One of the favorites of the homosexual rights advocates is to compare discrimination against homosexuals with discrimination against Blacks. Discrimination against homosexual behavior is the same as discriminating against skin color? Just how far is it reasonable to carry this sort of apples and oranges analogy? For example, when I eat flesh, I prefer turkey. Is PETA going to get after me for not eating human flesh?
It would seem the inevitable has happened. The proponents of California’s Proposition 8 have gone to the courts to overturn that state’s same-sex “marriages” (see here). At the same time, the state’s top fickle lawyer (Jerry Brown) has changed his mind. He now advocates overturning Proposition 8 (see here). This is a strange situation where Brown is asking the state’s Supreme Court to overturn part of the California Constitution. It does seem that some people really do believe that all is fair in love and war. 
Since this whole issue is about making people accept something they do not want to accept, there is, of course, some anger. Blacknell is one such place (see here). MB, Blacknell’s blogger, thinks the advocates of Proposition 8 hateful. So I left this comment.
Hateful? I do not think so. If the sponsors of Proposition 8 did not ask for those same-sex marriages to be overturned, what would be the point of Proposition 8? Now that would be hateful. It would mean they did not believe in what they are doing.
Instead of belaboring the fact that these people are hateful, why don’t you concentrate on understanding their point-of-view and demonstrating the validity of your own position?
When two people of the opposite sex join their lives together, their children need the security of marriage. When two people of the same sex have sex, is there really such an issue?
Those who want a liberal (using the word as it use to be used) society prefer as few laws a possible. Unneeded laws are for busybodies.
Don’t laws appropriately exist only to protect our rights? Whose rights are protected by same-sex marriages? What is the need to force everyone to acknowledge the supposed sanctity of such unions?
I can understand MB’s anger. I do not approve of homosexual sex, but hostility towards homosexuals themselves is unChristian. Nonetheless, MB’s anger does not help.
However, MB’s anger is mild. What I found at Cobalt06 (here) was so angry it was funny. Cobalt06 post portrayal of Rick Warren’s video is simply irrational. The second video (see here) is so extreme the proponents of Proposition 8 will be playing it just to demonstrate the absurdity of the opposition.
Many want to appear to be “with it” and in tune with the times. So another venue for the homosexual rights crowd is to make fun of the quaint ideas of those who think same-sex sex irresponsible and absurd. Considering what same-sex sex between two men entails….
Yet another favorite for homosexual rights advocates is that Republican politicians love discrimination against homosexuals. Supposedly, it gives them an issue to run on. What is peculiar about the Democratic Party, however, is that the issue all Democrats seem to run on is who is picking on who. Somehow we always need more government to give something to somebody. Somebody is always being so mean government needs to take their property and reeducate them.
There is always a certain amount of making fun of opposition in these issues. There is also always a certain amount of passion, anger, spouting off, etc. This isn’t the same as hate, however.
Hatred means one person believes another is a deserving object of denigration, intimidation and even violence. Haters go out of their way to persecute and encourage others to do so. This is not the same thing as holding an opinion.
As far as homosexual behavior, people may or may not agree with it. I am pleased you note that hating someone for being homosexual is unChristian. Not only is it unChristian, it’s illogical. If we went around hating people for every behavior we didn’t agree with, we’d waste most of our lives. Hatred takes up an enormous amount of energy and time.
Unfortunately, there are those who treat anyone with various gender identities as less than human, less deserving of respect, and as undeserving of rights in general. These attitudes and hatred have created a precedent that many homosexual and transgendered communities have had to deal with in their daily lives. They are tired of being persecuted and yes, being treated like those whose skin color were used as excuses for bigotry, persecution and discrimination.
That said, in my eyes, all legal “marriages” are nothing more than civil unions. Therefore, I could care less who wants a union. A marriage is a religious ceremony. Churches that don’t agree with “gay marriage” don’t have to perform them. Gay couples, though, do deserve to have the same legal protections as any other couple (i.e. health insurance and others).
As far as raising children, straight couples haven’t exactly been models of secure, nurturing family units, so I don’t think that argument can be used against gay people having children. Parenting is far more complex than that. At the heart of good parenting is love, respect and stability within the couple itself. Children feel secure when they have a home with people who love one another and work through any problems that come up.
I do think gay couples with children have extra challenges because of social pressures, just as interracial couples did (and still do in certain circumstances). But why should that be used as a reason to deny civil unions? Families endure many stressors as society changes. Minorities go through this all the time. So do immigrants. If a couple is able to work through through transition and stress, then the child usually ends up healthy and happy. It’s dysfunctional relationships and external hatred that are the problem no matter which gender is involved in the marriage.
When we broad-brush an entire group of people, we end up saying things like, “These people shouldn’t be parents.” There are many, many people who shouldn’t be parents, and gender has nothing to do with it.
Realize I write (a lot here) based on my own beliefs that tell me what you do in bed is none of my business so long as you are a loving, caring, honest person. Good people deserve respect and the chance to be treated like all good people. Rotten people deserve a spanking or some, even jail time. But no one deserves to be hated.
When a same-sex “couple” demands to be married or joined in a “civil union” by the government, that “couple” is asking for something that does not exist. They are demanding we join them in a seemingly harmless pretense, but this pretense is not harmless.
If someone demanded that you walk off a cliff and pretend you were standing on firm ground, would you take them seriously? I hope not. The consequences are readily apparent.
When a marriage fails, I think it is often because the couple never had any idea why they were getting married. What the religious ceremony of marriage does is ask God to give his blessing in the creation of a new family. It joins the relatives and friends of the couple together in supporting this new family. What a family does is provide a safe place to raise children. Only a man and woman can join together to produce children.
Marriage underlines the serious nature of the sexual relationship. To give birth to new life and to raise a child is the greatest gift God gives us. Raising a child helps us to grow and understand His Creation in a way nothing else can. Our children help us to understand what it means to be made in His Image and to be His children. With children of our own, we can begin view ourselves from God’s perspective. With children of our own we can achieve for the first time a small degree of empathy with God.
Same-sex unions cannot produce children. Such have nothing to do with children. Same-sex sex turns what should be loving friendship into fulfilling the needs of one’s own flesh. Civil Unions would give our government’s endorsement to an activity that is little more than a perverse form of entertainment. Without children, all sex is is entertainment. By itself sex produces nothing except momentary pleasure. At its worse, sex is merely a means to spread disease and an excuse for one human being to dominate another.
OFL, many traditional couples can’t produce children, either. So should they not be entitled to marry? Many hertero couples are married out of convenience. Should they be forced to divorce? Many married couples are swingers. Can we force them to divorce? See what I am saying here?
Incidentally, here’s a prime example of a hertero couple who would do more damage to children than any loving homosexual couple ever could:
“EASTON, Pa. – The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child’s full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.
Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son’s name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.
Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, defended the supermarket. She said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.
“We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate,” Meleta said. “We considered this inappropriate.”
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said.
The Campbells’ other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.” (antibvbl)
kgotthardt – Do we decide what is right by pointing to the most aberrant behavior? Homosexuality is aberrant behavior. No homosexual by definition is normal?
Are you sure the Campbells actually help your case? The Campbells are doing what the homosexual activists are doing. They are trying to get others to endorse their behavior. In fact, what the Campbells are asking for is only the implicit endorsement of a few. Homosexual activists are demanding explicit government endorsement.
Although there is an ideal way to raise a child, we all disagree what that ideal might be. However, there is no question children need appropriate role models. Considering the importance of our sexual urges, children certainly need appropriate role models for that behavior. The notion that two parents of the same sex will appropriately model such behavior is hopeless from the get go.
OFL, how can you compare Nazi lovers to homosexuality in general? Homosexual couples are in love. Nazism is about hatred. (Nazis killed homosexuals in their “purging” if you recall.) I’m talking about parenting here.
I think where you and I differ is I don’t think homosexuality is “aberrant” behavior. I believe it’s about having a different gender identity, much of which can be attributed to hormonal distributions and biology. Yes, some is about choice, but you have to be physically attracted to the same sex to engage in homosexual acts. To me, it’s like someone who prefers vegetables over meat. It’s a natural thing for some people.
Furthermore, I think S&M is aberrant, but we have married couples and parents who engage in it. If we are going to go down the slippery slope of government regulation in this area, we are bound to end up in places we don’t want to be.
BTW, one more thing to think about:
–The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it. “If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay.”
Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of “significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals”.–
Again, I say homosexuality is more about biology than anything else.
http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/becomegay.htm
kgotthardt – Did I bring Nazis into this discussion? Did I say anything about purging anyone? Am I trying to force my views on anyone?
Using the notion that marriage or civil unions is a rights issue, homosexual activists are promoting their sexual preferences. Your comparison between vegetables and meat is actually quite apt. Should government be in the business of telling us to eat vegetables instead of meat? Well, different factions do try to use government to advocate their favorite foods. Our government even wastes huge sums paying farmers to grow this and not to grow that, certifying that (USDA Beef), and sanctifying that (Vegetables are good for you.).
Frankly, I don’t know to what extent homosexual behavior is learned, but I do know that much of our behavior is learned. Since I trust politicians about as far as I can throw a loaded dump truck, I do not trust politicians to teach us anything about morality. Since such relationships are barren, I also see no reason whatsoever to license same-sex unions. All this license would accomplish is to provide the government’s endorsement.
Do you need a license just to eat vegetables or meat — or to have sex? Did your partner need to be USDA certified? Well, apparently, some homosexuals want theirs to be so certified.
Statistics from psychological studies? Are you sure that provides good evidence of a morally upright home?
But…the Feds don’t outlaw vegetables because they don’t like them themselves
We might have to agree to disagree on this on.
BTW, NO you didn’t say anything about purging anyone! I just brought it up because it was an ironic juxtaposition. Sorry if I miscommunicated that through my disconnected thoughts.
Tom and everyone else, have a joyous, blessed Christmas! May we have peace in the New Year.
Thank you.