He just seems a little too animated, trying to push on every cliche on the subject trying o get a reaction.. ..could be wrong though.

Honestly, i'm not sure apart from Christianity there really is any justification within the United states to ban homosexuals or deny them access to all the benefits of citizenship. However, as a christian, I'm not sure I could ever support redefining marriage between to people. Marriage has always been defined as an institution between a male and a female for the express purpose of procreation and family. It's been and always will be the stablizing force for a strong society. To redefine it as between two people or person is way to broad a definition and would open the peverbial pandora's box. What principled reason could we then prevent a marriage between a brother and brother or sister and sister. It becomes wacky to say the least. What someone does in there own bedroom is their own business, but I don't think it's winning very many converts to the homosexual cause when they want to redefine the marriage institution.

Oh and the argument that having children is killing the the planet....that's is just wacky left wing propaganda. We call them loons who hold such views.

If it were left only for government or religion to define marriage, I would choose religion. But when government wants to impose it's religion upon us by the will of an immoral society. Then I will separate myself to a more righteous society where marriage is founded in principles of our God.

I think that's where the debate begins. True christianity will always favor a more traditional idea of the institution within the providential revelatory movings of our creator. Government on the other hand is more elastic to the social whims of the majority. it's not far fetch to see a day when our government does redefine the marital institution. i would suspect it will be a sad day for the traditionalist and day of celebration for the more progressive persons of our society. Either way we will have to endure the consequences either for good or bad.

James, your concept of marriage as the basis of a strong society denies the past uses for marriage. Marriage was not a "Christian" union, but was used to manage property (women and children) and to form political and financial alliances.

To suggest that allowing any two people to marry would include incest is seriously reaching and beyond the pale. To suggest two women getting married would somehow corrupt the institution of marriage resists the urge to truly evaluate the nature of marriage as it exists today. If bank robbers and child molesters, rapists and murderers, terrorists and politicians can marry surely a few thousand gay couples will do no harm.

Seriously. You should do some reading about the "nuclear" family at the turn of 19th century and before the industrial revolution - it might be eye-opening for you.

Terri,

Terri writes
James, your concept of marriage as the basis of a strong society denies the past uses for marriage. Marriage was not a "Christian" union, but was used to manage property (women and children) and to form political and financial alliances.


James writes
I understand that I am swimming up stream in this discussion. I understand that current understanding in our modern society are clearly different than those prior to the industrial revolution. But, I'm not convinced that just because many marriages of the past were not primarily for purposes of personal happiness, they no less were between a man and a woman and were no less a stablizing influences for society.


Terri writes
To suggest that allowing any two people to marry would include incest is seriously reaching and beyond the pale. To suggest two women getting married would somehow corrupt the institution of marriage resists the urge to truly evaluate the nature of marriage as it exists today. If bank robbers and child molesters, rapists and murderers, terrorists and politicians can marry surely a few thousand gay couples will do no harm.

James writes

25 years ago i don't think anyone would of seen this as a viable possibility allowing two persons of the same sex to "marry". But here we are in the 21st century having a discussion with a very real possibility that marriage will be redefined and in several states, against the will of the people I might add, the courts have attempted to redefine the institution. Marriage does have a very narrow definition, my only argument was if you redefine it to include two persons regardless of gender, you remove a principled barrier for anyone to get married. Currently everyone under the current definition does have a right to marry. Current laws are non restrictive. You just don't have the right to marry anyone you choose, but neither do I.....)

It seems your focus on the "man and woman" is more important than the purpose of marriage. And let us not forget marriage has also been widely between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman - with accepted concubines on the side.

In my opinion, the gender of the couple is less important than the quality of the relationship and the stabilizing force that it can bring to society. There is no reason to assume a man and a woman in a marriage bring any more or less stability to a community than a committed man and man or woman and woman. It is disingenuous to expect culture to stand in for personal decision making and choice. What makes a marriage sacred, or profound, or stable is not dependent on the gender or cultural interpretation of the relationship but on the acts and forbearances of the two people joined in the act of marriage.

There is no indication that the gender of marriage partners has any baring on the stability of the marriage. Your concerns seem to largely revolve around issues related to tradition and the preposterous notion that if you allow same sex marriage than whoa --- anyone can marry anyone they want to marry! How disastrous would that be!!!!???? What it would not do is lead to incest or bestiality or other such nonsence, and has not in the many other nations that have same sex marriage laws.

Additionally you are right, even twenty five years ago we would not be considering extending the right to marry to gays (which differs in redefining marriage - it still would be the same commitment and vows dear) but let's remember there was a time when the discussion of considering Blacks fully human, allowing women to vote and allowing people of different races to marry was unheard of too.

I would imagine in twenty five years our children will scoff at the notion that it was scary or wrong to let gays marry, much as my kids marvel at the fact that at one time we owned Black people, women were property and could not vote or divorce, that kids had no legal standing or protection, that school was not mandatory, that a man would kill his wife if she disobeyed him, that a black and white person could not marry, that Blacks could not sit at the front of the bus, that they could not vote or send their kids to college, or that the earth was the center of the universe.

I suggest you get with the times my friend and consider the real reason you oppose gay marriage, because your arguments so far are short on reason.

Terri

Terri writes

In my opinion, the gender of the couple is less important than the quality of the relationship and the stabilizing force that it can bring to society. There is no reason to assume a man and a woman in a marriage bring any more or less stability to a community than a committed man and man or woman and woman. It is disingenuous to expect culture to stand in for personal decision making and choice. What makes a marriage sacred, or profound, or stable is not dependent on the gender or cultural interpretation of the relationship but on the acts and forbearances of the two people joined in the act of marriage.

There is no indication that the gender of marriage partners has any baring on the stability of the marriage. Your concerns seem to largely revolve around issues related to tradition and the preposterous notion that if you allow same sex marriage than whoa --- anyone can marry anyone they want to marry! How disastrous would that be!!!!???? What it would not do is lead to incest or bestiality or other such nonsence, and has not in the many other nations that have same sex marriage laws.

James writes

I thnk you prove my point. If the purpose of marriage as you have radically redefined it to be more about the quality of relationship rather than between a man and women then please do tell what principled reason you would prevent two brothers or two sisters to marry??? You cannot!!! Because according to your redefinition love and the quality of that relationship should be the only consideration that society should consider in it's definition. Please Terri, certainly it's politically shrewd to set for such an argument, but overall allowing a redefinition of marriage would open the door to all kinds of relationships under your definition and would make the insitution effectively meaningless. I make no bones about my moral religious consideration of gay and lesbian bisexual relationships. But to broadin the definition of marriage as some arbitrary construct to be molded by the individual preference of individual preference or "choice" in society is truly a move toward making it, as an institution, utterly meaningless.

Terri writes
I suggest you get with the times my friend and consider the real reason you oppose gay marriage, because your arguments so far are short on reason

Well if you believe the polls, and how states have voted to reject the radical redefinition of marriage I think I'm in the mainstream of where most americans are on the issue.

(because its pointless to argue on facebook, I just say something witty and perhaps to end the bigotry)

its fascinating to note that those that preach tolerance seem tolerant of everyone (perhaps even violent criminals) EXCEPT those who disagree with them what being tolerant means

We discuss John we discuss...lol....

"should homosexuality be tought in schools?"

oh the irony.

//"should homosexuality be tought in schools?"

oh the irony. //

Perhaps the real question is
"shld spaelling be taughht in skools?"

Initially to answer the original question, yes I believe that during a child's education, when they are informed about human relationships, they should be made aware that some people do engage in homosexual relationships. They should be made aware of as many shades of human experience as is possible during their education career. In my opinion, that is one of the core principles in raising well rounded, independent and productive children, but that is only my opinion.

I also believe that thy should be made aware that these relationships are by far in the minority and that acceptance should be exercised in any and all walks of life, but respect a parents right to disagree with my opinion. Regardless of my feelings toward a persons relationships, I feel that it is their choice and their life and I have no right to interlude in their life choices any more than I would have a right to condemn them for their domestic financial arrangements, diet, race, creed or any other aspect of their character.

Their activities in the boudoir are of no concern to me, as would be the case with any heterosexual couple. My inclination toward respect for people and respect for their right to privacy drives me to not condemn those who make life choices that differ from mine.

With regard to marriage for homosexual partners, this has many aspects. Two people making a commitment to abide with their partner, remaining faithful throughout their partnership, and intending to maintain this arrangement until their death, should, I feel, be granted the same rights and privileges as any heterosexual married couple. They have made a strong commitment, and I respect that commitment.

To claim that it would lead to incest, bestiality and any other form of deviancy you may wish to list is a leap too far for me, I'm afraid. Homosexual couples always have and always will find ways to show their love for one another, and to assume that granting the right to marry will change their activities is naive.

The notion that homosexuality will lead to the demise of the species well that is simply ludicrous! If the incidence of homosexuality was even remotely close to that being a danger, then whether they were granted the legal right to be married or not would do nothing to change the situation. To claim that the level of homosexuality in the species is a danger to the ongoing success of the species is wrong-headed scaremongering and has no basis in the real world.

No, not if it continues to lead to this:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html

Whatever our rational for or against this issue, ultimately we all have the right to vote our conscience on this issue.

Agreed. I am not against teaching tolerance and understanding, as long as it doesn't turn into an all out promotion of homosexual activity and the attacking of any who disagree( ie. the "opposition" or those with religious values)

//Whatever our rational for or against this issue, ultimately we all have the right to vote our conscience on this issue. //

As long as u don't step on your leaders toes...

Oh, please. There were quite a few members who voted against Prop 8. You don't see the leadership retaliating or anything.

Stop making unsubstantiated claims.

I agree with Anthony and find the teaching of fisting and other such acts to children distasteful. My comment advised that an awareness of all human relationships ought to be taught, and the facts of life. I believe that mutual respect for people, respect for your lover and their wishes, and discretion are important parts of human relationships.

I do not, however, condone the teaching of such sexual acts to children. Whether two consenting adults choose to perform such acts in their private lives is entirely their business and not of my concern. They may harbour and indulge any desires they wish as long as all parties are consenting and it is done in a private manner, respecting my desire to not discuss such matters with them.

Personally I find the teaching of fisting, sado-masochism, oral sex, naturism, nudism, wife-swapping, outdoor intercourse or any other aspect of sexual activity to be inappropriate for a school audience, and would agree that in this instance (an instance which occurred almost a decade ago) a line was crossed which should not have been.

Agreed Andrew. Hopefully it has not been repeated since, but it is cause for concern when such is part of their supposedly well-intended agenda.