented from the decision to force a school to become co-ed, but who was absolutely furious in writing his dissent.

What’s more, you say “the political fight is over”. But by your standards, the “political fight” was over - 20 years ago. Meanwhile in France, support for gay marriage seems to have dropped like a stone recently.

The fight is not over, and is never over. But gay marriage opponents have to learn from their mistakes, and learn from other’s successes.

I don’t understand Scalia much, other than that he is not very respected in legal circles. He is brilliant, though eccentric from what good attorneys tell me (including a close friend who clerked on the US Supreme Court). But he is not the worst Justice, from what I hear. I’m told that the Court would be a lot better if others than Thomas and Alito were seated. I am not talking ideology here. I am talking competence.

I find it sad that there is a litmus test for Justices. I would much rather see a Court of moderates, than a polarized court where one or two moderate justices make all the decisions, because the other 7 or 8 are such ideologues that what they try to pass off as a legal opinion, is just a rationalization of their personal ideologies. The far left and the far right are useless on the court. The balance each other out. So the few remaining moderates who swing on the issues make the decisions. I doubt that any of us would want nine Roberts, nine Ginsbergs, nine Scalias, nine Thomas’s, or nine Alitos on the court.

I suppose there is something to be said for diversity of opinion, but i would rather see a court of strong legal minds of moderate political and social beliefs, than what we have now.

The lawyers whose opinions I respect consider this to be the weakest court in memory.

 

[PRmerger]

That entirely depends on what happens between now and then. As we’ve seen recently in France, it’s possible for the trend to run in the reverse.

Yes, this is a curious phenomenon, given the otherwise secular culture that predominates in France. It appears that in all *other *areas of moral law the French people thumb their nose at moral truth. Curious indeed!

 

[josh987654321]

Their stated motives don’t make any sense to me.

Of course my gay friends are wonderful, they are children of God. So are my friends who have premarital sex, or who masturbate… but that doesn’t mean they’re not gravely hurting themselves through embracing thoughts and actions that are unequivocally sinful… which lead them away from God, and which irreparably harm their souls.

I’m not going to endorse relationships that enable that anymore than I’d endorse an abusive boyfriend or girlfriend. If I did, how could I honestly say that I love them?

Exactly It’s one thing to give into disordered and immoral desires out of weakness, but it’s a whole another level to claim that the acts of homosexuality arn’t disordered and immoral, which is what they are trying to do through homosexual marriage.

Are you the silent, boomer, gen x, or later generation?

Here is an interesting one which shows that Catholic acceptance of the idea was growing at the same rate as Protestant acceptance, until 2012. So, while 55% of Protestants now support gay marriage (up 15% since 2003), only 48% of Catholics support gay marriage (up 8%).

features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/slide3.php

Meanwhile, the percentage within those groups has remained more stable, with about 70% saying that gay marriage violates their religious beliefs. There appear to be a growing number of people who believe that in spite of the fact that same sex marriage would violate their religious views. that it should be accepted by society. I guess this issue is a lot like divorce, in that sense.

Thanks Epan, I have no doubt that those statistics would be very accurate, It frustrates me the most, when Christians are ‘for’ same sex marriage, I feel like telling them “do you know your churches stand on this issue?” “You call yourself a Chrisitan, why don’t you get out the bible and burn the pages that are clearly against the acts of homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22).” They seem to think Christ was all about sunshine, lolipops and rainbows in all his teachings, and they have a very warped view of Love, Christs teachings are of Love and Mercy, yet they seem to have no idea of the Love that Christ is talking about.

One mass, our priest was talking about Love, and he said he went to a man’s place who had an affair on his wife, the man said “But I love both of the women” and the priest replied “No, that’s not love, love is putting the welfare of the other person above your own”, by having the affair it showed that he really loved neither of them, the tuth is that he loved his desires.

I hate it when people have the idea that ‘sex’ is something fun and to be experimented with, when they have a view of sex being ‘harmless’ fun.

And unfortunatly my generation seems to have that idea alot, so while ever that idea is around, they will see no problem with homosexual marriage or acts of homosexuality, sarcasim I mean hey, if it doesn’t affect them directly then why not let them do whatever they desire, because it’s harmless fun isnt it.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

The fight is not over, and is never over. But gay marriage opponents have to learn from their mistakes, and learn from other’s successes.

They can’t outlaw the truth, the truth that the acts of homosexuality are disordered and immoral desires to act on and that ‘homosexual marriage’ is a lie.

You can’t make people believe a lie by using force with the law.

We obey God’s laws, not man’s laws, therefore ‘homosexual marriage’ is the one thing that’s going to cause the two laws to clash, because to accept homosexual marriage means to refuse God’s laws of marriage, I don’t want it to come to that, but it most likely will if they try to enforce homosexual marriage by law, Outlawing the Church is how Rome fell. Didn’t they learn anything from history?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

If 70% of people born after 1980 support gay marriage, how do you think that this trend will bottom out? As more of them come to voting age, it is more likely that voter support will increase from the current 51% to 60% and then higher.

I think it will bottom out, because the remainder 30% in that generation like me, see the stupidity of the 70% and will work harder at opposing it, it’s all because the 70% are just Ignorant, they don’t know enough about same sex marriage to be ‘for’ or ‘against it’, they are just ‘going with the flow’ I think, they only hear the arguments that are ‘for’ same sex marriage and never hear the ones that are ‘against’ same sex marriage.

They think it’s like black rights and that all who oppose it are the KKK from the southern states, they don’t seem to see that there is NO equality between the human anatomy of a male and a female, they are physically very different, I mean we learn this in primary school, what are they thinking?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Sporkbeard]

The poll had White Catholic and another one I cannot remember right now.

Who said something about being white?

 

[epan]

I think it will bottom out, because the remainder 30% in that generation like me, see the stupidity of the 70% and will work harder at opposing it, it’s all because the 70% are just Ignorant, they don’t know enough about same sex marriage to be ‘for’ or ‘against it’, they are just ‘going with the flow’ I think, they only hear the arguments that are ‘for’ same sex marriage and never hear the ones that are ‘against’ same sex marriage.

They think it’s like black rights and that all who oppose it are the KKK from the southern states.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I don’t believe that I can predict the future, too far out. My sense is that there is a tremendous momentum at work here, socially, right now.

I also believe that we have many very complex social issues to come to terms with, and this is one of the simpler ones to understand. If this one is so difficult, than that challenges my usual optimism to ponder how we will come to terms with the other issues.

One hallmark of the gay marriage issue, is the rapidity in the change of social norms. This is the characteristic of our time, which is both exciting, and alarming. The rate of change is astonishing, and accelerating.

One good measure of mental health is the ability to adapt well to change. As individuals, we do our best, and then we let go of the result. If you hang on too tight to the result, then you can drive yourself crazy.

It is always a personal judgement call, as to which issues to oppose, and how much effort to invest, and also at what point to move on and accept reality. My personal choice in this is to let go of it. I believe that no vote I could make, no statement I could make, nothing that I could do, will stop or delay what appears to be inevitable, at this point. When I see that 70% of Christians believe that gay marriage opposes their religious views, while at the same time 50% of those favor gay marriage, then I think that the near future is obvious. When I see that 70% of people under the age of 33 are in favor of gay marriage, I see an obvious trend. This trend has 100 years of weight behind it, which has culminated in an astonishingly rapid rate of acceptance over the past 10-15 years.

 

[PRmerger]

When I see that 70% of people under the age of 33 are in favor of gay marriage, I see an obvious trend. This trend has 100 years of weight behind it, which has culminated in an astonishingly rapid rate of acceptance over the past 10-15 years.

This is indeed an alarming trend. And misguided.

The pendulum has swung way too far. In the past, in an attempt to reject heresy, the Church and society rejected heretics.

Today, in an attempt to embrace heretics, society is embracing heresy.

 

[epan]

This is indeed an alarming trend. And misguided.

The pendulum has swung way too far. In the past, in an attempt to reject heresy, the Church and society rejected heretics.

Today, in an attempt to embrace heretics, society is embracing heresy.

As I read your post, it reminded me that the pendulum does indeed swing. If we count the start of Reagan as the swing right, with Bush as the point that the pendulum started to the left, then it would appear that the pendulum has greater velocity. This is another way of seeing my point that the rate of change has accelerated.

So, the next question is, what happens when it swings back to the right? Given the rather alarming worldwide economic changes which portend collapse, does this prime us for conditions similar to the precursor to Nazi Germany?

And, how far can it swing left? By that I mean, that swings to the left go to libertarianism, licentiousness and anarchy.

Swings to the right approach totalitarianism and fascism. If the pendulum swings faster and further each time, which fate is worse?

 

[PRmerger]

As I read your post, it reminded me that the pendulum does indeed swing. If we count the start of Reagan as the swing right, with Bush as the point that the pendulum started to the left, then it would appear that the pendulum has greater velocity. This is another way of seeing my point that the rate of change has accelerated.

So, the next question is, what happens when it swings back to the right? Given the rather alarming worldwide economic changes which portend collapse, does this prime us for conditions similar to the precursor to Nazi Germany?

And, how far can it swing left? By that I mean, that swings to the left go to libertarianism, licentiousness and anarchy.

Swings to the right approach totalitarianism and fascism. If the pendulum swings faster and further each time, which fate is worse?

I think we need to get rid of the pendulum altogether and replace it with a compass. A compass focused on, of course, Christ and His Body, the Catholic Church.

 

[josh987654321]

This is indeed an alarming trend. And misguided.

The pendulum has swung way too far. In the past, in an attempt to reject heresy, the Church and society rejected heretics.

Today, in an attempt to embrace heretics, society is embracing heresy.

I think your 100% on the money PRmerger, I think that not many seem to have the rational middle ground that we need.

I don’t believe that I can predict the future, too far out. My sense is that there is a tremendous momentum at work here, socially, right now.

haha yea same, but it would be good if the next generation could see the mistakes that the 70% of my generation are making.

I also believe that we have many very complex social issues to come to terms with, and this is one of the simpler ones to understand. If this one is so difficult, than that challenges my usual optimism to ponder how we will come to terms with the other issues.

Yea it is a worrying thought, I never thought that homosexual marriage would even be up for discussion.

One good measure of mental health is the ability to adapt well to change. As individuals, we do our best, and then we let go of the result. If you hang on too tight to the result, then you can drive yourself crazy.

I wont hang on too tightly to the result, but mental health doesn’t include ignoring the truth to believe a lie simply because no one else can see the turth, that would drive you crazy, trying to believe a lie because the law say’s it’s a truth.

It is always a personal judgement call, as to which issues to oppose, and how much effort to invest, and also at what point to move on and accept reality. My personal choice in this is to let go of it. I believe that no vote I could make, no statement I could make, nothing that I could do, will stop or delay what appears to be inevitable, at this point. When I see that 70% of Christians believe that gay marriage opposes their religious views, while at the same time 50% of those favor gay marriage, then I think that the near future is obvious. When I see that 70% of people under the age of 33 are in favor of gay marriage, I see an obvious trend. This trend has 100 years of weight behind it, which has culminated in an astonishingly rapid rate of acceptance over the past 10-15 years.

Never underestimate the power of the truth, even if it’s not seen by the majority, if you can show the truth of ‘homosexuality’ to even just one of the 70% under 33 who support homosexual marriage, you will make a huge difference.

Never give up on the truth, I guess they thought that abolishing slavery was an impossible goal considering all of those who owned slaves, in the same way we might think that abolishing ‘homosexual marriage’ is an impossible goal considering all of those who are for it, but it’s the truth and I refuse to accept a lie simply becuase that’s what the majority are doing, don’t give up on the truth Epan, you can make a huge difference.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Dawnia]

As I read your post, it reminded me that the pendulum does indeed swing. If we count the start of Reagan as the swing right, with Bush as the point that the pendulum started to the left, then it would appear that the pendulum has greater velocity. This is another way of seeing my point that the rate of change has accelerated.

So, the next question is, what happens when it swings back to the right? Given the rather alarming worldwide economic changes which portend collapse, does this prime us for conditions similar to the precursor to Nazi Germany?

And, how far can it swing left? By that I mean, that swings to the left go to libertarianism, licentiousness and anarchy.

Swings to the right approach totalitarianism and fascism. If the pendulum swings faster and further each time, which fate is worse?

You equate Reagan with fascism and totalitarianism? That’s funny.

The travel to the left started back in the mid 1800’s when sodomy was not longer a hanging offense. It took about 150 years before it was no longer a crime. Then 10 years after that for gay marriage to become the fashion craze of the day. To say it’s picked up speed would be a great understatement. It’s like mob mentality.

 

[seakelp]

You equate Reagan with fascism and totalitarianism? That’s funny.

The travel to the left started back in the mid 1800’s when sodomy was not longer a hanging offense. It took about 150 years before it was no longer a crime. Then 10 years after that for gay marriage to become the fashion craze of the day. To say it’s picked up speed would be a great understatement. It’s like mob mentality.

You think getting rid of state-sponsored murder for sodomy was a “swing to the left?”

 

[Dawnia]

You think getting rid of state-sponsored murder for sodomy was a “swing to the left?”

Well when there are only two directions…left is the only way it can go. Punishment by death is pretty much as far right as you can get. (Assuming that anti is on the right side of the pendulum and pro is on the left side)

 

[JimG]

I can certainly agree that the pace of social change is accelerating. Family deconstruction didn’t just begin fifty years ago, but the rate at which the family is being deconstructed has steeply accelerated in the last few decades.

The widespread acceptance of, and practice of, contraception helped to decouple sex from marriage as well as from children, (and to decouple couples from each other.) Feminism paradoxically helped increase the power of men and decrease the power of women with respect to sexual license.

Divorce, especially no-fault divorce, reduced the meaning of marriage, rendering vows meaningless and putting children at the mercy of either parent’s ability to dissolve the union at will.

Abortion, naturally, was needed as a backup to contraception, (which itself spurred an increase in promiscuity and out of wedlock births). Unborn children can now be killed at will, and born children deprived of their siblings.

Marriage, having already been hit near death blows by contraception, divorce, extra-marital sex, and fornication, is now rendered meaningless by “same sex marriage.” Does being a man or women even mean anything? If it doesn’t mean anything to marriage, where sexual complementarity was always a sine qua non, then we might as well all be neuter.

But marriage has always been the basis of family, and family is the fundamental unit of civilization. As marriage goes, so goes civilization. It doesn’t necessarily devolve to the right or to the left. When civilizations fall, they fall to chaos. And from chaos, civilization can be rebuilt. The Church can and will help in the rebuilding. But it will take awhile.