Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[Seeker1961]

Smoking, like homosexual activity, is a behavior. We can and do ‘discriminate’ against smoking. We can and should discriminate among behaviors.

The question about ‘deciding’ to be heterosexual is pretty trite and old. Over and over and over again, I hear directly from homosexuals that they had abusive backgrounds and childhood traumas. Clearly, there is something going on here other than a select number of people ‘being born that way.’ This is one of the reasons I actually find it *cruel *to encourage this attitude that we’re born this way. But we’re far too politically correct to talk about how prevalent that abusive background is among those with SSA.

How come the only time I hear about gay people and abusive childhoods is from people who are against gay people having the same civil rights as the “normal” people? I’ll hazard a guess that I know a few more gay people than most conservative Catholics who are against gay marriage-having lived in the community as an adult since the 1980’s. Of the gay friends I have had and now have in my life-ONE had what anyone could consider abuse in their background. I know another that was sent to a fundamentalist anti-gay camp that probably made her into more of a gay activist than if she’d been left alone. I also have a straight friend who had a horrifically abusive childhood and made a commitment to God and everyone that he would be the father he never had…and he is. He has a lovely wife and five amazing children.

Sure, there are gay people with lousy backgounds, and there are straight people with lousy backgrounds. Those backgrounds had influence as to the choices they make in life-but they didn’t make then gay or straight.

It’s cruel to tell people that their attraction is their fault,and if they just prayed enough or prayed the right way they’d be just like everyone else. Don’t you think they’ve tried that?

 

[epan]

I’ll try this again.

2010 -

4,100,000 live births in the US.
112,000,000 people between the ages of 18-44.

If 4% are gay, that means about 4.5 million 18-44

Fewer than 50% of heterosexual adults now marry in the US.

In countries with gay marriage, about 10% of gay people marry.

10% of 4.5 million, is 450,000, or 225,000 marriages.

If 20% have a child, with half of those being adoptions, and half being surrogate births, then the number of new children in gay married households is less than 25,000. The adopted children are better off than if left unadopted.

Now the kids of hetero parents. 4.1 million births. More than 2 million out of wedlock. Of those in wedlock, more than 500,000 divorce in early childhood.

That leaves a ratio of 2,500,000 to 25,000 or 1 percent.

Play with the numbers to come up with whatever scenario you think realistic. But there is no way around it. The problem is much larger in the heterosexual world for children than in the homosexual world, precisely because that is where children are produced, and where marriage is failing.

 

[LisaA]

I’ll try this again.

2010 -

4,100,000 live births in the US.
112,000,000 people between the ages of 18-44.

If 4% are gay, that means about 4.5 million 18-44

Fewer than 50% of heterosexual adults now marry in the US.

In countries with gay marriage, about 10% of gay people marry.

10% of 4.5 million, is 450,000, or 225,000 marriages.

If 20% have a child, with half of those being adoptions, and half being surrogate births, then the number of new children in gay married households is less than 25,000. The adopted children are better off than if left unadopted.

Now the kids of hetero parents. 4.1 million births. More than 2 million out of wedlock. Of those in wedlock, more than 500,000 divorce in early childhood.

That leaves a ratio of 2,500,000 to 25,000 or 1 percent.

Play with the numbers to come up with whatever scenario you think realistic. But there is no way around it. The problem is much larger in the heterosexual world for children than in the homosexual world, precisely because that is where children are produced, and where marriage is failing.

epan I understand your point but you could use the same method and say well there are 300 million people in America and of these only a tiny minority were sexually abused so why fight the causes of sexual abuse since only a small segment of the population is impacted? It’s not the number of homosexuals marrying or buying/breeding or adopting children that is the issue but the structural changes in society by yet another social experiment. Why on earth, having admitted traditional marriage is struggling, and I maintain BECAUSE of these social experiments, do you suggest we ignore yet another social experiment?

You are also correct in the issues of heterosexual marriage. But the raw statistics are misleading. Separate out these numbers by race and see what you get? Further separate that group by income demographics. The decline in marriage is most apparent in low income minority groups. Middle and upper middle/upper class whites have a much higher rate of marriage. So maybe the problem ISNT marriage but cultural phenomena within certain ethnic and income demographics. What we are doing with our current welfare programs is paying people NOT to marry, NOT to take responsibility. How about looking to the reasons people don’t marry before adding to the mess with yet another devaluation of traditional marriage. If we valued traditional marriage more, provided support for families beyond the lip service given by politicians, it would be much stronger.

Lisa

 

[epan]

epan I understand your point but you could use the same method and say well there are 300 million people in America and of these only a tiny minority were sexually abused so why fight the causes of sexual abuse since only a small segment of the population is impacted? It’s not the number of homosexuals marrying or buying/breeding or adopting children that is the issue but the structural changes in society by yet another social experiment. Why on earth, having admitted traditional marriage is struggling, and I maintain BECAUSE of these social experiments, do you suggest we ignore yet another social experiment?

You are also correct in the issues of heterosexual marriage. But the raw statistics are misleading. Separate out these numbers by race and see what you get? Further separate that group by income demographics. The decline in marriage is most apparent in low income minority groups. Middle and upper middle/upper class whites have a much higher rate of marriage. So maybe the problem ISNT marriage but cultural phenomena within certain ethnic and income demographics. What we are doing with our current welfare programs is paying people NOT to marry, NOT to take responsibility. How about looking to the reasons people don’t marry before adding to the mess with yet another devaluation of traditional marriage. If we valued traditional marriage more, provided support for families beyond the lip service given by politicians, it would be much stronger.

Lisa

True, there are valuable statistics, and we should use them to try to provide assistance to people in need.

I was responding to the claim that children are the victims here. While that may be true, it is a world of limited resources, and I prefer to focus on the 80% rather than spend all the energy on the 10%.

I think my frame of reference is different than many here. I believe that gay marriage is inevitable in the US. I have explained why I think that. 100 years of momentum of social change is driving this. Heterosexual marriage is in crisis. This crisis has opened the door to homosexual marriage. The solution is to focus on fixing heterosexual marriage. That is where the biggest return is. That is where the most damage has been done, more than gay marriage can ever do. It is a numbers game.

Does one treat the symptoms of a disease, or does one treat the underlying causes? Is it better to lose weight, eat a healthy diet, and exercise… or is it better to treat the high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes with drugs?

 

[Dawnia]

I’ll try this again.

2010 -

4,100,000 live births in the US.
112,000,000 people between the ages of 18-44.

If 4% are gay, that means about 4.5 million 18-44

Fewer than 50% of heterosexual adults now marry in the US.

In countries with gay marriage, about 10% of gay people marry.

10% of 4.5 million, is 450,000, or 225,000 marriages.

If 20% have a child, with half of those being adoptions, and half being surrogate births, then the number of new children in gay married households is less than 25,000. The adopted children are better off than if left unadopted.

Now the kids of hetero parents. 4.1 million births. More than 2 million out of wedlock. Of those in wedlock, more than 500,000 divorce in early childhood.

That leaves a ratio of 2,500,000 to 25,000 or 1 percent.

Play with the numbers to come up with whatever scenario you think realistic. But there is no way around it. The problem is much larger in the heterosexual world for children than in the homosexual world, precisely because that is where children are produced, and where marriage is failing.

You might want to try again…around 90% of all people get marry at least once in their lifetime. 75% of women have been married at least once by the age of 30 according to the CDC.

 

[ephesians4]

I’ll try this again.

2010 -

4,100,000 live births in the US.
112,000,000 people between the ages of 18-44.

If 4% are gay, that means about 4.5 million 18-44

Fewer than 50% of heterosexual adults now marry in the US.

In countries with gay marriage, about 10% of gay people marry.

10% of 4.5 million, is 450,000, or 225,000 marriages.

If 20% have a child, with half of those being adoptions, and half being surrogate births, then the number of new children in gay married households is less than 25,000. The adopted children are better off than if left unadopted.

Now the kids of hetero parents. 4.1 million births. More than 2 million out of wedlock. Of those in wedlock, more than 500,000 divorce in early childhood.

That leaves a ratio of 2,500,000 to 25,000 or 1 percent.

Play with the numbers to come up with whatever scenario you think realistic. But there is no way around it. The problem is much larger in the heterosexual world for children than in the homosexual world, precisely because that is where children are produced, and where marriage is failing.

This is a (probably unintentionally) spurious comparison. “You don’t need to arrest pickpockets when there are burglars out there”, “you don’t need to arrest burglars when there are murderers out there”, etc.

In this case I think most of us would readily concede that marriage has had a comprehensive range of problems for decades, but problem X being serious does not necessarily mean problem Y is no problem at all.

 

[epan]

You might want to try again…around 90% of all people get marry at least once in their lifetime. 75% of women have been married at least once by the age of 30 according to the CDC.

The area of interest is the 15 - 44 age range. Divorce rates are just about 50% of marriage rates. The majority of children are born out of wedlock. Current statistics show that less than 50% of adults in the US are married.

Your statistics prove my point. 90% of people may marry at least once, and less than 50% of the adult population is married. This matches well with the ratio of divorces to marriages.

You might want to try again, yourself.

 

[epan]

This is a (probably unintentionally) spurious comparison. “You don’t need to arrest pickpockets when there are burglars out there”, “you don’t need to arrest burglars when there are murderers out there”, etc.

In this case I think most of us would readily concede that marriage has had a comprehensive range of problems for decades, but problem X being serious does not necessarily mean problem Y is no problem at all.

Perhaps, but you don’t spend your law enforcement resources going after the street dealers, if you can catch the kingpins.

The huge problem here is the disintegration of heterosexual marriage. Without that process, gay marriage would not be an issue. Why not focus on the cause, instead of the symptom?

 

[JimG]

Perhaps, but you don’t spend your law enforcement resources going after the street dealers, if you can catch the kingpins.

The huge problem here is the disintegration of heterosexual marriage. Without that process, gay marriage would not be an issue. Why not focus on the cause, instead of the symptom?

Because the acceptance of gay marriage just knocks out the final suport of the institution, guaranteeing its imminent fall.

Metaphorically, the marriage meter has steadily gone downhill, from say, near to 100%, and declined to where it is about 50% meaningless. Gay marriage will take it to zero and into negative numbers.

But I have to admit that the damage already done to the institution may be so critical as to make recovery impossible until after the culture collapses. The Church will rebuild the institution after the new dark age. But that doesn’t mean I want to just throw in the towel immediately.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

How come the only time I hear about gay people and abusive childhoods is from people who are against gay people having the same civil rights as the “normal” people?

First of all, marriage is not a civil right. It is an exclusive institutionalized recognition of the self-evident design of our naturally ordered paradigm of monogamous heterosexual reproduction. Which itself, is the fundamental building block for every successful society through the last 6000 years of human civilization.

What exactly is “normal” about homosexuality?

 

[epan]

Because the acceptance of gay marriage just knocks out the final suport of the institution, guaranteeing its imminent fall.

Metaphorically, the marriage meter has steadily gone downhill, from say, near to 100%, and declined to where it is about 50% meaningless. Gay marriage will take it to zero and into negative numbers.

But I have to admit that the damage already done to the institution may be so critical as to make recovery impossible until after the culture collapses. The Church will rebuild the institution after the new dark age. But that doesn’t mean I want to just throw in the towel immediately.

I understand. But I think that the Titanic has already hit the iceberg. That is my sense of the current social and legal situation.

If this is the new reality, then the task is to man the lifeboats. By that I mean to focus on what social support can be created for these kids who are the victims of all these dysfunctional marriages.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

So, realistically speaking, what impact do you think heterosexual marriage will continue to have on child rearing?

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

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

“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.”

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.

"If a straight organization such as the NAACP, the Union for Reform Judaism, or the League of Women Voters linked to a Web site hostile to sexual fidelity that argued that adultery was consistent with monogamy, their members would be in an uproar because those ideas do not represent their values. But those ideas actually do represent mainstream gay and lesbian values, which is why there has been no uproar. The way to assess gay people’s ideas is not through how they are portrayed in the mainstream media, where gays try to conform and be accepted. It is through the gay media, where they forget that anyone could be listening.

…

If you hear gay people objecting to the argument that same-sex marriage is fundamentally different from marriage, ask them if they consider sexual exclusivity (don’t say monogamy because they might answer using the gay definition) an essential part of a proper marriage. Feel free to ask straight people the same question. Then you decide based on what you hear."

 

[_Abyssinia]

Newt Gingrich: No gay marriage evolution

Reacting to Sen. Rob Portman’s sudden support of same-sex marriage, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Friday that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman “no matter what politicians decide.”

“Well, my stance hasn’t evolved. I observed in December that we’re faced with realities that are different than my personal beliefs,” Gingrich, a former House Speaker, said on CNN. “I believe as the Bible teaches, marriage is between a man and woman. I actually think that marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what politicians decide. I don’t think they have the power to change what is a religiously inspired definition.”

---

I’m not going to second guess Rob Portman. He’s an old personal friend. I think when you have somebody in your immediate family who comes in, you have three choices: You can say say, ‘I believe my principles so much, I’m kicking you out.’ You can say say, ‘I still believe in my principles, but I love you.’ Or you can say, ‘Gee, I love you so much I’m changing my principles,’” Gingrich said.

He continued: “Rob picked the third path. That’s his prerogative. I’m not going to second guess him. But I would also say that historically in the long run, marriage will be between man and woman, that’s been the definition for thousands of years and I don’t think politicians will change that.”

Gingrich added that the country would have a “complicated” next few years as some states legalize same-sex marriage and others do not.

“Whether you are for traditional marriage or you are for somehow changing it, we have to understand how complicated the next few years are going to be as we sort out just the practical legalities, which is different than what we think the moral principles are,” Gingrich said on CNN.

 

[JimG]

I understand. But I think that the Titanic has already hit the iceberg. That is my sense of the current social and legal situation.

If this is the new reality, then the task is to man the lifeboats. By that I mean to focus on what social support can be created for these kids who are the victims of all these dysfunctional marriages.

If the Titanic has already hit the iceberg, then civilization will crumble, and we will have a period of chaos to go through before rebuilding will even be possible. How long did it take for a stable civilization to be rebuilt from the ruins of the Roman Empire? It will be awhile. Pope Francis may be more correct than he imagines if he expects that we will be a Church of the poor.

 

[LisaA]

I just realized that my statistical analysis was not quite right. But I don’t think anyone can argue that the problem of gays raising children is not miniscule compared to the problem or heterosexuals being willing to produce children, at wil,l and out of wedlock.

In fact, the procreative capacity of heterosexuals presents a far greater problem than gays being able to adopt children, or to bring them into a gay marriage household.

Let’s try to keep this in realistic perspective.

I would much rather see all of this energy go into actually strengthening heterosexual marriage.

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

 

[holyrood]

How come the only time I hear about gay people and abusive childhoods is from people who are against gay people having the same civil rights as the “normal” people?

Are you trying to imply something? What civil rights are we talking about?

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

People who engage in homosexual behavior have the same rights of the accused as I do, the right to fair trial, due process and seeking redress or legal remedy. They have the right to participate in civil society and politics, they have the same freedom of association, right to assemble, petition, and self defense that I do. They have the right to vote.

Perhaps the reason you’re hearing about it mainly from those who support traditional morality is because it’s an inconvenient truth for those who don’t?

I could venture a few other reasons, but I will ask in return, if it’s not true, why is it that every gay person I’ve ever known, or a family member of that person, has told me this? Perhaps they’re lying to me? Perhaps by some miracle I’ve met only those among the small minority who actually had abusive backgrounds? I suppose it’s possible. If so, it doesn’t change my experience.

I’ll hazard a guess that I know a few more gay people than most conservative Catholics who are against gay marriage-having lived in the community as an adult since the 1980’s.

Hazard all the guesses you like, but you’re making assumptions about the backgrounds of every single conservative Catholic who is against gay ‘marriage.’ People come to their Catholicism, conservatism, and pro-traditional-marriage views from very diverse backgrounds. I’ll just say, you’d be surprised who I know.

Sure, there are gay people with lousy backgounds, and there are straight people with lousy backgrounds. Those backgrounds had influence as to the choices they make in life-but they didn’t make then gay or straight.

Of course our backgrounds don’t force us into choices. But they do impact them. Sorry, but I’ve seen and heard enough evidence, anecdotal and studies, to have reached a different conclusion.

It’s cruel to tell people that their attraction is their fault,and if they just prayed enough or prayed the right way they’d be just like everyone else. Don’t you think they’ve tried that?

Who said SSA is an individual’s ‘fault?’ I’m sure many people have prayed and wanted to change. I’m sure many others, living in a world that celebrates homosexual behavior, have not and have no desire to change.

 

[holyrood]

How come the only time I hear about gay people and abusive childhoods is from people who are against gay people having the same civil rights as the “normal” people?

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

And let me be clear: I am not against any person having these civil rights. I doubt anyone on this forum is. I have not heard a single political or moral debate, ever, in this country, attempting to take these civil rights away from anyone.

People who engage in homosexual behavior have exactly the same rights to marry as I do. I have limits on who I can marry, and they are the exact same limits that affect every single person in this country. So if we want to change the DEFINITION of marriage, or change those existing requirements, we ought to be TRUTHFULLY SAYING SO, not playing games pretending that anyone is denied rights that others have, or pretending this is about prejudice or discrimination or ‘hate.’

 

[Seeker1961]

And let me be clear: I am not against any person having these civil rights. I doubt anyone on this forum is. I have not heard a single political or moral debate, ever, in this country, attempting to take these civil rights away from anyone.

People who engage in homosexual behavior have exactly the same rights to marry as I do. I have limits on who I can marry, and they are the exact same limits that affect every single person in this country. So if we want to change the DEFINITION of marriage, or change those existing requirements, we ought to be TRUTHFULLY SAYING SO, not playing games pretending that anyone is denied rights that others have, or pretending this is about prejudice or discrimination or ‘hate.’

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[LisaA]

And let me be clear: I am not against any person having these civil rights. I doubt anyone on this forum is. I have not heard a single political or moral debate, ever, in this country, attempting to take these civil rights away from anyone.

People who engage in homosexual behavior have exactly the same rights to marry as I do. I have limits on who I can marry, and they are the exact same limits that affect every single person in this country. So if we want to change the DEFINITION of marriage, or change those existing requirements, we ought to be TRUTHFULLY SAYING SO, not playing games pretending that anyone is denied rights that others have, or pretending this is about prejudice or discrimination or ‘hate.’

Great posts and thank you for pointing this out. The only way to “guilt trip” people into accepting same sex marriage is to lie. They lie about homosexuals being denied the same civil rights as others. They lie that the only reason someone opposes same sex marriage is because they are “H8ters” they are bigots, they hate gay people. They lie about the impact of changing the definition of marriage. They lie when they say it won’t affect my Church. THey lie by claiming same sex attraction is genetic, unchangeable and part of the person’s innate qualities.

Instead of using facts, they invariably resort to feelings and try to make homosexuals another victim class. And because of this past treatment, they “deserve” to have what they want without considering the unintended consequences. No one denies that the way homosexuals were treated by some in the past was disgraceful. One of my best friends and a former co-worker was fired because he was homosexual. Oh they made up an excuse but having been in the meeting where the decision was made, I knew the real reason. It was also a reason I left that firm. So that I disagree with SSM doesn’t mean I either don’t know what homosexuals have been through or that I think they deserve this treatment.

But given how all of the other social experiments have damaged families, children and society I see no compelling reason to embark on yet another experiment just because a particular interest group wants what they want because they want it…

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

You can marry who you are attracted to and enjoy over 1000 benefits that come from the civil government. .

I think anyone would be very hard put to enumerate 1000 benefits to marriage conferred by the civil government. There are a few, mostly having to do with rights to be on the same health insurance policies (along with children) as their spouse, (and to pay for it) succeeding to certain kinds of pension benefits, and the estate tax. But then, there are also penalties, like the tax penalties imposed on married people simply because they’re married, and some other pension benefits that extinguish if one is married. A very big penalty imposed by the civil law is liability for “necessities” of life…like most medical costs and the cost of long term care.

Pretty much everything else can be contracted between parties, whether in a sexual relationship or not. In fact, a substantial number of older people nowadays do not marry their paramours because they would lose benefits and incur liabilities if they did.

Frankly, I can’t see why homosexuals would want to be married other than simply to thus gain government recognition of the “equivalency” of their inclinations to heterosexual relationships. And I very much doubt that those homosexuals who do “marry” will remain in it very long once they realize what they’ll lose by doing it.

And while some homosexuals undoubtedly feel that homosexual marriage will somehow ennoble their inclinations, it will not benefit them more than it imposes obligations on them.