Why Everyone Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
5 August 2008
Why Everyone Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
Jared Wright has written seven reasons why Adventists should support same-sex marriage [It currently has 424 comments and has 3814 pageviews]. These deserve a response.
At the outset, I wish to say that I hold nothing but empathy and love toward my gay brothers and sisters. I wish for little more than that they lead happy, fulfilled lives in the company of the people they love. But this heartfelt caring does not obviate my belief that marriage itself ought to remain solely between a man and a woman.
To answer Wright’s points in order: First, proscribing same-sex marriage does not violate the separation of church and state unless religious belief is the only argument. But it isn’t. Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female, and not only because of religion.
The main reason, apart from religious belief, for opposing same-sex marriage is the welfare of children. Most people throughout history have understood that children need both types of parents, male and female. One problem with same-sex marriage, which will mean widespread adoption by gays, is that it will involve a radical social experiment on children, who can hardly consent to such adult-focused rearrangements.
All other things being equal, one wonders which parent Wright would willingly have jettisoned in favor of two of the same sex. It should be noted that divorce or death does not deprive a child of an opposite sex parent as does same-sex marriage. Little Jane, having been adopted by John and Steve, will never in her whole life know what it is to have a mother. A baby boy adopted by two women will never have a father—never. Talk about “total deprivation”!
While some do argue that changing the definition of marriage will harm marriage, we can thus see that the larger problem is that it would damage society. It would do this by further breaking down the traditional family—which is the best place in which to raise children—and by fully normalizing homosexual relationships, a trend which is already leading to more same-sex experimentation and sexual confusion in young people.
Changing the definition of marriage will be confusing to all children, who will now be acculturated to ask themselves and each other whether they might like to marry a boy or a girl when they grow up. No preferencing of one situation over the other, either in the classroom or in textbooks or anywhere else, will be allowed once the definition of marriage is changed. Efforts toward this mandated parity are already underway; enacting same-sex marriage would cement them.
Another serious but less recognized concern is that when the definition of marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, religious liberty is seriously threatened. Laws passed to protect the rights of special interest groups very often interact with religion in ways we don’t expect, as evidenced here and here.
As for enforcing morality through law, we do it all the time, as with current civil rights laws. Some moral principles we enforce through law, some we don’t. On such a massive, unprecedented change, let’s allow the democratic process to decide.
Wright speaks of how marriage benefits both society and couples, whether opposite sex or same-sex. These are fair and powerful points that would be persuasive if the arguments against same-sex marriage were not strong. But the acknowledged benefits of promoting fidelity and monogamy amongst gays must be weighed against the downsides of same-sex marriage, the outgrowth of which may not be fully apparent for some time.
The argument that because we were right to reverse course on slavery, we must be right to change the definition of marriage is a non sequitur. Just because one is wrong doesn’t mean the other is wrong. Slavery was wrong; keeping marriage between a man and a woman may well be right. It does not become wrong simply because a group of people, dwarfed by the judgment of the ages, suddenly decides it is wrong (and it is “suddenly” in the scope of history).
The comparison between proscribing same-sex marriage and proscribing interracial marriage is inapt. There is no essential difference between blacks and whites. There is a world of difference between men and women. Marriage utilizes these differences to bring balance and complementarity both to the relationship itself and the raising of children, who vitally need the unique characteristics male and female bring to their parenting.
As for whether same-sex marriage will be used toward achieving the legalization of polygamy and other creative arrangements, we do not need to wonder. Newsweek has a sobering article on the jump-starting of the polygamy movement, so clearly given impetus, inspiration, and rationale by the successes of the gay rights movement.
Wright wrote, “Same-sex marriage does not pose a threat to me, my choices, or my way of life.”
While it’s not the same, this reminds one of the “divorce-threatens-marriage” canard. “People divorce, people marry their own sex, who cares? MY marriage isn’t affected.”
Wisdom does not only think of oneself or the present; it considers the larger group and the long-range view. This issue of changing the definition of marriage is not simply about me or my way of life. It is about all of us, and it is about the future.
Nothing in the disallowing of same-sex marriage prohibits gays from living as stable, committed couples. But in insisting upon the title of marriage, same-sex partners are demanding that society change what has been true through all of history—that men marry only women, and women only men.
It is an understandable wish, and those making the demand may indeed be accurate in believing they are wiser and more moral than all the religious teachers and all the sages of the past. But at the very least, we should acknowledge the hubris such a belief involves, and we need to be certain the bulk of society is on board with it. Until then, it is patently clear we need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. As seen in California, this is the only thing that will prevent a single judge’s dubious moral certainty from becoming the margin needed to overturn the clear will and judgment of the people.
Janine Goffar is a Seventh-day Adventist writer living in Loma Linda, California. She is author of “The C.S. Lewis Index: A Comprehensive Guide to Lewis's Writings and Ideas.”
Search
- Tom Zwemer on Cornel West Speaks on Truth at Oakwood University
- Tom Zwemer on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Just an Engineer on Satire: The Miracle of Chance
- Jeannie Brown on Strangers in the House
- Alexander Carpenter on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- David Read on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- Eric Webster on Wilson's War
- Kenneth James on Why Can’t I Own Canadians?: Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism
- jay rasco on Summer Reading Group: Deep Gospel
- Eric Webster on Wilson's War
Comments
Since this essay is focused on the issue of human rights, not the Biblical tradition, it's telling that it doesn't rely on the perspective of LGBT folks or on sociological studies, but merely on some news reports and op-ed writers.
Contrasting Raymond's thoughtful essay of being a gay Adventist with the above, provides humane perspective to the slippery slope (will the freaks marry dolphins next?) fears.
Last week I attended the wedding of two Christians lesbian friends (one with an M.Div) who have been together for 14 years. Their legal marriage was such a meaningful ceremony for them and their family and friends gathered around. Tears, laugher, memories and prayers shared - having lived in places where folks don't know out LGBT Christians I understand the hesitation and worry about the future, but I would encourage that instead of relying on the media and folks like Dennis Prager whose punditry is linked to above five times, Adventists who really care about human liberty and trust in God should get to know their fellow believers, including Adventists, who are being excluded from all that marriage means.
Alex
Great piece until the final line. Please explain: How same sex marraige "includes all that marriage means"? I haven't found the anwer in Gen. or Paul or anything else between. Civil union, yes for property rights alone. The rest is a private matter. Tom
Tom,
The only marriage that the state has a right to codify is the civil union. The rest of marriage is social and ceremonial. Wether same sex or opposite sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities should be the same unless we believe people should be disrciminated against because of their gender and sexual orientation.
Countries that separate the civil from the social and ceremonial have the right idea.
Marriage, as Alex says, involves much more that two people living together. There are many benefits of marriage that are now denied to same-sex couples, albeit they are living together.
"Tradition" is the choice weapon here. Tradition says that marriage has always been between one man and one woman is simply not historically true. One need only read the Bible to see that marriage between one man and several or more women was their "tradition."
Tradition is not holy nor sacrosanct, and to rely on that as the guiding principle would have left in place many of the world's serious social ills: slavery, degradation and secondary status of women; child infanticide; child labor and much more. Tradition is only as good as society approves and allows.
Whether my neighbors are cohabiting without the benefit of marriage; are childless or not are matters that have no affect on my life nor my choices. It does not degrade my life's choices in any way, shape nor form. Nor, does allowing same sex couples to marry have any affect on heterosexual marriages or their children's welfare. A goodly portion of marriages of both opposite sex and same sex will not produce children, and those who already have children will only give the child the benefit of two, rather than one loving parent.
The old canard about "what will it do to the children" has been overblown out of all proportions and there have been no definitive studies showing that these children are more inclined to live their lives any differently than those who come from opposite sex parental homes.
It is an irrational fear promoting the possible harm to society by allowing same sex marriage that panders to the fear of those for whom tradition is their comfort and security. Moving out of their comfort zone, as Alex suggests, by getting to know our GLBS brothers and sisters would go far in removing such fear and help us realize that these are people who have many of the same desires as we all have.
" wish to say that I hold nothing but empathy and love toward my gay brothers and sisters. I wish for little more than that they lead happy, fulfilled lives in the company of the people they love."
If this is truly the wish and hope of the author, it is a strange way, indeed, of expressing it: refusing to allow them the expression of happy and fulfilled lives with those they love that she and her fellow heterosexuals enjoy. To wish for others to have the same happiness, but yet deny that fulfillment that you can hope for, are not true and honest wishes.
It is noteworthy that every nation in the world (that I can think of) also had, at one time or another, slavery institutions. Slavery was, of course, not unique to the US. That every nation had slavery does not make it right. And that, historically, all societies have defined (though, how many have done so explicitly?) marriage as between a woman and a man does not mean that it must always be so. The "judgment of the ages" is no strong argument for truth, or policy, whatever.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, provided polyandry is also included, and age of consent, etc. are accounted for.
Also, your statement towards the end concerning the Judiciary's "dubious moral certainty" undermines your claim to a religiously neutral argument.
Both the conservative and the Biblical solution to stop gay marriage is to stop using socialist government to re-define marriage at all. Conservatives believe in limited governmment so government should not be allowed to re-define marriage one way or the other. Adam and Eve, and everyone else in the Bible, were never married by socialist governmment either. So, to be really conservative and really Biblical, stop using socialist government to re-define marriage at all. Internet research proves that the polygamists are not copying the gays. Polygamists today actually make more sense than anyone else when they say that anti-polygamists were the first to re-define marriage. It's true! Anti-polygamists re-defined marriage by using socialist government to exclude polygamy even though polygamy was always consideed as marriage throughout history and the Bible. (Any Christian who does not think so is saying the Biblical polygamists were hellbound adulterers because they never repented of polygamy.) So the gays are now copying the anti-polygamists in using socialist government to re-define marriage again. That's right. The polygamists are not copying the gays, the gays are copying the anti-polyamists. Here is an excellent article I found that makes this point very well.
"Anti-Polygamy is the Real 'Slippery Slope'"
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0016
It is very easy to take comfort in the benefit of the familiar. And the argument that same-sex parenting is clearly a detriment to the child comes very easily as a corollary to the belief that traditional parenting is best. But the argument has yet to be made beyond an appeal to conventional wisdom. The link to Dennis Prager's argument shows a simple volley in the argument of the following sort:
'Prove it.'
'No you prove it.'
'Not until you prove it'
...and so on.
If Mr Prager finds no studies on the effects of same sex parenting then he has to admit that this claim in the argument is unresolved. And if we want to simply fall back on the argument that for millennia societies have accepted one model of marriage we are throwing up our hands and refusing to investigate the wisdom of the inherent discrimination.
The argument that two-sex parenting is best can only be based on the data gathered in a society where two-sex parenting is respected and encouraged, single-parents are either accommodated or judged and same-sex parenting is marginalized, hindered by policy and judged by huge segments of society. Are we to simply accept that the government should amplify the power of discrimination through policy? The variables in any research done on varying models of marriage has to take bigotry into account as a variable. Especially the bigotry that claims to respect the happiness of a group without respecting its rights.
When we lament the poor child deprived of a father or a mother we reveal our baseless assumption that the child is suffering. A child with loving and capable parents is fortunate no matter what I think of the parents.
Claims that same-sex marriage will damage society rely on a wider extension of this belief: that any change is damage. That any expansion of an idea is a catastrophic rupture of precious boundaries. Another link to Mr Prager's related argument brings us to this claim:
"If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine."
It's worth noting that he has to use his imagination to find his warnings. He fears that everyone will be faced with a difficult choice to be either heterosexual or homosexual. Whether to marry the opposite sex or the same sex. He is afraid that all heterosexual ideology will be considered bigotry and insensitivity. There is no reason however to believe that respectful expressions of the self will be decried and stifled. How pessimistic it is to think that anyone asking for respect is hoping to deprive all others of the same.
To argue that textbooks and teachers must retain the right to promote and encourage heterosexual marriage is appealing to those who already believe homosexual union doesn't deserve respect. I wonder how eager we should be to preserve the right of a teacher to devalue and disparage that part of anyone's identity.
The "judgment of the ages" is hardly a strong argument for a policy of such continued disenfranchisement. It would be a non sequitur to simply argue that the proscription of slavery functions equally as an argument for the right to same-sex marriage. But that is not the argument. Slavery was defended by arguments that have emerged to a regain a new familiarity: the role of slavery in the preservation of social systems; reliance on biblical support for accommodation of repression. The repeal of slavery is relevant to the argument because we have recognized in the past that some practical and economic and considerations, and the fears that accompany some paradigm shifts, are not enough to justify the continued exclusion of certain groups from legal protection and a full claim to the rights provided by the government. We must call attention to those arguments that rely on a priori assumptions about the value of an individual and the deservedness of lesser status.
In an effort to avoid making claims about the status of a homosexual individual, the arguments against same-sex marriage that perpetually turn to parenting. It is safe then to speak of the lesser union of man-to-man or woman-to-woman when compared to the union of man-to-woman. It is an argument that is easy to claim but less easy to make. I ask for a true measure of the "world of difference between men and women." Once we get past biological differences there is very little research to support any meaningful neurological or emotional difference between the sexes. The claims put out by such writers as Louann Brizendine and Leonard Sax about the hard wired chasm between the sexes are based on loose readings of experimental data and often on flat out misreadings. One recent article in New Scientist makes claims based on the research of Larry Cahill et al that show a complete disregard for the distinction between findings and conjecture. (Read Mark Liberman's discussion http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=402). This may seem like a bit of nitpicking on a point that few people question: that men and women are different and therefore fathers and mothers play different roles in a family. But I bring it up to make the point that research does not offer any proof that a child of two mothers or two fathers has no access to the benefits of parents who complement each other's qualities.
The bifurcate model provided by a mother and father is valuable not because of their biology. The benefit comes from two parents who know each other well enough to provide for each other as they provided for the child. If the right to that union and all its responsibilities is not recognized by the government it can only be because of indifference to the rights of an individual. While same-sex couples now have the right to love as they wish they are not afforded the same rights to the state's protection. A protection that is currently being denied in a large part because of precedent. It is difficult to see how a demand for respect is to be denied because it is a departure from "what has been true through all of history." History is not a moral system. It has never considered a human right. History is no protector of the oppressed.
Waiting for the "bulk of society" to respect marriage rights is foolish. It is fine to say that this nation is defined by the will of the people and it is true that a democracy must be respected. But there is no reason other than indifference disrespect and fear to deny equal rights of marriage to those who ask to share a family. To demand any change takes pride. But to fear any change simply because it is change is the greater hubris.
Janine,
There are several points with your article I disagree with; I will bring up a couple here:
"As for enforcing morality through law, we do it all the time, as with current civil rights laws."
It is not a proper analogy to compare outlawing gay marriage to civil rights laws since the civil rights laws are intended to eliminate discrimination and efforts to end gay marriage are intended to promote discrimination. A better analogy would be to compare outlawing gay marriage to the Jim Crow laws which mandated separate schools and sections of busses and restaurants for blacks and whites.
"Changing the definition of marriage will be confusing to all children."
It would not be confusing to "all" children. The idea that children can marry anyone they want to is very simple. I'm not suggesting that parents, pastors, and teachers actually go and tell kids to marry anyone they want, but it is not a "confusing" concept.
Stan
Janine Goffar,
You write:
"Marriage utilizes these differences to bring balance and complementarity both to the relationship itself and the raising of children, who vitally need the unique characteristics male and female bring to their parenting."
What are these "unique characteristics"?
Are these characteristics present across all cultures?
I have one question, and a true story.
First, the question: if we accept as fact (not proven, but let's accept it for the sake of this discussion) that a child does best with both a mother and a father in the home, how does denying marriage equality further that goal?
Now the true story: I had an uncle-in-law who was a gay man. He lived with his partner for over 35 years. They did all they could to legally formalize their relationship, but they could not marry.
When this uncle died (of lung cancer), his surviving partner did not get Social Security survivor benefits -- as he would have if they had been married.
The surviving partner also had to pay inheritance tax on the 50% of the home that my uncle-in-law had left him. If they had been able to marry, this wouldn't have happened.
Finally, the property tax basis on the house changed and the property tax went way up. Again, if they had been able to be married, this wouldn't have happened.
Because of these three things, the surviving partner was no longer able to afford to stay in the house they had shared for three decades.
Does this seem fair or equitable to you?
We're talking about CIVIL marriage here. If laws can be changed so that ALL couples must enter into a civil union if they want the state and federal benefits currently associated with marriage, I can get behind that. Couples can then go on to be married in any church that will have them. But to deny civil equality (and the benefits to our society of creating more stable relationships) based on an accident of birth? That seems profoundly un-American and un-Christian.
Just hope that all who are supporting gay marriage live and vote in California.
Those Who Support Gay Marriage,
If you are an Adventist and are thinking about voting in favor of homosexual marriage in the November election, you need to be aware of the consequences of gay marriage to our religious liberty. In the event this concerns you, please read what Alan Reichach has written about this. Read his entire article. Do not limit yourself to the short paragraph is extracted from it:
*********
"Same Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty
By Alan J. Reinach
In theory, allowing homosexual couples to marry should not threaten anyone’s religious freedom. Although the social and moral implications of gay marriage are apparent to many, few realize the significant danger posed to religious freedom by the California Supreme Court ruling in May giving gays a constitutional right to marry. The Court’s decision now elevates homosexuality to the same legal status as race, a protected class. This Court has refused to grant religious freedom more... (186 Comments)" Read the rest ==>
[http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/ ]
*********
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Read the article when it came out. Wasn't impressed. White supremacist preachers don't have to perform marriage ceremonies for inter-racial couples. No biggy.
Happy Tuesday.
Jeannieb43
Janine, although generally speaking I have a "laissez faire" attitude toward this whole subject, I could possibly be convinced to go along with your arguments -- all the way, that is, to the last paragraph. I stopped there. I cannot --and feel I should never-- endorse a constitutional amendment for ANY purpose. Once a constitutional convention is convened, our dear U.S.Constitution will be eviscerated, piece by piece, and it will never be the same again.
Let's let the states make their own laws. Please, please, let's not argue for any constitutional amendments. The separation of church and state will also be vulnerable to being tampered with, and from there on, we as Seventh-day Adventists will have no protection whatever.
In terms of a perceived threat to religious freedom, I suggest you read this: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/amar/20080801.html
It's a brief from findlaw.com that establishes the case that religious freedom and marriage equality are tied to each other in case law.
Freedom isn't the same for everyone, so you have to make accommodations: "Just as the free exercise of religion is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe Sunday as the Sabbath, so too the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian’s right to marry a man."
There are going to have to be accommodations on both sides, because we're in this freedom thing together.
What's more, the Catholic church refuses to marry divorced people and will continue to do so. Mormons deny marriage in their temples to anyone but faithful, tithe-paying members of the church.
And if Fred Phelps can shout "God hates fags" at military funerals, I think the First Amendment is pretty safe.
Religious freedom is NOT at stake here, unless you define "religious freedom" as the ability to discriminate against certain groups of people and then expect tax breaks.
The fall of Adam and Eve certainly has been a burden for both the straight and the gay. I don't think the issue will appear on the agenda of the next General Conference Session, nor do I believe we will arrive at a consensus in this thread. In daily commerce I treat each and all as my friend and neighbor. I don't ask nor expect anyone to tell. This is an issue that will not be resolved within Adventism.
To those who feel locked out of church fellowship because of sexual orientation, settle your discontent at the foot of the Cross, certainly the priesthood has no satisfactory answer.
I can not feel your pain, I can feel the tension of one out of step with the consensus. But please don't charge God for your situation. Tom
Let's begin by taking our eyes off ourselves to see what world we are creating for the youth. The gay movement has a goal of establishing a gay club in every public high school, or rather gay/transexual/transgender/and a fourth term I forget what the orientation is -- it has 4 initials in the club name. Straights are invited. What is this doing to the sexually-emerging teens? Hey, anything you can think of is ok -- you're ok -- I'm ok -- what can we do to think of something different to sexually do that is now ok? What can we do on the dance floor of the school dances to promote our ok-ism? It takes our youth places that the majority do not want to go (go along to get along). Oh how many teens crave the days of strict upbringings as an excuse to say "no" and disease-free. As grown Adventists (with fancy cars, homes, graduate degrees, and families) cry on the "Red Books" stage about their parents' White whipping stick, today's teens are crying on the inside for support of parental backbone. In my opinion, Red Books was a comedy of spoiled rotten overgrown (and I won't say the last adjective that comes to mind). Similar to Bill Gates crying on TV about his rough upbringing. Grow up and smell the coffee (postum). Kids are in a world of hurt today. Oh how they would love the White guidelines. But, no -- our conversations continue about me, me, and only about me thinks this and that about me.
JoAnn
JoAnn -
I'll agree that kids appreciate limits more than they say they do (I know my nearly 18 year old daughter does -- 4.10 cumulative GPA, says proud papa), but unless you were a gay teen growing up, I think it's hard to understand how important something like the Gay-Straight Alliance can be to kids.
You can't turn kids gay, just like you can't turn them straight. Believe me. They are gay or straight from birth, just like they are left- or right-handed from birth. Societal norms will push those that are bisexual (or ambidextrous) in the direction where the majority lies, but you can't change their core nature. Accepting kids for who they are and pushing them to be their very best is all we can ask for.
Check the suicide rates for young folks who are either gay, or harassed by others thinking they are gay. What if it were your child?
The Gay student clubs are there to promote tolerance and understanding for those who are different. Respecting each individual's differences is important for them in learning to respect themselves and others.
No one in his or her right mind "chooses" to be gay. That is an absolute and downright fable folks keep telling themselves. If being gay were contagious, we should all worry, but there is absolutely no, none, nada truth to that whatsoever. Simply reverse the question for those of you who are straight: when did you choose to be heterosexual?
Is gay marriage confusing for kids? It took me about 10 seconds to explain it to my then 6 year old when she asked.
"Usually when kids grow up, boys want to marry girls and girls want to marry boys. Sometimes though, boys fall in love with and want to marry boys and girls fall in love with and want to marry girls. That is called being gay for boys and lesbian for girls. Some people think it is wrong for them to feel that way but I don't."
And Michael Covarrubias thank you for expressing so well what I didn't have the energy to tackle - the idea that men and women have certain qualities that are so different that it is harmful for children to be "deprived" of one sex.
Some people believe that not only are men and women significantly different from each other but that they each have a unique God-given role to play and it is wrong to attempt to step outside that circumscribed role. I suspect that for those people, Janine's argument has a special resonance because how else would a girl learn how to be nurturing except from a woman? How else would a boy learn about leadership (not from a woman certainly!)
Is it harmful for a child to grow up with a nurturing father and playful mother? I want my children to understand that people are unique individuals and gender roles are naturally more fluid than some people wish.
In fact gender roles are a prime example of a situation where differences among the groups (i.e. how women are different from each other) are way way stronger then differences between the groups (how women differ from men). This is important to remember when we start saying how women are a certain way or men are a certain way. Which woman and which man? And can children really not figure that out?
Just wondering should porn be legalized and sold anywhere? There are many people in the world who would love to come out of the closet and not be condemned for their fascination with porn. Where do we draw the line? Or should we draw a line? When you legalize one thing then it seems its a slippery slope to the next.
Maybe the problem that we are facing is not really same sex marriage, but a lack of love for the sinner. As humans we act like chickens and pick at those who are not like us or who have made mistakes. If we do not show love to our fellow human, we are in equal sin, even if they are "more wrong than we are." How do we treat the pastor caught in adultery, or with a porn addiction? How do we treat the unwed mother, or our friends and relatives who come out of the closet? Our love can't excuse what happens or what happened. But our love can change and make a difference.
It's interesting to see folks commenting about high school and LGBT issues who clearly don't get their info from actually talking to either group. As someone who had a little brother recently graduate from high school and having heard his friends toss out homophobic epithets, I doubt that the finger-waggers are in any danger of not getting their message out.
As this Newsweek story of a 15 year old shot dead by another middle school boy in school over his gay identity shows, and as almost any kid knows, it's actually pretty hard to be different in a school setting.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790
Like we did with laws against interracial marriage which also relied on arms-length worries about social and biological difference, giving folks equal opportunity might actually reduce the misunderstanding/sin/fear-based roots of violence.
With a nod to Mr. Covarrubias, let's beware "the bigotry that claims to respect the happiness of a group without respecting its rights."
The SDA Church State Council sent this note out in Support of Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment, saying that the SDA church has endorsed the amendment and suggested some actions:
"Hold a community forum to discuss the importance of marriage."
"Submit letters and opinion articles to the local newspaper."
"Pray, pray, and pray as though our nation depends on it!!! It just may!"
The last is the worst hyperbole yet.
It then gives some "talking points" such as:
"The necessity of both a loving father and a loving mother. It's about the kids! Of courses social policy must promote marriage!"
"The amendment is needed to begin to restore a legal balance that respects religious freedom."
Questions: How does this amendment restore "legal balance"?
What about kids does gay marriage harm?
Although this is from the SDA Church State Council, it warns against making it in any way a religious argument but on secular foundations.
The SDA church has not made a convincing argument, especially on the grounds of "preserving the historic definition of marriage" in their paper.
Nothing convincing has been demonstrated that the present California law allowing gay marriage has in any way threatened marriage, nor that the constitution should be amended in order to protect marriage. It's a red herring. The church is meddling in politics that has no religious content.
Ms. Goffar,
I am not sure I understand your reasoning. It seems that at first you are saying that there are more reasons than religious ones for opposing same-sex marriage. But the only reason you list that has no religious overtones is that "Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female". That doesn't seem like a legitimate justification for anything. Should we as Adventists really be saying that since the majority has been against something, we should be too?
The rest of your reasons [for the children, marriage itself, the 'traditional family', etc.] all seem to be religiously based. In which case, I would suggest that you ensure you are within a church family that will uphold the beliefs to which you also subscribe.
I do agree with this statement: "It is about all of us, and it is about the future." If we are to live in love and influence our world to become a better place for everyone to live [as I believe Jesus would have us to do] - though this utopia will never be fully reached, we must strive for equal treatment under the law, regardless of sexual orientation. It will indeed affect all of us, and our future.
Any church that decides they will not grant the right of marriage to any couple they deem inappropriate has the right to do so. The government, however, has responsibilities to and for ALL of its people.
jen*
Janine,
I appreciate your thought-full response in that you did what many others were unwilling to do in commenting on the original post ("Why Adventists Should Consider Supporting Gay Marriage"): you carefully and fairly analyzed the contents of the arguments and responded respectfully. Thank you for that.
A few responses are in order then.
1. First, you provide many sources (more than I offered) that all agree with your point of view and contradict points that I made. Alright. Along with others who have commented here, I note that the links you provide are by-and-large opinion pieces in non-scientific blogs or magazines. Op-Ed pieces are fine for those who want to hear opinions, but to really make compelling arguments, credible scientific studies go far further than opinion articles do.
2. Second, please note that the literature on the issue of children of gays suggests that children in GLBT families are equally happy, healthy and vibrant as their counterparts in straight homes. A great place to start (though it is only a starting point) is the Wikipedia page on LGBT parenting. It provides links to numerous studies and articles demonstrating that it is false to claim children in gay households are worse off.
3. Appealing to a "democratic process" or tradition or the will of the people is, as many have pointed out, a false-start. As I commented in the previous discussion of this issue, and as people have already noted here, numerous attrocities have been supported by a democratic, unified majority. Slavery was legal and had widespread support in the United States. It took courageous elected officials to get rid of it. Segregation was legal and supported by a majority. Inter-racial marriages were opposed by a majority and outlawed until, again, lawmakers ruled inter-racial marriages legal.
Time and time again, the will of the people, tradition, and the democratic process have been frankly and sadly unconstitutional.
4. There are no studies that link legalized homosexual unions to increased homosexual experimentation or a greater societal propensity toward "turning gay". Trying to make such a connection is baseless conjecture.
5. What the articles concerning "Religious Liberty" fail to mention is that the institutions that complain about having to make concessions to gay couples also receive monies from the government. They want to appropriate the benefits that the government offers but without the responsibilities of providing the government's equity. Bottom line - if you receive government money, the government has a right to tell you to whom to provide benefits. No violation of religious liberty there.
6. The fallacious (read incorrect) connection between gay marriage and polygamy has already been debunked at length. Again, I refer you to the discussion of that topic here.
7. As I suggested in the previous discussion on this topic, I again call for all those who want to make strong denunciations of homosexuality and gay marriage to get to know, personally and thoroughly, homosexual men and women. Listen to them describe their experiences. Hear their stories. Find out what life is like through their eyes. This is very different from meeting and shaking hands with a gay person. It involves becoming invested in their lives. I have known homosexuals of several nationalities, religions and ethnicities. When I speak, I have those people's stories in mind.
8. Finally, we need to stop this talk of "hating sin and loving sinners". It is a false dichotomy that is very unhelpful. We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful. Anywhere. Scripture condemns the homosexual practices of its day, which always involved coersion, transience, and abuse. That is clearly far different from what we deal with today when committed couples make deliberate decisions to live faithfully in permanent relationships.
*HOMOSEXUALITY AND PORN*
Are unrelated. No link between one and the other in terms of any kind of slope, slippery or otherwise. Pornography is exploitative, it is dehumanizing, it is a business, and it is not based on love. Gay marriage involves mutual commitment and fidelity, it humanizes homosexuals and all of us with them, it is a permanent partnership and its basis is love. Let's do away with false characterizations of the issue and focus on the truth of the matter.
We ought to support full equality under the law (as the Supreme Court did) and oppose law-making with religious underpinnings.
Hey Jared I happen to have gay and lesbian friends and relatives. I see your point about making a distinction between the porn and homosexuality, yet I'm not sure they are as far apart as you would like to see them. I have a friend or two who would like to be exotic dancers and see nothing wrong with being a porn star. What's the difference? They want to be able to lead the lifestyle they choose. All I'm trying to point out is that this issue isn't as black and white as we would think it is no matter what direction we are looking from.
My suggestion that people ought to get to know gay and lesbian folks was a general appeal - not specific to you, and I'm glad that you call some gay people friends! I wish more Adventists could say that. :)
The difference between this marriage issue and pornography, I think, is that one lifestyle is fundamentally exploitative - porn, strippers, whatever is fundamentally about exploiting a person for one's own gratification. It is not the kind of lasting, committed relationship that the gay marrige discussion has to do with.
The other is fundamentally mutually-uplifting. Marriage - gay, straight, or whatever it is - has to do with permanent commitment to the well-being of another. That's why we do marriage. It has to do with growing together and acting on behalf of the other in a way that can never be matched (on a fundamental level) by a relationship between stripper and stripee or whatever you want to call it, or pornstar and porn afficianado.
To me, it seems as though equating the two relegates homosexuals to people with fetishes or sex addictions of some sort. All that I've read and heard suggests that homosexuality is the result of genetic wiring - a biological condition. That's different in a fundamental way than a large sexual appetite, isn't it fair to say?
Its fair to say if you agree with the mainstream way of thinking. :D
In talking with my friends who are gay and lesbian I have found that though they say that they were born that way if you look deeper you can see that they did not have a balanced home with a father or mother that loved them. In talking with a teacher who is gay, he told me that all he wanted his whole life was to have a hug from his father and be understood by him. I have a friend from college who told me that one when he was growing up he had to choose which way to go. He choose to be straight.
I am sure that there is a percentage that are born this way, but I have a hard time believing that all are this way. We were all born in sin and our lives take us different ways. Its small choices and experiences along the way that change us. We don't just all of a sudden one day say "Oh I want to be gay." Or I'm going to go out and be a stripper. Its the small things that slowly change our lives into being who we are.
"if you look deeper you can see that they did not have a balanced home with a father or mother that loved them. In talking with a teacher who is gay, he told me that all he wanted his whole life was to have a hug from his father and be understood by him."
We hear this sort of thing all the time -- clinging mother + absent/distant father = gay kid. Or at least, we used to, until science and psychology began to understand that's not how it works.
I think the reason this trope still seems to be in play is because there are true stories of gay men who had dysfunctional relationships with their fathers and exceptionally close relationships with their mothers.
Further, I believe the reason we see that is because, when a boy is gay, the father senses that on some level, even when the boy is very young. This causes some fathers to feel shame, or to pull away from the boy. The mother then compensates for the father's withdrawal of affection or attention by giving the son more of her attention.
Most straight children also come from "dysfunctional families." Was it Tolstoy who said that all families are unhappy in their own way? and can anyone truthfully say that he came from a perfect family? If so, it was not good preparation for life where there are no perfect people.
So we believe all modern science has to offer? :D It seems that in todays world you can have any conclusions you want. My wife is working on her masters in biostatistics and it seems that from talking to her you really have to know who is funding the study, etc.
I'd like to second your comments, Tom, about the anecdotes that abound about a gay child who had an absent or distant parent of the opposite sex. Of course there are gays and lesbians who had dysfunctional parental relationships and, if these hurts aren't dealt with, they can lead to an improper sexuality (either straight or gay). Just as there are heterosexuals who have unhealthy relationships and sexual expressions stemming from a childhood hurt, so do gays. Promiscuity, exploitation, and non-mutual relationships are unhealthy wherever they happen to take hold. This is why it's important to look at the evidence and not just go off of gut feelings or personal anecdotes.
I'd also really like to second your comments, Jared, about the false notion of "love the sinner/hate the sin." I appreciated these comments of yours in particular:
"8. Finally, we need to stop this talk of "hating sin and loving sinners". It is a false dichotomy that is very unhelpful. We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful. Anywhere. Scripture condemns the homosexual practices of its day, which always involved coersion, transience, and abuse. That is clearly far different from what we deal with today when committed couples make deliberate decisions to live faithfully in permanent relationships."
When I support gay marriage, I am affirming the committed, faithful relationships of the people in my life who have often taught me more about what it means to be in an equitable relationship with another human being. I'm affirming monogamy, family commitment, and love that commits to one another even through hardships.
I especially want to note that study after study affirms that children raised in gay households fare just as well as those raised in straight households (and have no more tendency to be gay or lesbian, just a tendency to be more tolerant of non-traditional families--of which there are many these days). Children need committed, loving adults in their life--period. Speaking as a teacher, I can affirm that this can happen outside even the parental relationship. I'm a little concerned, Janine, with your worry that more gay parents will be able to adopt children as a result of marriage equity. Do you think it's healthier for children to be raised in the foster care/social services system than to have two adults in a (legally) committed relationship commit to love and care for them?
If you'd like to learn a little bit more about a gay couple who have adopted five children of color who had been bouncing around the foster care system, read this feature from the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/01/FAMILY.TMP
After reading the entire article, who out there would dare to say that these children would be better off in the foster care system??
I commend Janine for making the case against homosexual marriage crystal clear and watertight. I would like to emphasize the following argument she made in this blog, which I do not recall anybody mentioning before:
*********
"It should be noted that divorce or death does not deprive a child of an opposite sex parent as does same-sex marriage. Little Jane, having been adopted by John and Steve, will never in her whole life know what it is to have a mother. A baby boy adopted by two women will never have a father—never. Talk about 'total deprivation'!
*********
The way I see, modern society has been placing the search for happyness of individuals above every other interest. This is true about homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, and abortion. Ir seems like the best interest of the child is relegated to a secondary position or else negated in toto in the case of abortion.
Society seems to say: The welfare of children doesn't count. What counts is my own pleasure and satisfaction. I want to get my own way regarless of the cost to others, to society, and to the future of our country.
This goes against the best interest of society and of the government. It tends to destroy the basic unit of society which is the family. This reminds me of the girl who on her sixteenth birthday was asked what she wanted for the occasion.
She responded by saying: I want a dad! Homosexual activists think they can improve society. The fact is that there is no way to improve what the Creator has designed for our own good and for the welfare for children and for society.
This me generation is looking for happyness in the wrong place. Focusing exclusively on self gratification will never produce enduring pleasure and permanent satisfaction. When we look for the best interest of children and all concerned, then happyness becomes the natural product of the correct way of setting our life priorities.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
I would like to cite a short paragraph from one of the links Janine provided at the begining of her blog:
*********
Same-sex marriage: Good for gays, bad for children. Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father. Death, divorce, abandonment, a single parent's mistakes any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father." [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0504/prager050404.asp]
*********
Do we really want to hurt our children? Shouldn't we always look for their best interest. This applies to divorce as well. Sometime ago a man who was experiencing trouble in his marriage went to see an SDA marriage counselor. The first statement this professional made was: "Let's analyze and see what is your best interest."
He should have said, in my view: "Let's see what is the best interest of everybody concerned." If those contemplating setting homosexual marriage in solid concrete, and those contemplating divorce, would enlarge their vision to include the interest of children, how different would society be!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
I would like to highlight another paragraph from Janine's article which impressed me greatly:
*********
"The comparison between proscribing same-sex marriage and proscribing interracial marriage is inapt. There is no essential difference between blacks and whites. There is a world of difference between men and women. Marriage utilizes these differences to bring balance and complementarity both to the relationship itself and the raising of children, who vitally need the unique characteristics male and female bring to their parenting."
*********
Many of the proponents of homosexual marriage have argued that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is as unfair as the ban of interracial marriage was some years ago. This, of course, has no basis on logic. I agree with Janine that "There is no essential difference between blacks and whites." While, undeniably, "There is a world of difference between men and women."
Interracial marriage does not deprive the child of either a dad or a mom, while same-sex marriage does, and on a permanent basis. What a tragedy that those who advocate what will hurt children have a myopic vision of what they are proposing for the future of our country.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: Isn't the point that it is entirely unclear if there is, in fact any relevant psychological or other non-biological difference between men and women? And the research seems to continues to pull down supposed differences, like math capabilities, etc. The right of a child to have both a mother and a father would also negate divorce, but I cannot see that that would be a good idea in any way.
Happy Tuesday
The consistent refrain of "what about the children" becomes moot if the partners are past child-bearing years. This also ignores the beautiful story above on the same-sex couple that adopted five children who had been shifted from one foster care to another. If one wishes to put children first, what do you suggest for the many foster children who are not finding homes? Are you willing to take them in to your home, permanently? Is a temporary foster home better than a permanent loving home of same sex partners?? Has anyone asked the children of their preferences? There are hundreds of babies abandoned each year. A loving permanent home is far superior to a temporary foster home where many do that in exchange for money.
Hi Niemand,
You are right, there have been 3 recent studies that show that boys and girls, men and women are more similar phsychologically and in capability than people assume. http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/index.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum...
I always keep in mid that there are more differences between two individuals in all measures than there are between all men and all women on these same measures when taken as a whole.
Janine's arguments:
"Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female, and not only because of religion."
The main reason, apart from religious belief, for opposing same-sex marriage is the welfare of children."
The first proposition should more correctly read:
"Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between one male and several FEMALES."
Read the Bible to find that ancient Hebrew society's customs included patriarchs with wives and concubines, many more than merely two.
As for the "welfare of children" if those protesting that lack were willing to adopt those children who are too often abandoned by their parents, there would be much less a problem of children's welfare than what we observe today.
There is also no law requiring couples of either sex to become parents. Should those then, be allowed to marry if there were no children? That is a very personal choice and not the blessings of prolific progeny that was considered by people of that era.
This world has already become too fruitful with overpopulation, often from those who are the worst prepared for parenthood. Biological parenthood is the easy part: true parenting is a life's work and the orientation of such parents who make a definite decision, rather than an unconsidered occasion, should be congratulated for producing healthy children. Any social worker will tell you that biological parenthood comes with no assurance whatsoever of good parenting, but often is the unfortunate and unplanned result of a one-night event.
True parenting requires the ability plus willingness to devote one's entire life and energy to that child as their most important duty. This is not limited to opposite sex couples, but to a loving family who truly wants children and is willing to give them a good home.
Nic, from the tenor of this conversation (which has been courteous and honest), one thing is pretty crystal clear. There is nothing watertight about this issue one way or the other.
I have no problem admitting that although I find arguments in favor of supporting gay marriage quite compelling and logical (even ethically necessary), I recognize that many Adventists, because of their own presuppositions and understanding will not come to terms with accepting gay marriage.
Nevertheless, there are numerous people who have commented stating very valid reasons why Adventists ought to support gay marriage. You have made it abundantly clear that you are not one of them, and that's fine. The purpose of these discussions is to share views openly and with integrity.
But whatever else the conversation on this topic may have revealed, it has not revealed crystal clarity or a watertight case in opposition of gay marriage. Unless by crystal clear and watertight, you mean something that fits very nicely with how you see things.
Elaine,
I would like to respond to the following statements you made on 05 August 2008 at 11:45:
*********
"There are many benefits of marriage that are now denied to same-sex couples, albeit they are living together.... Whether my neighbors are cohabiting without the benefit of marriage; are childless or not are matters that have no affect on my life nor my choices."
*********
I presume that you are aware that the benefits granted to married couples are tradicionally based on the notion that on the average married couples contribute to the preservation of the population by producing and rearing the next generation, which is not true about homosexual couples.
Given the above, how can you argue that granting these same-sex couples the benefits accorded to married couples has "no effect on my choices"? Where do you think those benefits come from? It comes from my taxes! Why should I financially support a lifestyle which claims the benefits without a willingness to contribute to society what is expected from married individuals?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Niemand,
You stated the following on 05 August 2008 at 12:08:
*********
"As far as polygamy is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, provided polyandry is also included, and age of consent, etc. are accounted for."
*********
I can understand society's acceptance of polygamy at a time when a great percentage of males were being killed in war. If you combine this with the fact that in those times the practice of slavery was in vogue, that women were like cattle owned by males, that women had no right to own property, and the lack of welfare programs, you get the perfect recipe for the acceptance of polygamy.
Under those circumstances, women, who were prevented from owning real estate, had no way of surviving except for slavery or prostitution. Given this scenario, polygamy was a great blessing for women. This situation did take place in fairly recent times when a war broke between Argentina and Paraguay.
A significan number of Paraguayan men were killed, and women were more than happy to marry the few already married men that were left. The result was that the wives would work on the farm, while the owner of the harem would play his guitar and drink his "mate," a common beverage in South America. It seemed like a perfect arrangement.
In the event modern society were to consider reinstituting this practice, since on the average there is an approximately equal number of males and females born, this means that, if you allow for males to have several wives, then you would have to also allow for females to have several husbands. Otherwise, there would be a disproportionate number of males unable to find a prospective wife.
Is this what you say you have no objection against?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Quit it ALREADY! Gays and lesbians are NOT STERILE. The same people arguing against gay marriage are ALSO the ones arguing against allowing same sex couples access to IVF and other reproductive services, including adoption. Regardless, many still manage to reproduce, and raise their own children and/or adopted ones.
In fact, I am guessing that the per couple rate of childrearing in homosexual couples will not be significantly far off that of heterosexual couples. Especially considering the many electively childless heterosexual couples there are.
Michael,
The long-drawn arguments you posted on 05 August 2008 at 1:46 convinced me of the benefits of homosexual marriage. This is what I would suggest.
Let us divide the huge state of Texas in three sections. One for all gays, one for all lesbians, and the rest for normal people. Let us seal the borders for each one of those sectional areas, and let's see how long the first two groups can survive. If they can't survice on their own, then perhaps they will realize that their unwillingness to contribute to the preservation of the human species should be recognized by depriving them of the right to marry!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Yes, Nic. That IS what I meant when I wrote "polyandry". I don't personally have a problem with polygamy or polyandry. Again, the issues I would be concerned about are, as FSM puts it, "I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity." (taken from The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts").
As far as benefits are concerned, you mentioned that your taxes go towards those benefits. What about the taxes paid by gays and lesbians, etc.? Don't they have the right to use of benefits paid for by their own taxes? Why should THEY financially support YOU?
Happy Tuesday
Nic,
Have you met GLBT couples with children? I have many gay and lesbian friends with children. Some of them biological children of one of the couple others are adopted.
I also have a cousin who has been married for 25 years and never had a child. She and her husband enjoy the legal benefits of marriage where as my lesbian friends with 2 children under the roof don't. Those children are being cared for by two loving, committed parents.
This canard about supporting the children is just not based in reality. Millions of children in the US are in GLBT families this is the reality today (http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_ga...). Failing to support these families and these children is what is at stake here, not some farcical state of Texas cut up like a pie.
Tom,
I read your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 2:47. I think that your uncle should have considered the financial price he was paying when he chose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. I have been a Realtor for over three decades, and I have seen many people making expensive investment without talking to a real estate lawyer first.
A friend of mine purchased a home with his wife and they took title as Joint Tenants. Both of them died many years later as a result of a head on collison. They had no heirs, and one set of relatives inherited all their assets because one of them survived the other by one hour.
Same sex couples should understand that if they are not willing to contribute to the preservation of the human species, they have no right to the benefits designed for heterosexuals. Now, if you insist on benefits to civil unions, I would be more inclined to agree, not on the basis of fairness, but out of concession, provided gays do not insist on the right to adopt innocent children, or the right to marry.
The best interest of children should be our uppermost factor in voting in November. Each child should be entitled to have a dad and a mom. Depriving a child of said right in an absolute manner as it happens in the case of adoption by homosexuals is unfair to children.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Jeannieb43,
This is in response to your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 4:43.
I thought that we were talking about an amendment to the California Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: You very clearly did not read jemand's post. Gay people are NOT sterile. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, we do not hold it against hetero couples who choose not to have children. What would your policy be towards them? Even if gay couples did not, as a rule, rear children, your point is empty.
Happy Tuesday
Nic -
"Each child should be entitled to have a dad and a mom."
Answer this simple question -- how will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexuals (or homosexuals for that matter) from having or adopting children?
"Depriving a child of said right in an absolute manner as it happens in the case of adoption by homosexuals is unfair to children."
That is a completely separate debate. The issue at hand is whether same-sex couples should retain the right to marry, NOT whether they should be able to adopt.
However, since you raised the issue, you do realize, don't you, that gay couples who want to adopt generally have access to the least adoptable children? They tend to get the crack babies, the kids who have been stuck in foster care for years, or bounced from home to home. They take on the HIV-positive children, the developmentally disabled, the handicapped. Without gay couples adopting, far more children would languish in orphanages, group homes and foster care. Gay men and lesbian women are showing true Christian charity. What Christian traits are YOU exhibiting?
Elaine,
You made the following observation on 05 August 2008 at 7:20:
*********
"No one in his or her right mind "chooses" to be gay. That is an absolute and downright fable folks keep telling themselves. If being gay were contagious, we should all worry, but there is absolutely no, none, nada truth to that whatsoever."
*********
I agree! Nevertheless, this does not mean that by choosing a lifestyle which will prevent him/her from contributing to the preservation of the human species should entitle them to the same benefits accorded to those who do.
Being gay may not be contagious, but homosexuals are determined to reeducate and indoctrinate future generations starting with kindergarten when the mind of children is very impressionable and more easily molded. Some will choose a homosexual lifestyle without having been born with that inclination. If society grants same-sex couples all the benefits normal individuals are entitled to without the responsibilities, many might be tempted and persuaded.
Without the financial obligations involved in the raising of children, homosexuals will be free to live a more luxurious lifestyle, and they will be more able to financially afford to travel and pursue their goals of self gratification. On top of this, they will be entitled to the same honorable title and benefits accrued to normal married heterosexuals.
You call this fairness. I call it trying to have the cake and eat it too, or trying to collect benefits they refused to work for.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: I am very, very sorry, but
are
you
nuts?
Beth,
I read your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 7:50, and I disgree with your opinion. If God wanted us to practice homosexuality, he would have provided the right plumbing for this! Please, vote accordingly in November!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Boaz,
My response to your posting dated on 05 August 2008 at 8:53 is: God loves the sinner, but hates his sin. We should do the same! Modern society loves both!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
nic. I have a question. Do you read ANYTHING other than what you repeat in your own posts?
"choosing a lifestyle which will prevent him/her from contributing to the preservation of the human species should entitle them to the same benefits accorded to those who do."
First off, Nic. It's NOT A CHOICE.
Second, marriage isn't all about the babies. I asked a question, which you haven't answered. How will denying marriage equality prevent heterosexuals (or homosexuals for that matter) from having or adopting children?
The benefits of marriage to society are more than just the propagation of the species -- which happens to unmarried couples all the time. (Not that that's a good thing.)
When you marry someone, you agree to be jointly responsible for any debts they take on during the marriage. You agree to care for each other. With someone watching out for you, it's less likely the state will have to step in and do so.
Gay folks pay taxes just like childless couples do, just like infertile couples do, just like couples where the wife in post-menopausal and can no longer bear children. Again, it's not only about the kids.
"If God wanted us to practice homosexuality, he would have provided the right plumbing for this!"
Just so you know, I have EXACTLY the right plumbing for practicing homosexuality. Thanks, God!
Tom Bestor,
Have you worked in the public high school or public college? I worked for the public high school for 30.5 years which equals much first-hand knoweldge with teens. You are wrong. It was the same with Eve -- you are missing out said the serpent, unless you try this, or try this, or maybe this. Same ol, same ol arguments from Satan. Maybe Eve was not even hungry, or right or left handed, but was tempted and fell. Our teens are not as strong as Eve and have, for the most part, selfish me-ism parents, whereas Eve had God.
JoAnn ;)
Elaine,
You made the following statement on 06 August 2008 at 7:58:
*********
"The church is meddling in politics that has no religious content."
*********
I know that what I am going to say will not tip the balance for you, but it may help someone else vote the right way in November.
A. In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to prison after preaching a sermon challenging homosexuality. I am glad we are not living in that country, otherwise I might risk incarceration for posting this!
B. In England, a Christian ministry was fined $23,000 for refusing to employ homosexuals.
C. In Canada a pastor was fined $7,000 for writing to a news editor oppossing same-sex marriage.
D. In New Mexico a photographer was fined $6,000 for refusing to offer his services at a homosexual wedding.
Do you want me to go on? And you argue that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with our religious rights?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Shygirlj,
I am responding to the following statement you posted on 06 August 2008 at 7:59:
*********
"Ms. Goffar,I am not sure I understand your reasoning. It seems that at first you are saying that there are more reasons than religious ones for opposing same-sex marriage. But the only reason you list that has no religious overtones is that "Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between male and female". ... The rest of your reasons [for the children, marriage itself, the 'traditional family', etc.] all seem to be religiously based."
*********
It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that there is a significant overlap between the state's and the church's interest. Take for example stealing, perjury, murder, and so on. All these have been criminalized by the government, and they are also reliously based.
Does this mean that our criminal code should be updated so that any law which is somehow connected with religion should be eliminated? Have you pondered the serious implication of your fallacious argument?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
A sad spectacle is right before us,
The liberal spiritual chorus.
Singing discordant notes
to secure heaven by votes
Do you think God will simply ignore this?
Nic
I'm glad my comments convinced you.
But your suggestion for a test wouldn't work. Nor would it be relevant to the point. But for what it's worth...
A society only of gay men and gay women would be able to procreate. Completely able. With all the right plumbing you asked for. And if they needed to survive they would probably do so.
Societies of only heterosexual men or only heterosexual women would not fare so well over time.
Conclusions about who should have the right to marry and who should have the right to conceive and who should have the right to adopt are unrelated to these claims.
Jared,
I read your well prepared response to Janine posted on 06 August 2008 at 8:53. In it, you faulted her for using "non-scientific blogs or magazines" as her sourcess. Then you cited as your source Wikipedia. Do you consider Wikipedia a scientific source of information? As far as I understand, anybody is allowed to post there. Am I wrong?
You seem to reject the notion that the will of the majority should rule. What is the alternative? It is the rule of the minority, isn't it? Is this a better way to establish policy. Isn't this what happened in Germany under Hitler, and in Russia under Stalin? Consider also what is taking place in Iraq and the Arab world, where a minority is determined to rule.
I admit that there is no perfect system, but for some reason millions would be delighted to be able to emigrate to the U.S. where there is still some semblance of democracy. This is precisely what motivated me to emigrate to this country, and so far, I am not planning to return to where I came from!
You argue that "There are no studies that link legalized homosexual unions to increased homosexual experimentation or a greater societal propensity toward 'turning gay'." How could anyone produce scientific studies related to the long-term effects of "legalized homosexual unions" if this is a recent phenomenon?
Next you argued that "What the articles concerning "Religious Liberty" fail to mention is that the institutions that complain about having to make concessions to gay couples also receive monies from the government." Please read my response to Elaine above where I cited four cases of religious discrimination and heavy financial fines imposed where no monies from the government was involved.
Next you affirm that "The fallacious (read incorrect) connection between gay marriage and polygamy has already been debunked at length." Could you debunk this for me again, or provide me with a link to said debunking?
You are challenging the readers to get to know homosexuals. I have done that, and have come with a different conclusion than the one you seem to have arrived at. Can I borrow your lenses in order that I may see things in a different light?
Finally, you end with the following parting statement: "We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful."
Did Janine say anything about having been born with a homosexual orientation as sinful? Perhaps she did, but I must have missed it. Nevertheless, Paul is very clear about those who choose to yield to their abnormal sexual desires. We are all born with sinful tendencies. Selfishness and rebellion are engrained in our genes. Having been born with these sinful inclinations is not a sin, but yielding to the desire to follow them is.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Daneen,
I would like to comment on the statement you posted on 06 August 2008 at 11:27 dealing with what you consider to be a "false notion of 'love the sinner/hate the sin.'"
Have you considered what is the alternative to "love the sinner/hate the sin.'" It would be: "Love both the sinner and his sin," isn't it? Is this really what you are suggesting? Did not Jesus say to the woman both: "Neither do I condemn thee," and "Go and sin no more"? What is it that Jesus love, and what did he hate? Can you explain?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic -
"Our teens are not as strong as Eve and have, for the most part, selfish me-ism parents, whereas Eve had God."
First off, I don't remember mentioning teens in any of my posts. But if you really think teens experimenting with same-sex activity turns them gay, you are farther gone than pretty much anyone who has thus far commented on this board. The kids who will experiment with same-sex activity are the kids who WANT to experiment with same-sex activity. The gay ones. Believe me, if you're not gay, gay sex doesn't interest you. (See Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, et al.) Except if you are a straight man. They seem to love the girl-on-girl stuff.
What's more, on a civil basis, there is NOTHING wrong with this. Same-sex activity is perfectly legal in this country. If you don't want your kids to explore their sexuality, it's up to YOU to make your wishes clear. Withholding equal rights from adults is not the right way to achieve that objective.
"You seem to reject the notion that the will of the majority should rule. What is the alternative?"
Uhmm...the Constitution? Which established three branches of government, including the judiciary which is there in part to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority? How do you get to be "editor" of anything (or a citizen of this country) without understanding 6th grade civics? Do you not realize the majority ultimately DOES rule, be cause we elect the executives and the legislator who appoint the judges? Some judges we even get to vote for directly.
In terms of religious freedom, if the Mormons can keep black people from marrying in their temples (which they did for decades) simply because their skin was black, and if Fred Phelps can shout "God hates fags" at military funerals, I think religious freedom in THIS country is pretty safe.
Elaine,
You made the following brief observation on 06 August 2008 at 12:10:
*********
"After reading the entire article, who out there would dare to say that these children would be better off in the foster care system?"
*********
Did you realize that you were responding to the wrong question? The comparison between a foster care situation and a homosexual setting is a false dichotomy. The right comparison should have been between the adoption by either a loving heterosexual home or a loving homosexual one! Do you see the difference? Now that you have the right question, do you want to try answering it?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 06 August 2008 at 12:10
Niemand,
I fully agree with the following statement you posted on 06 August 2008 at 1:43:
*********
"The right of a child to have both a mother and a father would also negate divorce, but I cannot see that that would be a good idea in any way."
*********
Both situations are harmful to a child. Nevertheless, in the case of divorce, under many circumstances, the connection between the child and his/her parents is not destroyed on a permanent basis. When a child is adopted bu a homosexual couple, the connection with a parent of the opposite sex is permanently severed.
Elaine,
I am responding to your comment posted on 06 August 2008 at 2:00. Do you have any statistics about the adoption of older children by homosexuals as oppossed to by heterosexuals? My understanding is that placing babies into permanent heterosexual homes is not really a problem. I have close relatives who have spent over $25,000 per child.
And they had to fly to the other side of the world in order to do this. It would have been much easier and less costly to adopt a baby locally, but there were none available. Most women faced with an unwanted pregnancy opt for an abortion, when the baby's life could be saved and an unfertile couple made happy.
Elaine,
I am responding to your statement dated on 06 August 2008 at 2:46:
*********
"Every significant civilization in history has kept marriage strictly between one male and several FEMALES."
*********
Please, read my comments dated on 06 August 2008 at 5:20 where I try to explain why polygamy was in fact a blessing given the special circumstances people were dealing with then.
Jared,
Thanks for your comments dated on 06 August 2008 at 2:49. My answer is: The case against same-sex marriage is crystal clear to me, and you can count on my vote for the amendment in November, unless you produce stronger reasons for me to do otherwise.
Jemand,
Here is my response to your posting dated on 06 August 2008 at 5:26:
Nobody has argued so far that gays and lesbians are sterile. Many of them manage to reproduce, but not with the same sex. They have to resort to some generous outside donor. This creats a triangle which tends to entangle the relationship. Sooner or later the child will want to discover her true missing parent.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic, (I've copied your comments into one) and please follow what most folks do and include multiple replies in a single comment. Flooding the site with up to six comments in a row is the visual equivalent of talking a lot in a group discussion.
As many people (I think) recognize, majority rule can quickly become problematic, descending into a tyranny of the masses. The website for Ragged Trousered Philosopher (www.fullmoon.nu) has an excellent article on the process of democracy in decision making:
http://www.fullmoon.nu/book/chap.php?id=c08#whoshoulddecide
It's a bit of a long read, but very interesting.
Happy Tuesday.
Tony Campolo also objects to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" formula. He says that Scripture teaches us to "love the sinner and hate OUR OWN sin!"
Exactly!
Campolo says this in a video on behalf of AF's new book: "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives." The book is available at www.sdagayperspectives.com for a mere 19.95 + shipping and handling.
People from other denominations are already using it, as we anticipated.
Yes, of course, this is a frank attempt to sell truth-filled literature. Once a literature evangelist, always a literature evangelist!
Dave
Nic Samojluk,
It sounds to me like you are advocating a violation of privacy rights, where there is no compelling government interest.
It sounds like you are suggesting a two-pronged test for measuring whether or not couples be allowed to marry. This two-pronged test includes: PRODUCTION and REARING of children, correct?
You write:
["I presume that you are aware that the benefits granted to married couples are tradicionally based on the notion that on the average married couples contribute to the preservation of the population by producing and rearing the next generation, which is not true about homosexual couples."
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 06 August 2008 at 3:59]
I would argue that the test you are putting forward (at least in the way of "production") is untenable on two counts: 1st-It can be shown to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that the government would intrude into matters that involve intimate personal and family concerns.
2nd- When applied to the present discussion there would be a disparity between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who are sterile.
You write:
["Nobody has argued so far that gays and lesbians are sterile. Many of them manage to reproduce, but not with the same sex. They have to resort to some generous outside donor. This creats a triangle which tends to entangle the relationship. Sooner or later the child will want to discover her true missing parent.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 06 August 2008 at 10:06"]
-This comment relates to the crux of my argument: the right of procreation is a vital part of the individual's RIGHT TO PRIVACY. (An idea put forward by the 1992 Tennessee Supreme Court Case of Davis v. Davis)
-In the statement above and your P&R test, it appears to me like you are advocating the violation of the individuals right to PROCREATIONAL AUTONOMY.
(The right to procreational autonomy includes: both the right to procreate and the right not to procreate.)
-Therefore: any "entanglement (of) the relationship" that you mentioned should be irrelevant and outside of government mandate as the issue of whether or not the child seeks to discover the identity of "her true missing parent" should also be.
-Also, if your reasoning is applied. Wouldn't all married couples be mandated to conceive children: a clear violation of procreational autonomy and therefore an infraction on the right to privacy.
Secondly: If your test is allowed, what reason is there to allow sterile heterosexual couples to get married?
If it is because they are allowed to benefit society or even preserve the human species through adoption, then I ask what is the difference for gay couples?
If you refer back to the issue of child rearing- then you should argue against such comments as (Michael Covarrubias | 05 August 2008 at 12:46).
But the two-part test you propose is off the table.
My answers follow the name and date of posting of those who have directed their comment at me. Nic Samojluk.
Niemand, [06 August 2008 at 5:43]
It is true that same-sex couples also pay taxes, but they fail to contribute to the preservation of the human species. That was my point.
*********
Carlitas [August 2008 at 6:05]
True! There are exceptions for every rule. Nevertheless, I hope society will decide to preserve the distinction between the ideal situation where a child has a mom and a dad, and the other where the child is deprived of one of them. This can be accomplished by having a separate label for marriage and civil union, instead of dumping them all in the same basket.
*********
Niemand, [06 August 2008 at 6:21]
I know that homosexuals are not normally sterile, but their homosexual union results in a sterile union. That is what I meant!
*********
Tom Bestor, [06 August 2008 at 6:24]
You made a good point. I would like to see some statistics. Nevertheless, I would still object to identifying civil unions as marriage, which name should be reserved for those truly joined the way God ordained. I hope my views are shared by the majority of voters!
*********
Niemand, [06 August 2008 at 6:37]
Perhaps I am. Nevertheless, it would halp if you would take the trouble to explain why you think that I am nuts! Don't you think so? What's the point of guessing?
*********
Tom Bestor, [06 August 2008 at 8:00]
I think that I have answered most of the questions that you are asking. If I repeat myself, Jemand will come back at me arguing that I must be nuts doing this. [Sorry, Jemand, I have no option but to anwer these comments!]
I believe that there is an ideal for raising children. Said ideal is not reached by depriving a child from having a mon and a dad. God's design for marriage is the best. If society insists on allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, so be it, but let's not call this marriage. It is not. It is a poor substitute for what the Lord ordained!
I know that in many instances homosexuality is not a choice. Nevertheless, pretending that homosexual unions can be equated and confused with marriage is a choice: a wrong choice!
I still believe that God's purpose for marriage is procreation. God did not say to the first couple: Go and have lots of fun, but rather "be fruitful and multiply." You are right that denying homosexuals a marriage license will not prevent heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children; but it will keep God's ideal for marriage crystal clear.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: So, your reasons for opposing legalization of gay marriage ARE mostly (entirely?) religious in nature?
Happy Tuesday
Already it has been demonstrated that removing the DNA from an egg and replacing it with DNA from another individual or individuals results in a viable embryo. I am guessing that in 25 years or less there will be IVF services catering to gays and lesbians nearly exclusively. The DNA nucleus from one woman will be used to fertilize the other woman's egg, and the resultant embryo implanted as in normal IVF procedures. The empty egg will probably be donated to gay men, and the DNA from one man (complete with an x chromosome) will be inserted and the result fertilized by sperm from the other man. To bring the embryo to term, they could either use a surrogacy service or a temporary uterus implant. Unfortunately, lesbians would not be able to have sons in this manner, but they would still be able to reproduce.
None of this is technically insurmountable, and the demand is there. What basis can you have for denying marriage when these people can BIOLOGICALLY REPRODUCE with BOTH of them DIRECTLY related to the resultant child!
But beyond this, reproduction is irrelevant to the debate about whether or not gays may be allowed to marry. I'm just pointing out that it isn't even necessarily correct.
"truly joined the way God ordained" and "keep God's ideal for marriage crystal clear," and "God's purpose for marriage is procreation."
Those comments clearly show that the argument is based on religious, not civil foundations. With such religious arguments you've given up the civil rights and been driven to religious beliefs to validate your position.
Is it also your position, based on statements made, that only couples planning on procreating should be allowed to marry? Doesn't it follow that to frustrate God's plan for procreation would be wrong?
Nic Samojluk,
What is "God's ideal for marriage"? And how can you be certain that it IS God's ideal?
Clearly some here buy nails and try and pound the head in first and leave the point out or bristle when found trying to pound in a bolt when someone says, No, bolts are designed for nuts and its nails you pound in.
The mechanics of male and female as origional design seemingly escape some. Perhaps more instruction in geometry and less in philosophy would be of benefit.
Michael,
Humans show a great variation in sex. There are men with 46XXY chromosomes and Women with 46XY as a result of genetic variations of Kleinfelter syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and 5a reductase deficiency. There are genetic variations that lead to a mosaic of XY/XO, XY/XX and other combinations. People’s genitals don’t always fit into tidy categories of male and female. People’s brains are affected by exogenous and endogenous hormones affecting their brain development affecting the shape of their genitals, gender identity sexual orientation and the desire to go shopping. There are several terms for this, Intersex, Disorders of Sexual Differentiation, older terms like Hermaphroditism, Pseudo Hermaphroditism, True Hermaphroditism.
We can’t put all people neatly into two categories and expect everyone to fit.
Nic
You write
Nevertheless, I hope society will decide to preserve the distinction between the ideal situation where a child has a mom and a dad, and the other where the child is deprived of one of them. This can be accomplished by having a separate label for marriage and civil union, instead of dumping them all in the same basket.
...and later...
I believe that there is an ideal for raising children. Said ideal is not reached by depriving a child from having a mon and a dad. God's design for marriage is the best. If society insists on allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, so be it, but let's not call this marriage. It is not. It is a poor substitute for what the Lord ordained!
You again claim an ideal. And ideal based on G-d's design and the mantra of the different roles of a father and a mother.
First -- You are remembering G-d's design for the biological method of procreation and calling it G-d's design for marriage. G-d's design for marriage also included a church married to a deity. "Marriage" is a union. It is covenant between parties who are dedicated to each other and who want to communicate their unity.
Second -- The view that men and women complement each other is fine. And you keep insisting that a child in a same-sex union is missing out on something. You need to explain however what that is. No one denies that a child with two mothers has no father. Or that a child with two fathers has no mother. If you want to argue that a child without each is "deprived" of something please be specific. What is it that a father provides that a mother cannot provide. And please don't beg the question by saying "male influence". What contributions do you believe each sex provides that cannot be provided by the other?
Third -- Nothing is accomplished by "separate" labels other than the act of pragmatic semiotic exclusion. If you believe a same-sex union is different enough to warrant a different label, then even if the majority believes in granting fully equal rights that is your prerogative. You can reveal your values and communicate your reservations as you wish. But I hope never to see the constitution and state law used to enforce and support the division of groups based on your ideological discomfort and fears.
My response to the comments which were directed to me appear underneath the name and date of posting of those who responded to my previous comments:
Tom, [06 August 2008 at 8:02]
I believe you. Most people do, with rare exceptions. What I meant is the right plumbing of the homosexual partners in the context of our ability to procreate, which is what the Creator originally designed for marriage.
*********
Michael, [06 August 2008 at 10:10]
Please explain the mechanism by which "A society only of gay men" or a a society only of "gay women would be able to procreate"! You lost me. Are you thinking of cloning?
*********
Tom Bestor, [06 August 2008 at 11:01]
I do not recognize the following quotation as mine: "Our teens are not as strong as Eve and have, for the most part, selfish me-ism parents, whereas Eve had God," for which reason I feel no need to respond.
But I do recognize the one that follows: "You seem to reject the notion that the will of the majority should rule. What is the alternative?"
My answer is: I believe that I do understand 6th grade civics. The Constitution granted the U.S. Congress the power to create new laws. This means that whenever activist judges create new laws out of thin air, they are usurping the power granted to the U.S. Congress. Legalizing abortion is a good example. So is attempting to legalize homosexual marriage.
*********
Niemand, [07 August 2008 at 5:31]
You are right. There is no perfect system of government. Still, given the choices we have, I opt for democracy. Only God’s rule is without flaws!
*********
David, [07 August 2008 at 6:14]
The Bible makes it very clear that God loves sinners, and also that God hates sin. It doesn’t say that he hates only my sin, but rather that he hates sin, period. Of course, my duty is to hate my sin above all!
*********
Alex, [07 August 2008 at 12:22]
Thanks for combining several comments of mine into one! I should have thought of doing this myself! I will try to do this whenever I can.
*********
Adrian, [07 August 2008 at 7:21]
There is a compelling government interest in the preservation of the human species. What I am proposing is that we keep the two significantly types of unions distinct.
Trying to blend homosexual with heterosexual unions into one by identifying both of them as marriage is like trying to mix water with oil. It can be done, but when I turn my kitchen faucet on, I will rather have pure water coming from it!
The main and foremost objective of creating a male and female was for procreation. The rest is tangential. When the government restricts marriage for heterosexuals, it is wrong to assume that it is intruding into private matters. In the privacy of their home, people can do what they want, short of hurting other human beings.
Heterosexual marriage is not sterile by nature, while homosexual union is! I have not suggested that the government should require that married individuals procreate. This is an individual choice.
*********
Niemand, [07 August 2008 at 8:13]
The answer is “No.” My reasons for opposing homosexual marriage are both religious and civic. My main concern has to do with the best interest of children. I grant that homosexual couples can be very effective in raisin children, but this is not the ideal environment for children.
Eventually, with the passage of time, science will provide ample evidence supporting my view, I believe. There is no way you can improve on what the Creator has designed. You may try, but you will come short of God’s ideal for humanity!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: Your religious arguments have no place in a debate which is about a legal issue. As far as your civil arguments, esp. the child-rearing one, you have yet to show any argument that is not religious as to why two same-sex parents are inferior. To my knowledge, there is no strong evidence for such a claim. All of your arguments sound religious to me.
As to forms of governments, I also prefer "democracy" (actually, I think I prefer republicanism to strict democracy), but not all decisions need the imput of the entire population. Water issues in Colorado need to be addressed by the people of Colorado; Road building through farmland should be addressed by those whose farms would be affected and by those who would benefit by it's construction; etc., etc. In this case, majority rule is and majority tradition is being used to trample on the minority. This is standard procedure for oppression and/or deprivation. Example: Palestinians who are not allowed to dig wells on their own land.
"I do not recognize the following quotation as mine: "Our teens are not as strong as Eve and have, for the most part, selfish me-ism parents, whereas Eve had God," for which reason I feel no need to respond."
I apologize. That was JoAnn.
"But I do recognize the one that follows: "You seem to reject the notion that the will of the majority should rule. What is the alternative?"
My answer is: I believe that I do understand 6th grade civics. The Constitution granted the U.S. Congress the power to create new laws. This means that whenever activist judges create new laws out of thin air, they are usurping the power granted to the U.S. Congress."
Apparently, you don't quite understand it yet. They did not create any new law. They interpreted the Constitution (in this case the California Constitution) and ruled that the equal protection clause meant marriage could not be withheld from same-sex couples. That's what they do. They interpret the law. And they are the last word, so you (or I) can think they are "creating" laws out of thin air, but there is little we can do about it. I disagree with court decisions, but I accept them and move on. You must do the same.
Sorry. Should have included this in the above post.
Nic: Your argument for the future existence of scientific evidence is religiously based. That is plainly not enough to base a law on. Also, where will you get this evidence from? Without same-sex families, there would be no evidence. So it is in your favour to allow same-sex marriages (and families) so that the issue may be observed. But, surely it is not in any way right or good to continue to discriminate simply because someone is hoping that the future will provide evidence supporting their position?
Happy Tuesday
Nic,
I wrote "A society only of gay men and gay women would be able to procreate." That is one society with both gay men and gay women.
Would you address the more relevant concern of male/female differences other than biology?
Nic Samojluk,
There is NO compelling government interest here (an issue relevant to the issue of privacy rights). To allow homosexual marriage is NOT tantamount to destroying either American citizens or the human species.
IF part of the basis for restricting homosexual marriage is how individuals choose to procreate (as you seemed to imply on 06 August 2008 at 10:06 and 06 August 2008 at 3:59)- THEN it IS a clear violation of privacy rights for government to venture or speculate into this territory! Procreational autonomy is an issue of privacy.
The oil and water analogy doesn't ring true until you can actually show that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are as different as those two compounds. Some would argue that the elements making up the latter two concepts can behave the same.
If your argument against homosexual marriages is that they don't fully contribute to "preserving the human species" by having offspring, then what is your rationale for permitting sterile or non-child-interested heterosexual couples to get married and allowing them to have a "choice" in the matter?
I personally don't think procreation is relevant to the issue but this is about YOUR methods and YOUR reasoning.
How is adoption and IVF option not "preserving the human species" when applied to married homosexuals anyway? If anything it's a social benefit that yields more able individuals.
I'm much more interested in Michael Covarrubias' question above.
If the aim of all marriages is the production of offspring, then polygamy should be preferred: more wives = more children.
Elaine: Totally agree. I know a polygamist family. 3 wives, something on the order of 30-36 kids. It's not just the wives, it's the ideollogy/attitude that goes with it. Lovely people. Absolutely cool. All the kids I knew were 100% normal. Whatever that means. But, yeah. "Children are a blessing from the Lord" is taken quite seriously.
Happy Tuesday
My answers are below the name and date of the individual who directed his posting at me:
*********
Niemand, [07 August 2008 at 11:45]
I have chosen to disagree with you regarding this issue. Spectrum is a religious publication, therefore both civil and religious arguments are not out of place. We will need to vote our conscience in November.
I do not cease to be an Adventist when I go to the voting booth. If I am convinced that a particular policy will affect my religious rights, I have the right and duty to vote against it. And if another measure will enhance my religious rights, I feel bound to vote in favor of it.
I have posted above specific cases illustrating how the legalization of homosexual marriage will eventually encroach on my religious rights. Have you read them? Have you also read what the official Adventist position is on this matter. I suggest that you visit the Religious Liberty [NARLA} website and read what has been posted there, and how it will affect our religious liberty.
Regarding the superiority of a family environment where children have a chance to be reared by a mother and a father, just go to Genesis. Do you think that humans can improve on God's design. Do you feel that you can outsmart the Almighty?
I have explained above that same-sex marriage represents a new experiment, and that sooner or later, there will be scientific studies indicating that God's method are the best for rearing children. When this happens, you will be forced by the evidence to accept that whenever "In God we trust" we tend to prosper and are less likely to go astray from what is best for us and our children.
*********
Niemand, [07 August 2008 at 12:02]
You are wrong! The future scientific evidence I am talking will be the result of studies that will be eventually done in the event homosexual marriage is legalized for good in the U.S. Said studies will be conducted according to well established criteria for scientific research, and they will not be connected or dominated either by priests, prelates, or people of the cloth.
Such experimentation will result in millions of children paying the price for the actions of obstinate people who think that we can improve on what the good Lord has designed for us. Scientific experimentation is useful, but there is no need to play with fire.
Eve thought that there was no harm in conducting a scientific experiment to discover whether the fruit of the forbidden tree was harmful or not. She was able to verify that God knew better. We now know this, but we have and are paying a heavy price for such experimentation!
*********
Michael, [07 August 2008 at 12:05]
I know you did! I believe I did respond to said posting of yours. When that happens, the children will still be deprived of having both a mother and a father, which is what the wise and beneficent Creator designed for us and our children.
Regarding the other differences between boys and girls there have been a large variety of studies documenting the fact that boys are boys and girls are girls. You can dress a boy like a girl, but he will still prefer to play with trucks and tractors instead of dolls. Of course, every now and then, we find exceptions, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. If this is a topic you are interested in, you should have no trouble finding relevant studies documenting this.
*********
Adrian, [07 August 2008 at 2:30]
I have not said that legalizing homosexual marriage would destroy our country overnight. What I have argued is that it is far from being the best option for us. Departing from the best path may not provide reasons for concern, but over time we may discover that it leads to the wrong destination. Departing from God's ideal in the raising of children is not something I want for my country.
I agree that we are free to exercise our autonomy, at our own risk, and the government should not force us to choose what is harmful for our families. This is where our right to vote comes in. Some people will vote for the best option, and others for the not so good one. Let people vote and decide what is the best for the country.
By the way! Have you checked the meaning of autonomy? It means that each individual decides what is lawful. It is the best recipe for anarchy and chaos. Is this what you want for you and your children?
As far as to society's policy regarding sterile couples, there is a huge difference between an heterosexual couple and an homosexual one. Right from the start we can be 100 hundred percent sure that the same-sex couple will not be able to procreate short of a miraculous scientific advance in this matter. In the case of heterosexual couples, experience has demonstrated that in the majority of the cases their chance of being sterile is not very common.
*********
Elaine, [07 August 2008 at 1:05]
Wrong! The aim of society is not the production of offspring, but rather the preservation of the human species. Polygamy worked in Old Testament times, as I explained above, because men were dying in battles and wars like flies, and there was no welfare, which meant that women had very little chance of surviving in a society where men owned all real estate, short of resorting to either prostitution or the protection of a polygamist.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic
Since you understood my sentence then it should be clear to you how they would very easily procreate if the survival of their society depended on it.
Regarding the differences between the sexes:
Your first point is that a child without a parent of each sex doesn't have a parent of each sex. This is not a response to my question but a restatement of the situation.
Your second point is that boys and girls are different because of the toys and clothes they choose. Let's consider your two examples: trucks have not always existed. Do you really think that a toy that has only existed for about one hundred years is a good measure of the fundamental interests of a male? And not all cultures have gender differentiated attire that can be as easily distinguished as "pants" and "dresses." What happens in those cultures that dress all children alike and in which neither adult gender wears pants? Are girls just naturally drawn to burqas too? But only in Islamic settings perhaps? That would be a ridiculous gender trait to argue.
And still you have not yet answered my question about what traits you believe are available only to men and only to women and which would therefore make both sexes necessary in order to ensure that the child is raised in a balanced manner?
You say you have made the argument but as I look at every one of your comments so far all you have said is that each sex is important because G-d ordained that model and because without a parent of each sex the child doesn't have a parent of each sex.
If you wish to send me off to find my own research I'll come back with plenty of evidence that the two sexes are able to empathize. There is almost no difference in the ability to express abstract ideas. Both sexes are good at math. Both sexes speak about the same number of words per day. Both sexes use both sides of the brain when processing different types of information. Both sexes can read a map. Both sexes can discuss ethical issues calmly (and both can do so angrily). Both sexes can nurture a child and both sexes can establish order and encourage a helpful routine. Both sexes sing a song and both sexes can swing a hammer.
Let's throw away the stereotypes that are based on unsupported conjecture and which are generally contradicted by research.
I offer (as a mere morsel) Arnold Zwicky's criticism of the sloppy ideas of Leonard Sax (whom I mentioned before) in "Why Gender Matters." Sax's support of single sex education is based on such evidence as his broad readings of the research by Killgore et al whose fMRI studies tracked bloodflow in the brain of 19 subjects who were presented with various visual stimuli with specific attention given to "fearful faces." From the results of such a small and specific study Sax concludes that men are unable to understand or discuss emotion as well as women and a 16 year old male is only as emotionally developed as a 9 year old male.
Follow this link if you're interested in seeing Sax's published claims torn apart quite responsibly by Zwicky.
You are arguing that some parenting skills can only come from a father and others only from a mother. If you can be specific I ask you to offer the details.
Because you are relying on the welfare of the children to support your claim, I hold you to that argument and ask that you give some evidence -- any evidence -- that a child with same-sex parents is deprived of something other than differing sets of parental genitalia.
Nic Samojluk,
When you use phrases like "best path", "best option", "wrong destination" it is somewhat ambiguous and meaningless to me- it is circular logic that simply postpones the important questions.
What IS significant to me is compelling government interest: a necessary justification for denying privacy rights.
In NOT prying into how homosexual individuals choose to conceive children through the use of surrogate parents or IVF, is the government's existence threatened OR is the safety of the citizens under it's jurisdiction directly threatened? IF the answer to both questions is NO, THEN the government has no business in intruding into this territory using the criteria you recommend.
You attached this gross distortion to your last post:
"By the way! Have you checked the meaning of autonomy? It means that each individual decides what is lawful. It is the best recipe for anarchy and chaos. Is this what you want for you and your children?"
07 August 2008 at 10:57
In the context in which I am using the word autonomy it is: relative freedom from direct external control or influence and it relates to a very specific sphere of ones life.
I suspect even you would demand "autonomy" in some spheres of your life. Do you want to be told precisely when and how to spend your money and your time?
Now, relating specifically to the importance of procreational autonomy- Would you want the government to tell you exactly WHEN, HOW, and WITH WHO you are allowed to procreate?
Please note: actual rearing of a child is a separate issue that I think is being handled well enough by other respondents. BUT on the issue of procreation- you made a specific argument:
On 06 August 2008 at 10:06 in response to jemand you write:
("Nobody has argued so far that gays and lesbians are sterile. Many of them manage to reproduce, but not with the same sex. They have to resort to some generous outside donor. This creats a triangle which tends to entangle the relationship. Sooner or later the child will want to discover her true missing parent.")
From my understanding, here, you seem to be identifying a problem and some facts that you believe are true.
I argue that your line of reasoning, here, fundamentally infringes on procreational autonomy- a privacy right. It enters a realm that should be off limits when it comes to government oversight. How someone arranges to have a "donor" or some other option is off limits! For government to rule on these grounds would be a major intrusion into an individuals privacy.
Concerning the other issue, you write:
"As far as to society's policy regarding sterile couples, there is a huge difference between an heterosexual couple and an homosexual one. Right from the start we can be 100 hundred percent sure that the same-sex couple will not be able to procreate short of a miraculous scientific advance in this matter. In the case of heterosexual couples, experience has demonstrated that in the majority of the cases their chance of being sterile is not very common."
The issue of how common or uncommon sterility is for heterosexual couples is completely irrelevant (by the way, I do think you're wrong about sterility being uncommon- there are lot's of different medical conditions out there).
My question again: How would you justify allowing sterile heterosexual couples to get married based on the criteria you have put forward? Just because you say the words "huge difference" in your response it doesn't make it substantive. In fact, your last three sentences that I copied above don't seem to follow any logic.
At what point can we rightly accuse you (Nic) of intellectual dishonesty and purposeful distortions? Does evidence and reason even matter to you anymore?
"Many of them manage to reproduce, but not with the same sex. They have to resort to some generous outside donor. This creats a triangle which tends to entangle the relationship. Sooner or later the child will want to discover her true missing parent."
I can't believe you think this is actually a problem, as you are a strong supporter of adoption in other cases, even to the point of forcing women with unwanted pregnancies to carry the fetus to term and then put it up for adoption. If "triangles" and "true missing parents" are really a problem, you would oppose this situation as well. Since you do not, it simply means you are prejudiced against homosexuals for no solid reason.
Again, it is quite clear that a child with lesbian parents won't have a father, or a child with gay parents won't have a mother, but YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW any ACTUAL LOSS for the child in question! Parents generally do not prance about naked in front of their children, in fact that could sometimes be considered abuse. What the children are "deprived" of are parents with different kinds of genitalia, but given that parents, as I said before, don't normally show themselves naked in front of children, this is NOT A LOSS that the child will even NOTICE much less suffer from.
Concerning this point:
"Some people will vote for the best option, and others for the not so good one. Let people vote and decide what is the best for the country."
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 07 August 2008 at 10:57
It is my understanding that the state supreme courts have the last word on interpreting their own state laws and constitutions. But what is also important to remember is that states are free to provide MORE protection than the federal constitution dictates but they are NEVER free to provide LESS. Correct?
If prop. 8 is voted on and passed, couldn't it still ultimately be struck down on the federal level by the Supreme Court on the same grounds that the CA Supreme Court used?
Maybe this is a part of the power-control mechanism against the tyranny of the majority problem that someone mentioned in this thread, as is the equal protection clause, correct?
Therefore: keeping the the establishment clause (which prohibits a state church or religion) in mind, how would you make the case against gay marriage before the Supreme Court? Also, keep in mind that there must be a clear secular purpose involved in order to pass something like prop. 8, correct?
From the closing paragraph of this article by Janine Goffar,
I read this article several times and each time I came away with an uncomfortable feeling that what I was hearing was a call for an American Kulturprotestantismus.
My question is, how would the author reconcile the legitimate (IMHO) fear that potential laws would, in seeking to ban anti-gay hate speech, restrict religious expression with the equally threatening (to religious liberty) reality that the thrust of her argument to constitutionally deny the rights of a discriminated minority is funded by a call to our (i.e. 'bulk of society") common religious beliefs (i.e. 'all the religious teachers...") as a nation?
My suggestion is that our apocalyptic vision, and Adventist heritage, does indeed make the question of religious liberty central to this discussion. I know where I stand on gay marriage in our church, yet I'm far from convinced that our activity in this specific instance adequately addresses the second religious liberty issue I raised. Doug Morgan wrote a really good article on this entitled Adventism, Apocalyptic, and the Cause of Liberty.
Adrian brings up a very salient point about there needing to be an over-riding secular/civil interest in order for something like Prop 8 to pass. The CA Supreme Court (which, incidentally, is majority Republican-appointed and not a liberal court), looked at the evidence and decided that there was not a compelling state interest to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. In fact, as Jared outlined in his post, there are several compelling benefits to the state to allow same-sex marriage (financial security, community and family stability, not to mention all of the host of tangible and intangible benefits bestowed on the couple, allowing them to feel like full-fledged members of society).
So some might disagree with same-sex marriage on religious grounds, but that should be completely irrelevant to the civil law. Churches will still retain their authority to either bless or not bless marriages, just as Adventist churches now usually won't marry an "unequally yoked" heterosexual couple, no church would be compelled to marry a couple.
I'm wondering if Janine is still on this thread? There have been several points articulated in response to your main points, and I'd be curious to see what thoughts you have. Thanks!
If one compares the equal rights that women have recently been granted in the first world countries with the thousands years' previous, the same argument could be made that it was disturbing the "normal and traditional" society. All such changes have that possibility. If we used that as our measure against any new law, we would still be in the stone age.
Once upon a time we were told that single parenting was, well, the equivalent of same-sex parenting is now. "Children need both parents". To a degree, perhaps. As a single mother, I can tell you that is not always true. And as a result of me divorcing my children's father, my children are HAPPIER and MORE well rounded than they would be being raised in the dynamic they were being raised in, and that is one full of physical and mental abuse.
I wonder if we all can't agree that children will always fare better in a family where the parents love eachother and the children? EVEN if that means a same-sex union? Why are we alright with subjecting children to unhappy marriages/childhoods, simply because the parents are opposite sex, and yet we balk at children being raised in a very happy home, just because the parents are the same-sex?
At SOME POINT we have to just realize that it doesn't matter how the family is constructed, so long as the parents love each other and their children and teach their children to love others. How on EARTH could that possibly be detrimental to the children?
First, congratulations to Janine for -- finally -- getting your well-reasoned article published -- albeit in shortened form from what you had originally submitted. Still, it's great to see it!
Now, I wish I had time to read all the comments already posted here, or to have the time to engage in a thorough discussion. Unfortunately, my time is limited so I'll restrict myself to a response to Jared Wright's first comment posted on Wednesday. To be clear here, while I am a Christian and a friend of Janine's, I am not an Adventist.
Here are my replies to Jared's eight (or nine) points...
1. First, you provide many sources (more than I offered) that all agree with your point of view and contradict points that I made. Alright. Along with others who have commented here, I note that the links you provide are by-and-large opinion pieces in non-scientific blogs or magazines. Op-Ed pieces are fine for those who want to hear opinions, but to really make compelling arguments, credible scientific studies go far further than opinion articles do.
While science can certainly provide data and facts, which are quite helpful in dispelling superstitions and ignorance, it often falls short in the area of providing *wisdom*. Wisdom helps us understand what that data is telling us, and guides us on what policies we should form based on the data. Also, science frequently misses data (which can be difficult to collect) or makes incorrect interpretations of the data because it failed to see some of the complex relationships that are involved.
So yes, we don't need to hear someone's opinion. But we do need to hear wisdom and even just plain rational thought. Isn't this after all why we put so much value in the Bible? The Bible doesn't offer "compelling arguments" based on "credible scientific studies". But it does offer wisdom. We'd be fools to dismiss wisdom. No?
2. Second, please note that the literature on the issue of children of gays suggests that children in GLBT families are equally happy, healthy and vibrant as their counterparts in straight homes. A great place to start (though it is only a starting point) is the Wikipedia page on LGBT parenting. It provides links to numerous studies and articles demonstrating that it is false to claim children in gay households are worse off.
I'm sure these studies are reasonably accurate as far as it is possible to measure these things. But I don't think conservatives are imagining that children of gay families are somehow noticeably depressed or unhappy. What we are concerned with is that a foundational structure of civilization is being reworked without (much) thought to how it will affect us all. How do you measure a child's understanding of the distinctive roles men and women play in a marriage? How do you study what effect a change in those understandings will have one, two and three generations from now?
Science simply can't do this. Presumably God can help us here, and (traditional) interpretations of scripture can give us guidance. But even if you forget God and simply say the Bible is the result of one culture's historical experience with what works and what doesn't, it's not something to dismiss lightly.
But even if we do dismiss the centuries of accumulated Jewish cultural wisdom, why should we dismiss what evolutionary "wisdom" has produced? It's no accident that men and women have developed such distinctive roles. These roles are not solely the result of cultural influences. Much of gender distinctiveness is hardwired into our genes. It is presumably made that way because this -- nearly by definition -- is what will provide the best chance for the propagation of our species.
And yet we're ready to throw all that aside based on short term studies that don't find any significant impact on children? Amazing. Really.
3. Appealing to a "democratic process" or tradition or the will of the people is, as many have pointed out, a false-start. As I commented in the previous discussion of this issue, and as people have already noted here, numerous atrocities have been supported by a democratic, unified majority. Slavery was legal and had widespread support in the United States. It took courageous elected officials to get rid of it. Segregation was legal and supported by a majority. Inter-racial marriages were opposed by a majority and outlawed until, again, lawmakers ruled inter-racial marriages legal.
Time and time again, the will of the people, tradition, and the democratic process have been frankly and sadly unconstitutional.
Lawmakers who pass laws are part of a democratic process. They have to debate their bills and gain the support of the majority to pass them. If the people don't like what their elected representatives have done, then they have the recourse to vote their congressman out of office. Not so with judges.
Judges who legislate from the bench are perhaps the primary factor in creating the modern conservative movement. Which is ironic because nearly every major cause they have championed would have been later passed at some point by Congress. It was just a matter of time, as people's opinions on many of these matters are constantly changing.
It's a funny thing. If a majority of people vote to change something, most people will accept it to some degree. But if a few judges force a change on us, are we even truly a free people? Yes, being free means you are free to be wrong, but at least you are free.
4. There are no studies that link legalized homosexual unions to increased homosexual experimentation or a greater societal propensity toward "turning gay". Trying to make such a connection is baseless conjecture.
Surely, you are joking on this point. Same sex experimentation, especially in schools, has become widespread. Naturally, this has been spread largely by media's acceptance of gay lifestyles (and not the legalization of gay unions). The more kids see gay characters in movies and TV, the more they will experiment. It's as plain as day.
The point with gay marriage is that it takes down the last significant bulwark of society that says the gay lifestyle is not completely equivalent to traditional norms. Not that that bulwark is going to stop the trend towards total acceptance of gays, but its removal marks a real milestone in our society's transformation. This is in part psychological, but it also has very real legal implications that will continue the complete alteration of our society. (As an aside, I wonder if that milestone might also be a *spiritual* milestone, the point at which God throws up His hands and leaves us to our own destruction.)
While legalized same-sex unions are just one step in a long process, they don't have the impact that the media has, or that legalizing same-sex marriages will. Unions don't imply complete equality. Marriages do. And that is why marriage is such a central component that must be overcome to make the transformation of our society complete.
5. What the articles concerning "Religious Liberty" fail to mention is that the institutions that complain about having to make concessions to gay couples also receive monies from the government. They want to appropriate the benefits that the government offers but without the responsibilities of providing the government's equity. Bottom line - if you receive government money, the government has a right to tell you to whom to provide benefits. No violation of religious liberty there.
Yes, of course if you accept their money you accept their rules. But who is they? They is us! You know how we're supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? But that gets back to that democracy part that you don't seem so thrilled with.
But you are still right in a narrow sense. The problem though is that it never stops with simply not accepting their money after which you are left to do as you please. No, government has a way of constantly expanding and setting rules whether we like them or not. Just ask any smokers you might know – that is, if they can find any place left where they are allowed to smoke!
I've read numerous articles recently about how other Western countries don't have our quaint notion of "freedom of speech". Apparently they are much more enlightened with their notions of hate speech and how it must be eliminated, including pastors who read the wrong verses from the Bible.
You might say we’re lucky that we have freedom of speech. But I honestly wonder how long it will last. Already, some of our Supreme Court justices have said they look to laws outside the U.S. when making some decisions. And of course we're all told how America needs to be a good citizen of the world and abide by international consensus. I have no doubt that that will soon include things like adopting hate speech laws similar to what the other Western countries have -- regardless of what our constitution may say about it.
So much for "religious liberty".
6. The fallacious (read incorrect) connection between gay marriage and polygamy has already been debunked at length. Again, I refer you to the discussion of that topic here.
Ah, if that was the only connection we needed to worry about. Look, I haven't seen any big push for polygamy, but I have seen a lot of stuff distorting any sense of gender identity. I only wish our society was limiting itself to simple gay rights issues. Unfortunately, we have a whole plethora of issues that are changing us far more rapidly than anybody can possibly predict where we will end up.
It's simple common sense that when one taboo gets overturned in society that people start pushing the next one. Trouble is, we don't always know what that next one will be.
7. As I suggested in the previous discussion on this topic, I again call for all those who want to make strong denunciations of homosexuality and gay marriage to get to know, personally and thoroughly, homosexual men and women. Listen to them describe their experiences. Hear their stories. Find out what life is like through their eyes. This is very different from meeting and shaking hands with a gay person. It involves becoming invested in their lives. I have known homosexuals of several nationalities, religions and ethnicities. When I speak, I have those people's stories in mind.
Perhaps it would interest you to know then that Janine has had significant experience with gays in much the way you suggest above.
While I have not had that direct experience, it's not hard to have empathy for the experiences many share. On the other hand, you get a very different perspective when you listen to kids today and they describe how fluid their sexuality has become. Thankfully, many of these kids will pass through this stage and "grow up". But some things linger and meanwhile all of society creeps towards a very different destiny than any of us imagine. Remember the book Slouching Towards Gomorrah? Seems rather prescient to me.
So yes it is good to temper ones rhetoric with real life people. But it's also good to perceive the fundamental changes that are altering all of us. Some people might call that wisdom.
8. Finally, we need to stop this talk of "hating sin and loving sinners". It is a false dichotomy that is very unhelpful. We need to be clear (again) that Christian Scripture, and for that matter Jewish Scripture, does not state that a homosexual orientation is sinful. Anywhere. Scripture condemns the homosexual practices of its day, which always involved coersion, transience, and abuse. That is clearly far different from what we deal with today when committed couples make deliberate decisions to live faithfully in permanent relationships.
As I understand things, God (or evolution), programmed men and women to be different because we balance each other and our traditionally different roles. Men typically have more partners when they are not constrained by a woman who has the need for a stable man to support her and her children. Simply put, it's not in society's interest to break down this built-in constraint.
To me, I see God as being just a little bit smarter than us and He sees us doing things that while they may not hurt everyone involved, will hurt enough that He tells us this isn't a good thing to do. Our whole society was designed to work a certain way and now we're saying, "forget it, that's all wrong, we know what we're doing and can handle it". Somehow, I don't think so. I tend to think God was on to something when He condemned homosexual practices.
*HOMOSEXUALITY AND PORN*
Are unrelated. No link between one and the other in terms of any kind of slope, slippery or otherwise. Pornography is exploitative, it is dehumanizing, it is a business, and it is not based on love. Gay marriage involves mutual commitment and fidelity, it humanizes homosexuals and all of us with them, it is a permanent partnership and its basis is love. Let's do away with false characterizations of the issue and focus on the truth of the matter.
We ought to support full equality under the law (as the Supreme Court did) and oppose law-making with religious underpinnings.
I often wonder what the full truth of homosexuality is. I have this strong suspicion that we have been misled a lot and some truths have not been heard much at all.
I had a Christian friend who had AIDS and worked with gays in a shelter in town. He was very clear that the gay people he knew covered up a great deal that they didn't want straight people to know, like how they knew exactly who gave each other AIDS. Now maybe these were exceptions. But then the whole subject of AIDS seems shrouded it a lot of mystery where everyone seems to want to avoid the touchy subjects of what really goes on and why gays are so prone to acquiring it.
I don't know that gay men are any more into porn than straight men. But I do suspect many are into stuff that is quite hurtful. And while we can say that's their choice, somehow these choices work their way into the popular culture, as first the movies push these "taboo" topics and soon enough they become fairly normative to our societal experience.
God help us.
in response....
The weakest support for the institution of marriage is those who fail to support their own....
To the commentor posting as "Anonymous@11": You were warned last week and earlier today that your posts were violating our comment policy. Consistently used pseudonyms are acceptable, but anonymous comments are not. We've made this our policy to promote respectful dialogue. Multiple posts in rapid succession are also not respectful or a way to further thoughtful conversation. Your posts that were in violation of our comment policy have been removed. If you continue to post under this anonymous handle, you will be banned from conversing on this site.
J.Button = Anonymous@11
This will have to serve as a "name change" as per the message above.
It has been consistent for months, so I am not sure of the sudden change in policy.
Thank you, J. Button. Ever since we noticed that anonymity seemed to foster traits that weren't helpful to thoughtful conversation, we've had that policy in the guidelines. Although it might seem strange, just using a "real" name, even if it's a pseudonym, seems to keep us all more respectful of each other.
Dean -
Some comments of yours, with responses of mine:
"Same sex experimentation, especially in schools, has become widespread. Naturally, this has been spread largely by media's acceptance of gay lifestyles (and not the legalization of gay unions). The more kids see gay characters in movies and TV, the more they will experiment. It's as plain as day."
Not really. There may be more experimentation today, there may not. It may just be that the greater visibility and acceptance of homosexuality has simply made it less of a shameful thing to admit, so it gets reported more.
The kids who are experimenting with same-sex sexual activity are, in all likelihood, the gay kids. Some kids with bisexual leanings may participate in this experimentation and later move on to live a heterosexual life, but so what. Having sex with someone of the same gender won't turn you gay, any more than deciding to write with your left hand will turn you into a southpaw.
"Unions don't imply complete equality. Marriages do."
And that's the point.
"I tend to think God was on to something when He condemned homosexual practices."
Your opinion of God's opinion matters not in terms of civil marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous:
You said: "How can one be "gay from birth"? Must we "sexualize" children so?"
They are gay(or straight) from birth in the same way they are left-handed or right-handed from birth. An infant doesn't write or throw a ball, but the brain structures that make them right or left-handed are in place at birth, so that when they reach an age where they begin to do those things, one way will feel more natural than another.
Likewise, the brain structure that makes you straight or gay is already in place at birth, but doesn't present itself until many years later.
"The state's only interest in marriage is the nuclear family."
No. There are other interests, as well. Couples are more stable than singles. Having a spouse to look out for you and help you make wise decisions means it's less likely the state will have to look out for you. Besides, gay couples adopt and from time to time raise biological children of their own.
Dean
You have made some of the same claims that Nic made so I ask you to be specific - in the hopes that one of you will offer something to help us understand what these gender roles are that you place at the center of some of you arguments.
You write:
How do you measure a child's understanding of the distinctive roles men and women play in a marriage? How do you study what effect a change in those understandings will have one, two and three generations from now?
What are these distinctive roles? Is there one role you can identify that is locked into one of the sexes? One role that a child of same sex parents would not be served by?
And later you write...
It's no accident that men and women have developed such distinctive roles. These roles are not solely the result of cultural influences. Much of gender distinctiveness is hardwired into our genes.
This claim has very little support in any of the studies done on sex differences. What roles are you thinking of and what research do you believe shows it to be "hardwired"?
I've asked this question enough times so I'll let it go. I figure my point is clear enough. Without evidence in support of these claims you have no argument for the welfare of the child.
Michael,
I am responding to the comments you posted on 08 August 2008 at 2:43. In your long posting, you argue that I have not provided any evidence to support my belief that homosexual parenting is inferior to the heterosexual counterpart.
In this, you are asking for something I never promised to provide. What I said is that, since the laws legalizing homosexual marriage is a rather recent phenomenon, serious scientific studies may not have been conducted yet, but will for sure take place as time goes on and the wide popularization of homosexual marriage takes place. Please, do not insist that I produce what I have never promised to do.
In spite of this, I will give you a little advance of what may come as time goes on. Here is a study conducted in Spain, and notice that it is an analysis of research done in the United States, which means that it should be meaningful for us in our country. It contradicts the arguments you presented in your own posting.
Who should we believe? I have made up my mind. I will rather believe what this report states instead of relying on what the investigation of gays and lesbians have allegedly discovered. Take into account that, according to this study, the research done favoring gay adoption was performed by those in the homosexual camp:
*********
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples” and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.
HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.
The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.”
The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.
To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.
In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.
Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.
The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.
View the Spanish-language report at: http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual... .
View the “Agenzio Fides” coverage at: http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html
*********
Now it is my turn to ask you a couple of questions: Do you really believe that a lesbian couple can providde the best training for a little boy? Are you convinced that two homosexual men are able to do as good a job as parents of a young girl? Won't a boy feel more comfortable discussing intimate matters with a male parent as he grows up?
How about a girl who needs some guidance as she develops and finds herself in need of help from a female parent? Can two men provide her with the advice she needs as well as a mother can? Haven't you read about the pain of single parents who bemoan the lack of a male model for their boy, or a female model for their girl?
You seem to believe that there are no differences between boys and girls, except for anatomical details. This is not what I and many others have observed. When I was young, I noticed that my sister needed an eternity to get ready for school. I would get up at 7:45, dress up in five minutes, and be in school by 8:00 A.M. One day I overslept a couple of minutes and didn't have time to wash my face or comb my hair, and the teacher send me to the bathroom to take care of this.
I did notice the same contrast between my boy and my girls. The girls would take possession of the bathrooms for hours, while my boy would be done in seconds. Did we train our children to be that way? Did we instruct our daughters to make sure they did not forget about their make up?
Did we train them to monopolize the bathroom for ever and ever? On the contrary, we discouraged them from doing so, but they were born with a strong propensity to make themselves look beautiful. What a contrast with boys.
We discovered the same truth about our grandchildren, and we noticed that this was true about all the children of our friends and acquaintances.
We also noticed that in the case of single parents, what children missed greatly was the lack of a male or female counterpart. In one case, a girl was asked what kind of present she wanted for her sixteenth birthday, and she responded: "I want my dad!"
I did say before that some gay and lesbian parents might do a wondeful job as parents, but this is not the ideal. The Lord knows what is best for our children, for which reason he created a set of parents for each child, a set of parent of the opposite sex. Altering this will not serve the best interest of society.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic -
As I have said before, the debate here is not about adoption policy, or about parenting. It's about marriage.
Let's say your Spanish study is right, and children do best with both a mother and a father in the home. How will denying marriage equality further that goal?
Nic,
I searched through the web site of the Anales de Pediatría: Sumario, Revista oficial de la Asociación Española de Pediatría, and found no mention of this article. Could you post a link to the article in the official publication it was originally published in?
Thanks,
Carlitas: Click here for the study in Spanish
Nic
I agree. You certainly did not promise evidence of your claims but you did say "there is an ideal for raising children. Said ideal is not reached by depriving a child from having a mon and a dad."
Even if you didn't promise the evidence, mine was a fair request that you provide evidence to support your claim.
Are you really trying to argue that mothers and fathers are both necessary because girls take longer in the bathroom? Are those the types of differences that are vital? And do you really believe that habits of grooming the desire to put on makeup are biologically determined? What's next? Girls need a mother because a father can't teach her to sew?
Your comments about which parent a child can confide in come closer to a reasonable claim. But they are ultimately unconvincing because you support them by saying that it is simply natural that a child will want a parent of each sex to provide specific guidance. What this guidance is you don't say.
So to your questions: Yes. I believe two women can raise a little boy. I believe two men can raise a little girl. Children will feel comfortable discussing intimate matters with any parent they can trust. In my family I went to both my parents for help. I didn't reserve some questions for mother and some for father. Not about any topic.
But children will learn to sense how comfortable the parents are. And if the parents have a history of open communication and they provide a safe place for a child to seek ask and express, the child's needs and expectation need not be fenced in by gender roles.
About the study you provided (I read through it in Spanish):
The study seeks to "prove" that the prevailing research is flawed by showing that the researchers can't be trusted. Why can't they be trusted?
Because "the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement."
This argument must then follow two premises:
1) Homosexuals can't be trusted to be impartial.
2) Scientists who believe what they find in their research can't be trusted to do that research.
There are other egregious weaknesses in the study you cite. Early on it cites Cameron and Cameron as a reliable source of the risks of homosexual parenting. Paul and Kirk Cameron have published many works critical of homosexuality. This is of course their right. And as such they cannot be simply discarded as biased. But an investigation of their work shows that many of their claims are fundamentally flawed by their methods of data gathering and the terms that they define in order to reach their conclusions.
Consider that several of C&C's observations are based on the authors' definitions of harmful behavior or poor character.
So for instance -- They consider homosexuals holding hands to be behaving harmfully. They call it a character flaw to be involved in gay activism. The corresponding definitions are of course not used with heterosexual parents. This is a biased premise of homosexuality as a fault and pathology.
It is as if to argue that gay parents expose their children to dangerous and immoral behaviour more often than heterosexual parents -- because homosexuality is dangerous and immoral.
The HazteOir study then goes on to question the objectivity of those researchers who have supported gay marriage or adoption. Looking specifically at the American Psychological Association the study questions several prominent voices for the following:
and Bisexual Clients
These "biases" sound more like expertise to me.
The study generally questions the position of the American Psychological Association but offers no solid reason other than these weak arguments of research bias.
No research is perfect. But this study attempts to supplant several studies with fewer, smaller and more flawed studies. And it jumps to odd conclusions and paraphrases of some findings.
I will translate a passage from the study:
It may be worth to note the previously mentioned example of Ellen Perrin who in mentioning studies of daughters of lesbians deceptively says "less aggressiveness and more tolerance" which is clearly a symptom of the missing paternal role from want of a male parent
This is not a reasonable study. It's a weak attack on the findings of other studies based on an ideological agenda and ill-conjecture.
You write:
I did say before that some gay and lesbian parents might do a wondeful job as parents, but this is not the ideal. The Lord knows what is best for our children, for which reason he created a set of parents for each child, a set of parent of the opposite sex. Altering this will not serve the best interest of society.
I must ask then why same-sex couples -- who you grant can do a wonderful job as parents -- should not be given the right by the state to marry and prosper from that union. And to use their ability to be wonderful parents to raise a child if they wish.
The state cannot rely on your argument that "The Lord knows what is best" in considering which rights to protect or withhold. I am not trying to change your mind about G-d or the bible. I am arguing simply that there is no interest of the state supported by research to justify governmental or constitutional opposition to the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Your argument relies on a religious premise and I respect your view. But I don't accept it as an argument that is relevant to the law.
[edit: I must add that I have at least two problems with the study's comment on Perrin's statement.
1) That tolerance and less aggressiveness are not simply accepted as positive qualities but are assumed to be propagandistic code for "less masculine".
2) The implication that intolerance is somehow a male quality. ]
All through high school I spent about 15 minutes from waking up to leaving the house for school, including shower, hair, and breakfast. Clearly then I must marry a woman who spends hours in the bathroom every morning or we will not be able to raise children properly. Unfortunately for you, we will have to apply for a same-sex marriage license because I DID happen to be born with two X chromosomes. But g-d forbid we deprive our children of the example of an hour-long beautification technique!
Truly, I just have to laugh at some of this.
Happy Tuesday.
I would question any study that relies on the research of Paul Cameron, whose credentials have been taken away by the American Psychological Association.
Adrian,
I am writing in response to your posting dated on 08 August 2008 at 5:41. You stated:
*********
"What IS significant to me is compelling government interest: a necessary justification for denying privacy rights."
*********
I did answer this question many times already. The government is responsible for providing laws that look for the best interest of the children. Laws that will lead to the deprivation of a parent of the opposite sex is detrimental to the development of the child. I posted above documentation describing the ill effect of single-sex parenting. I hope you have read it. If you agree with the conclusions of said study, then you should agree with my position.
Now, regarding your argument about "autonomy," here is my dictionary definition for said term: "moral independence." We are morally dependent both on the government and the One who Created us. On the government, because it is God's instrument for the protection of the citizens under its jurisdiction. The laws against stealing, harming others, and murder are moral laws, and nobody can argue autonomy regarding them. Children represent the future of our country. The government has a responsibility to create laws which will protect their best interest. You also stated:
*********
"I suspect even you would demand "autonomy" in some spheres of your life. Do you want to be told precisely when and how to spend your money and your time?"
*********
There is huge difference between the way we spend our money and the way we raise our children. If the government designs laws that we know in advance will harm our children, then we need to vote against those laws.
Regarding your argument based on privacy, my opinion is that my privacy is garanteed by the government as long as my private acts do not harm others. If they do, then the privacy defense is no longer valid. If I harm a child in a private setting, the government will hold me responsible for my actions regarless of any arguments based on privacy. Then you asked the following question:
*********
"How would you justify allowing sterile heterosexual couples to get married based on the criteria you have put forward?"
*********
I have explained this already several times. Evidently you do not agree with me on this. This is your prerogative. You are autonomus in this respect. It would be foolish and impractical to try to regulate and predict the sterility of heterosexuals. Some heterosexual sterile couples are able to conceive later in life, sometimes after they have adopted one or more children. There is no way to predict which individuals will be unable to procreate.
In the case of gays and lesbians, you have 100 percent assurance that they cannot procreate by themselves. This means that implementing a marriage policy based on ability to procreate is feasible and practical. In addition, if someone is willing to donate eggs or sperm, the child will be deprived of either a father or a mother for life. This is not in the best interest of the child. You end with the following surprising conclusion:
*********
"In fact, your last three sentences that I copied above don't seem to follow any logic. At what point can we rightly accuse you (Nic) of intellectual dishonesty and purposeful distortions? Does evidence and reason even matter to you anymore?"
*********
I have just given you evidence that my reasoning do follow common sense and logic. If you disagree, there is no reason of concluding or insinuating dishonesty on my part. I invite you to show proper respect for people who disagree with you. When someone resorts at throwing stones, it is quite often a sign that he is loosing the debate, and I am assuming that you do not want to loose in this debate!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Jemand,
I am reacting to your comments dated on 08 August 2008 at 5:53:
You need to take everything I have stated about this issue, instead of isolating a particular comment I have made. "A text without its context is a pretext."
Please read the results of a careful analysis of the detrimental effects of children's adoption by homosexuals I posted on 10 August 2008 at 7:54. If you do, it should help you understand where I am coming from.
Adrian,
I read your comments posted on 08 August 2008 at 10:58. You are correct in what you stated. I believe that even if Proposition 8 were to pass, the U.S. Supreme Court could rule against it. We will cross that bridge when the time comes. In the meantime, we must act to protect the best interest of our children.
But even under such a scenario, this would not be the end of the legal battle. The U.S. Congres could intervene, and it would be a fight between the Congress and the Supreme Court. Besides, the people of the U.S. could amend the U.S. Constitution. That is the way our legal system works.
Johnny,
I am reacting to your comments posted on 08 August 2008 at 9:58. If you have any doubts about the potential consequences to our religious freedom of the new marriage laws, read what I posted on 06 August 2008 at 9:36:
*********
"A. In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to prison after preaching a sermon challenging homosexuality. I am glad we are not living in that country, otherwise I might risk incarceration for posting this!
B. In England, a Christian ministry was fined $23,000 for refusing to employ homosexuals.
C. In Canada a pastor was fined $7,000 for writing to a news editor oppossing same-sex marriage.
D. In New Mexico a photographer was fined $6,000 for refusing to offer his services at a homosexual wedding.
Do you want me to go on? And you argue that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with our religious rights?"
*********
Is this what you want for the future of our Adventist church?
Shanon,
This is my reaction to your posting dated on 08 August 2008 at 1:21:
I read your comments posted on 08 August 2008 at 1:21. I believe that your error is based on the fact that you are comparing the best scenario from a homosexual child rearing situation with the worst one from a heterosexual case. For a fair comparison, you need to pick the average situation from both child rearing alternatives. This is why I posted the results of a careful analysis of what is the average result resulting from homosexual parenting. Did you read that?
Tom,
I am responding to your comments posted on 10 August 2008 at 8:56. I know that the main topic pf this blog is homosexual marriage. The permanent legalization of same-sex marriage will have the tendency to increase the number of adoptions by homosexual couples.
This, as I documented above, seems to be detrimental to the best interest of children. I don't want that to happen, so I intend to vote for the amendment defining marriage as the union of a male and a female.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic- you don't need to repeat things you've already said--probably a sign that this conversation has reached an end. You continually talk about "protecting" children from homosexual marriage. Several folks have pointed out that the right of same-sex couples to marry is really a separate issue. The CA Supreme Court made a decision about equality and access to civil rights by all CA citizens.
Many, many same-sex parents already parent children (I know several), and, as the vast majority of studies from reputable, peer-reviewed journals report, children do very well in these families. Children need committed, loving adults dedicated to their well-being in their life. Period. Marriage only helps children and families--heterosexual or homosexual--enjoy more legal protection, especially in terms of custody and such.
Michael,
Thank you for your posting dated on 10 August 2008 at 2:46, and thank you for taking the time to read the Spanish Report, in Spanish, dealing with the topic of adoption by gays and lesbians. I read it too, in Spanish. This is my reaction:
You fault the report because it includes one name, Cameron. You failed to mention that the report is not limited to the conclusions and opinions of Cameron, but rather on what many other scientists have reported about this controversial issue. Here are the names of some of the other studies and opinions the Spanish Report was based on:
Bailey et al., Stacey y Biblarz, González M del M et al., Lewis, Deevy, Javaid, Tripp, Remafedi, Goode y Troiden, Green y Bozett, Kurdek y Schmitt, Brooks, Miller et al., Herrell et al., Andersson, G. et al., Deneen, Orejarena, Cortés, Ávila y Santelis, Biller, Morgan, Heineman, Bronstein et al., Daily, Asch, Turner et al., Saakvitne, McCandish, Pies, Cramer.
My question to you: Is it fair to dismiss this Spanish Report simply because one of the names included there is objectionable to you. I counted over thirty others. Are you dismissing all of them as well? Can you elaborate the reason you are dismissing the opinions of all the others?
Are you trying to comvince me that I should trust the opinions of a bunch of researchers who have without doubt and axe to grind? The large group of Spanish scholars decided that it is not wise to trust the opinions of a group of homosexual activists engaged in research with the obvert objective of promoting a homsexual agenda, and I concurr with their opinion.
[Source: http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual.html ]
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
"The permanent legalization of same-sex marriage will have the tendency to increase the number of adoptions by homosexual couples."
Nic - There is no evidence to back up this claim. Same-sex couples already adopt. In fact, they tend to adopt the babies other couples don't want. How many crack babies or previously unadoptable foster children have you taken in?
Please stay on topic. The issue is not adoption, but marriage equality.
Nic,
Did you read my comment? I don't need convincing, I agree with your point and appreciate your examples!
My comment was twofold. It addressed the religious liberty concern mentioned in this post by Janine and the religious liberty concern she omitted from her post.
My suggestion would be somewhere along the lines of what Jared Wright suggested in the comment section of his own post. Our marriage, our buildings and our pastors, do not correspond in shape or substance and our pastors should not be agents of the state nor our sanctuaries locations where civil marriage can be obtained.
I resist strongly the notion that the church is to _set_ the boundaries of civil marriage as much as I resist strongly the idea that the church should _follow_ the lead of the government on marriage.
I believe, when it comes to marriage, that the church and state in America have been edging towards a divorce starting out with, yes, divorce. That individual states would make no-fault divorce more easily attainable does not mean that the church should relax its expectations on marriage anymore than civil gay marriage means the church should marry homosexuals.
Like the flags present on the side of pulpits in Seventh-day Adventist churches throughout the United States, I think it's high time we said good riddance to all vestiges of church-state integration.
Thanks!
jemand,
I did read your comments posted on 10 August 2008 at 2:40. The answer is: Not "All through high school" but rather through the first portion of high school. Our home was close to the academy, which means that I needed five minutes to dress up, wash my face and comb my hair; five minutes for breakfast; and five minutes to get to my first class.
The day I oversleptday I was forced to skip washing my face and combing my hair, I also skipped breakfast, but got to school on time. I can't remember having been late to school. My main point was that boys have different priorities than girls. For most girls looking beautiful is paramount. Boys and girls were not created equal. Neither one is superior, but rather different.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
nic, that wasn't an answer at all.
if all you can say is for "most" girls "looking beautiful is paramount" and then "boys prefer to play with trucks rather than dolls" when trucks as a toy is very recent, and many girls choose to focus on study rather than looks, first. Even you aknowledge that by saying "Most." More importantly... superficialities such as hair care and wheeled toys are hardly important enough to be significant distinctions in parenting styles.
Also, I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying and still decided to sidetrack it. Begging the question is hardly an answer.
As for bathroom time, one summer my young bro-in-law stayed with us in a one bathroom house. When he went in the bathroom, it was at minimum half an hour. Combing his hair would take longer than any gal I know. Primping? Yes. So such differences are not always certain.
However, all the studies have shown that females are judged by their looks first: whether it be work or possible dating. Likewise for guys: height is very important (not much can be done about that) and the eyes have it.
Carrol,
My response to your post dated on 10 August 2008 at 5:21 is: If you don't like Paul Cameron, No problem! The Spanish Study I made reference to lists the research and opinions of many others [See my 11 August 2008 at 12:01 posting.]
Besides, the dismissal of Paul Cameron is being disputed by some [See the following article: "A rebuttal to the accusation that Dr. Cameron was dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA)" http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html .
But even if it were true, you need to consider that the APA is dominated by scholars whose sympathies are with the gay community. Have we learned anything from what happened with Dr. Desmond Ford, whose ministerial credentials were taken away from him for questioning the interpretation of a biblical prophecy?
Or how about Dr. Alberto Gonzales, who was denied tenure because he dared to question a detail of the theory of evolution?
Stephanie,
Thanks for your comments dated on 10 August 2008 at 10:12. When I repeat something, it is because some of the participants keep repeating the same arguments I have already responded to. Whenever these comments are directed at me, I need to respond out of courtesy.
I agree that homosexual adoption is a side issue; nevertheless, it is undoubtedly connected with the legalization of homosexual marriage. I do not remember who brought this side issue to the forefront. I am willing to drop this, provided others do the same and stop commenting on it.
Yes, children need the committment of loving adults, and they need parents of both sexual orientation. Notice that I am simply responding to the side issue of children you sugggested we should drop from discussion. If you think we should stop talking about children, then why do you continue talking about it?
Tom,
This is in response to your post dated on 11 August 2008 at 8:24.
My answer is: Yes, there is evidence that "same-sex marriage will have the tendency to increase the number of adoptions by homosexual couples." Read the Spanish Report I have alluded to above.
You asked me: "How many crack babies or previously unadoptable foster children have you taken in?" My answer is: "None." Of course, you have, I presume, and you want everybody to know this, right?
I had three children of my own to raise and put through school with the meager teacher's salary. What kind of income did you have? Limited like mine, or much higher? I came from a poor family. How about you? Did raising your own children almost bankrupted you like it happened in my case? How relevant was your question if you had no knowledge of my personal situation?
By the way, I do have a close relative who adopted several children, some of them with special needs, but he has a salary several time higher than mine. Should this factor be taken into consideration?
You asked me to: "Please stay on topic. The issue is not adoption, but marriage equality."
I am asking you the same: "Please stay on topic. The issue is not adoption, but marriage equality. If you agree to stay away from this side issue, I will do the same!
By the way, have you asked anybody else to stay away from this side issue, or are you perhaps targetting only those who happen to disagree with you to do this? Are you even handed regarding this?
If other participants keep arguing with me over this side topic--and this includes you, and I ignore their comments, would not they conclude that I have no good answer for them? Please, use some common sense, and be fair!
Johnny,
Thanks for your comments dated on 11 August 2008 at 4:29. Your suggestion is an interesting one. It reminds me of my own wedding in Argentina. We were married by a civil servant at noon in a governmental building, and we had the sacred wedding ceremony that same day in church in the evening.
In the event the U.S. would adopt such a system, I would still object to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the reasons I stated above more than once.
jemand,
I read your comments posted on 11 August 2008 at 7:01, and I have a question for you. Do you really think that there are no differences between boys and girls outside of the evident anatomical peculiarities common to each gender?
There have been many studies regarding this side issue. I have no idea why you want to question this! I believe that girls are hard wired differently than boys from birth, and many scholars agree with me on this. Homosexuals disagree, of course, because they have an axe to grind.
I gave you a simple example, and you can ask any parent, and I suspect that most parents will agree with me. Are you a parent? Do you have children of both sexes? If you do, have you failed to notice any psychological and attitudinal differences between boys and girls?
I was going to suggest that you read what James Dobson has to say on this, but since you seem to be strongly inclided to believe what gays teach, then you would probably dismiss any evidence coming from "Focus on the Family."
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
No, nic, I do not believe boys and girls are hardwired differently. Men are on average taller and stronger. Women on average live significantly longer. HOWEVER, even these physical differences are only obvious in the aggregate, statistical sense, there are thousands of pairings in which a woman is taller than a man, or that a man outlives a woman. And these outward sex-linked traits are linked even closer than any possible psychological differences, which mostly stem from societal expectations.
Perhaps there are again some real differences in the aggregate and statistical, but I DON'T believe that there is some aspect in which the "male" realm and the "female" realm do not overlap and diversify within each other far, FAR more than the "difference" between the means.
The psychological "difference" between the sexes, if inherent at all, is not nearly enough to predict the actions and inclinations of any given person, knowing their sex. Given that, what possible influence would these characteristics have on parenting? Millions of different people, men and women of all sorts of psychological preferences, raise children every day. Even if on average the kids get more of one thing from one parent, and more of another from another parent, there are still so many times where the dynamic is reversed or absent entirely that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if there are some sex-linked mental differences, this is simply DESCRIPTIVE and not PRESCRIPTIVE, describing what is "normally" true, not what "should be" true in every case. Prescribing based on gender is unethical. There is a "normal" lifespan too, but it doesn't mean we kill people when they get to it!
From what you are saying though, there are some things (which you haven't yet even listed) where men are and should be one way, and women are and should be another way, and if they are not there is a problem, at least with their parenting if not in other ways too. This is too constricted a view. Can you tell me what things are important for a man to be, and what things are important for a woman to be, and how you aim to keep them separate?
Jemand,
I'm sure you are familiar with the work of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America.
Gender specific role models have been known to be nessisary for a LONG time. If one was to go to the logical conclusion you propose the Big Brother system would not only be unnessisary but unneeded.
How do you handle the need for gender specific role models in your envisioning?
I had not heard of this program before, but it sounds good. Pairing an at-risk younger child with an older role model will do a lot for them and let them have a source of validation other than their peers, who may think things such as drugs and skipping school are "cool." And, indeed, the mentoring process, by BBBS studies have been shown to result in children being:
* 46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs
* 27% less likely to begin using alcohol
* 52% less likely to skip school
* 37% less likely to skip a class
* more confident of their performance in schoolwork
* one-third less likely to hit someone
* getting along better with their families
a great and moving sucess!
But, there is still a problem. On their site, they specifically say, "More than 70% of our children are waiting for a Big are boys, but only three out of every 10 inquiries to volunteer come from men."
In other words, their fixation on same-sex pairing (one you apparently share) is resulting in many boys going months or years without a mentor, and thus they are at risk for drug abuse, skipping school, and violence (as per above). There is no evidence that this mentoring process has to be of the same sex, and yet this program prefers to make these little boys wait instead of pairing them up immediately. There are plenty of girls who would be happy to play basketball and talk sports with children, and plenty of guys who paint or write poetry who would be wonderful mentors to children of any sex. In fact, an example of someone who is not held to traditional expectations of male and female would be a good example to a child needing to be their own person and buck the trend of drug abuse and failure.
So I'll turn around your question. What reason do you have to think that gender-specific role models are so vital that no role model at all is preferable to one of the opposite gender? Or even, that a same-sex mentor is preferable to one of the opposite sex?
So I'll turn around your question. What reason do you have to think that gender-specific role models are so vital that no role model at all is preferable to one of the opposite gender? Or even, that a same-sex mentor is preferable to one of the opposite sex?
Posted by: jemand (not verified) | 12 August 2008 at 4:52
Since the problem with this particular program is the lack of gender specific volunteers I believe the question can be only answered by seeking the optimum.
If you will read, these children need this type of program not because they lack brothers and sisters but because they lack one or the other parent. If a boy has no father, his best role model in a family setting would be an older brother.
Once we start rationalizing that anyone is preferable to no one, that point is probably true, but if we to really envision a solution to the problem we would have to start with a broader scope.
The divorce rate and absentee parents.
If there were less one parent families less kids would need the Big Brother Big Sister program.
This handles the lions share of your more kids than mentors concern. Only families who had a death of a spouse would have the need for the program.
The reason boys are in more dire need of Big brothers as compared to girls needing big sisters is because men and women are wired differently.
A woman serial killer is an fluke. Women are more natural nuturers ect.
In a relationship class we teach we go over how the brain forms in infants. Things like the chemicals that influence the brain in fetal development. Females having a wider connection between the 2 halves of the brain, how that compares with males, what are the results of the particular differences in brain chemistry and geometry.
Now those with an activist bent will always point to the exception as though it were proof of some sort of discrimination but anyone who studies will find out that men and women are diffrent by design.
The factors that make this program a success are a 2nd best effort at restoring a family to its nessisary compnents. The success of this program for over a century is proof that homes with a mother and a father are the best for their male and female children.
you do realize, I hope, that serial killers represent less than .0000000...00001% or so of the male population. Serial killers are a fluke PERIOD. To rely on these individuals to define the differences between "male" and "female" is crazy.
Also, how do you know these children must have a same sex mentor? You are just guessing that, based on what they are "missing" in their family setting. But has anyone ever TRIED an opposite sex pairing? The study they linked to compared mentored kids to unmentored kids, and unsurprisingly the children with mentors did better. But you don't know for certain what these children need.
In fact, these children might NOT be needing a "stand in" for a parent, they already HAVE people to fill the parental role, to a better or worse extent. Rather, they need an older sibling, someone to look up to, someone to help them understand what's coming up WITHOUT the discipline necessary to parenting. Kids DON'T need their parents to be their "buddies" but they DO need people to fill that role. Older siblings, whether biological or through these programs, can be wonderful buddies. Also, they MIGHT just need someone stable from outside their very unstable family structures. There are a great many reasons WHY a mentoring program will work, and saying it's because the mentor replaces a parent is one of the longer shots, especially since the program doesn't even bill itself as "replacement parents for America's youth" but rather "big brothers and big sisters of America."
We have very little understanding of how brain structure relates to brain function. There is clear evidence of statistical differences between male and female brain structure. However, separating differences in brain FUNCTION as a result of this structure, and differences which are caused by social expectations or bias in the research, is NOT so easy. You have yet to show any of it.
Please elaborate on "women are more natural nurturers ect"
Oh, the written post is so easy to infer meaning not given.
The salient point is not serial killers as compared to population, it is serial killers compared by gender. There is quite an active bunch of studies in this area right now.
As to your questions about same sex mentoring. Perhaps you should volunteer or study into why the program was arranged like it is. You make many suppositions and I understand you only became familiar with the program 2 hours ago.
I wont debate the program here since you are unfamiliar with why it functions as it does.
I'll just say when Big Brothers combined with Catholic Big Sisters in 1977 each had gender specific successful programs. The mentor program seeks to connect on as many levels as possible. Gender and gender based interests play a large role in establishing the relationship that gives the program its success rate.
Part of the volunteer program includes the aspect of having a same sex mentor available to assist in areas where a boy may be reluctant to ask his mother about or the reverse.
I had not known the history of the program. Big Brothers and Big Sisters is doing a good thing for the children of this country, I'm pretty certain their matching by sex isn't NECESSARY but it can't hurt except for those who don't get a match. But as you say, it's probably not best to debate the basis of a program I've only heard about today.
As for the gender differences in the small group of serial killers, why is that important to the rest of us? It's interesting, surely, but I don't see how it could impact how the rest of us should live our lives.
Jemand,
I am responding to your posting dated on 12 August 2008 at 5:19. I have read your comments several times and have concluded that you are stipulating outragious and unreasonable demands on me. Psychology is not a science like mathematics or physics, escpecially when attempting to predict the behavior of specific individuals. The most phychology can do is to predict the average behavior pattern of large groups of people.
You are asking what perhaps even God would have a hard time delivering. This reminds me of a statement by Ellen White where she attempts to explain why the Lord no longer grants his special gifts to single individuals, but prefers to spread them among many of his children. The reason she gives is that individual behavior is highly unpredictable even for God.
As far as the mental difference between males and females is concerned, I believe that there is enough scientific evidence to support this. I will cite only one source, but you can get much more from the Internet. Here is a short paragraph from a scientist. I am including the Internet link so that you can read the rest of this article, since there is much more than the short segment I am citing here:
*********
"But, aside from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc. One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc.
In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.
On the other hand, women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation, verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks. For example, women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men (13)." http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html
*********
Because of these undeniable psychological and attitudinal differences which seem to be prewired, I conclude that it is highly beneficial for children to be exposed to parents of both sexes to insure that their potential psychological development be exposed to the appropriate stimuli. If you have opted to believe in the homosexual agenda, you will choose to close your eyes to this scientific evidence, and this is your prerogative.
Jemand,
I do not understand the logic of the following question you posed for Michael on 12 August 2008 at 6:52 : "But has anyone ever TRIED an opposite sex pairing?" When a boy is paired up with a male role model, why would you try to pair him up with a female role model instead. The boy already has a female role model: his mother. What is missing in his life is not a female role model by a male one! Why would anybody conduct such a study? I do not see any sense in even trying!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
there is only one question I could identify in the post you mentioned, namely "Can you tell me what things are important for a man to be, and what things are important for a woman to be, and how you aim to keep them separate?"
It seems an incredibly simple question with great relevance to the point being debated right now-- namely that children need "role models" of both sexes. If it is truly impossible for even God himself to determine which things, exactly, a male role model provides, or a female role model provides... than it certainly supports the possibility that there ARE no such unique aspects! Rather, people are individuals with a mix of different characteristics and that children are able to understand this, even if their own temperament is significantly different from that of their parents.
I never denied that there may be differences in physical structure, (even brain structure) on average within men and women, but nevertheless hold that any such differences are insignificant compared to the variation WITHIN a sex group. Therefore, while they may be fascinating studies for research, they do NOT explain in any way what a generic "female role model" or "male role model" provides, because in the vast continuum of human personalities, characteristics, and temperaments, it is impossible to predict where someone falls based on knowing their sex alone. Given that, it is impossible to predict whether a parent is an example of a person with similar thought processes and patterns to a child knowing only the sexes of the persons in question. THUS, YOUR CONTINUED INSISTENCE ON HAVING A SAME-SEX ROLE MODEL IS NOT SUPPORTED, even by the research you cite. Furthermore, I do believe that a significant and perhaps even a majority of the functional differences seen between the sexes, in outcomes such as mathematicians, pilots, etc. stem NOT from the underlying biology but from social expectations.
As for your dismissal of the study I proposed, this does a lot to show your assumptions at work. You are CERTAIN already you know the mechanism by which the mentoring process works to create better outcomes for children. Therefore, you think there is no point in even checking. However, you DON'T know what the children need, you only assume it is the "lack of a male role model." Very possibly they HAVE other men in their lives, and they are lacking something else. Perhaps you are right and there is no male role model around-- this still doesn't mean that the children necessarily are suffering from that, there could be another lack in their life that is causing their behavioral problems. What is the point in even trying? WELL TO SEE IF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ACTUALLY HAVE MERIT OR NOT, OF COURSE!
Someone must first give me a good reason why humans continue to be sucked in by an institution that, by their own admission, completely fails at least 50% of the time. Any other enterprise with the same numbers would have been universally abandoned a long time ago.
OH... and nic, if god himself would have a hard time understanding or explaining which things different sex role models are supposed to provide... It throws ALL your biblical verses of "ideals" and your appeals to divine authority out the window!
What exactly are you arguing from? Your own certainty surely. I'm glad to know SOMEONE knows ALL the answers... and you EVEN EXIST! wow. Maybe I'll convert yet!
Then show me how it can ever be wrong for humans to do what is natural to the human condition and why some feel we must always, like Lucifer, be trying "to be like the Most High." (IOW, trying to be what we are not.)
" women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones."
Will anyone be able to say this 50 years from now? Women are fast catching up with men in all the sciences, in fact, at the high school level, many more have surpassed the males. Determining the affect of discouraging females from pursuing science certainly has had an affect, as when females are actively encouraged to enter these fields, they are quite equally up to the task as their male counterparts. Illustrating again why it is difficult to separate environmental factors with inborn ones.
One reason that seems plausible, is that called the "powers of the weak," which enables the slave, the oppresed, the inferior in any of these circumstances to be far more "in tune" to their superiors for their own security. The nuances and intuitive perceptions of women and slaves can largely be attributed to this vital need to "read" their master's wishes and "please" him for their very survival and welfare. The inferior person always is more knowledegable of their superiors, while it was much less important for the superior person to acknowledge his inferior's mind and thinking.
Jemand,
I read your posting dated on 13 August 2008 at 7:38. Since it is you who is interested in conducting such an experiment, then you should be the one to invest the time and financing to carry it out. The alternative would be to find someone who shares with you the same interest.
You have been insisting that I keep answering the same question again and again. Evidently my answers do not satisfy you. Your question is: ""Can you tell me what things are important for a man to be, and what things are important for a woman to be, and how you aim to keep them separate?"
I will try one more time, and I can guarantee that it will not satisfy you either, because it is not based on research, but rather on common sense and the Bible: God created Adam and Eve and told them to multiply. Adam was designed to be the provider, and Eve the nurturing one.
What are the important qualities boys should develop and emulate? Those things which will help them to become good providers. Qualities such as responsibility, diligence, persistence, ingenuity, honesty, integrity, committment, fidelity, tenacity, and wisdom.
Don't girls need to develop the above qualities as well? Yes, but they should be directed at becoming good at nurturing love, affection, softness of disposition, patience, understanding, love of beauty, and a spirit of self sacrifice for the good of her family.
A normal male is attracted by these feminine qualities in women; and a normal female is drawn towards the male qualities I have so poorly described. This reminds me of a politician who, when asked to define pornography responded:
"I don't think I can do that, but I can assure you I can identify pornography when I see it." My attempt at describing the difference between a male and a female might have been a failure, but I sure can tell between a woman and a man by their behavior.
The difference between members of the opposite sex is sometimes a question of degrees, but what a difference they make in the outcome. Women use some of the same qualities for the sake of nurturing; while males do the same for protecting and providing. Any attempt at blending maleness with femaleness produces hybrid creatures that lack taste, beauty, and effectiveness.
When I was a teenager, there was a girl who told my dad she wanted to become his daughter-in-law. She was very talented, hard working, and intelligent. Her dad had died when she was very young, and she was forced to take her dad's place on the family farm. She eventualy developed the qualities of a male. I had no interest in such a female.
The opposite is true as well. Most women will not be impressed with an effeminate man whose manners and behavior mimic the behavior of females. I may have a hard time describing an effeminate male, but I can surely tell when I see one.
I have tried my best. Don't bug me with the same question anymore! I am not a psychologist. I am a Realtor, and my hobby is news, religion, and ethics.
Jemand,
You stated the following on 13 August 2008 at 8:12:
*********
"OH... and nic, if god himself would have a hard time understanding or explaining which things different sex role models are supposed to provide... It throws ALL your biblical verses of "ideals" and your appeals to divine authority out the window!"
*********
I hope you will notice that you misquoted me, and then used your own erroneous version of what I had said to make me look like a fool!
What I has said is that perhaps even God may have a hard time in predicting the precise behavior of individuals. There is such a thing as free will! Did you know that? In support of such suggestion, I paraphrased what Ellen White had stated. Where did I go wrong?
So, slow down, my friend. You haven't got the gold yet!
Elaine,
Here is my response to your comments posted on 13 August 2008 at 9:01: Yes, most women might become good mathamaticians, engineers, and physicists, if this is what interests them the most. The trouble is that most women tend to show more interest in other issues. They are hard wired for the task of nurturing.
My daughter showed great talent at climbing the corporate ladder at the company whe was working for. Nevertheless, no sooner her hysband started making money and manifested evidence of being a good provider, she abandoned her promissing career in order to do what God had created her for: taking care of her children and her husband.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Thank you for your last post. You have finally addressed the question that has been ignored since the beginning of this discussion. I now see that, as I suspected, your opposition to gay marriage is rooted in traditional roles of sexuality and gender that draw not from "common sense" as you claim but sexist stereotypes which for generations have stifled the growth of individuals. Somehow the idea of a marriage involving two equals who view each other as individuals and share tasks based solely on the talent and disposition of each member baffles you.
You sate: "The difference between members of the opposite sex is sometimes a question of degrees, but what a difference they make in the outcome. Women use some of the same qualities for the sake of nurturing; while males do the same for protecting and providing."
This, and your example of one girl you knew as a teenager, indicate that you may even realize that both men and women start out very similarly in mental qualities, and that it is respective focus and development that differentiates the sexes in disposition, furthermore, that this process most certainly is not universal and also very dependent on the early environment of the child. In other words, you advocate sex discrimination in encouraging a child, based on their sex alone, to develop particular personality traits and particular life outcomes. Furthermore, you accuse anyone who does NOT fit your constricted views of male or female of being abnormal, and possibly suffering from psychological scars or at least deficient development in childhood. There is no one who defies these notions of male and female more than homosexuals, so it is not surprising that you oppose them.
Jemand,
Evidently you believe that boys and girls are born rather undifferentiated in their mental qualities, inclinations, attitudes, and preferences. I do not share this view, and I will try to explain to you the reason behind my thinking. The controversy between two theories of development have been fought for many decades. Some experts emphasize nature, while others prefer to atribute the differences between the sexes to nurture. You seem to favor the environment as responsible for the behavior and attitude of boys and girls.
The environment does play a role in the development of children. The masculine qualities of the girl I made reference to has nothing to do with the mental characteristic she was born with. Had both her parents lived until she had fully developed, she would have probably grown up to resemble most girls. Her development was thwarted by circumstances beyond her control.
When children have access to both male and female role models within the home, most boys will tend to develop masculine qualities while girls will tend to pick the feminine qualities of their mothers. When one parent is missing, either male or female, some children will have a much harder time developing the characteristics peculiar to their gender. There will always be exceptions due to many factors.
Is it possible that you tend to reject my view because you have chosen a totally different worldview? Do you believe that we were created and designed by a wise and benevolent Creator, or have you elected to believe that we just evolved from lower species of animals? Are we the outcome of careful design and planning, or perhaps the result of mere chance?
I you share my view that we are the result of careful design, then you should have no problem accepting that a clever planner who designed females for bearing and nurturing children, also designed their brains in such a way that they would relish the privilege of bearing children, and nurturing and raising them to become useful members of society. No wise Creator would design the brains of males and females exactly the same, since their main function in life differs.
The fact that their mental abilities seem rather similar does not tell the full story. It is a well known fact that the DNA of chimpances are close to 100 percent identical with that of us humans. Nevertheless, the three or four percentage difference accounts for a great disparity between monkeys and humans. This is why I elected to marry a human being instead of an ape or a gorilla.
If, on the other hand, you believe that we share a common ancestor with apes, then common sense would lead you to conclude that there are no significant differences between the mental characteristics of boys and girls, since we are not the product of design, but rather the outcome of chance and natural selection.
In the event you believe that we are not the product of careful design, then we are wasting our time discussing this issue, since no evidence I might produce, will entice you to reject your basic worldview.
I am convinced that the scientific evidence for design and a Designer is overwhelming. If an archaeologist were to find a true to life human doll in a dig, he would immediately conclude that said artifact was not the result of chance, but rather the product of design and the result of intelligent action. Scientists have concluded that the universe seems to have been designed for human life.
If you hit the jackpot twice in a row, this would be an extremely rare event; but if you win the lottery a trillion times, you would conclude that the system has been rigged. The universe seems to have been rigged to favor life. The evidence for Intelligent Design and for a clever Designer is overqhelming. If God desgined the universe for life, the Lord also designed both the brains of boys and girls. Their brains have been hard wired for the function assigned to them by a wise Creator. This is my philosophy. What is yours?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic, I'd like to suggest you read an interesting book: _As Nature Made Him_ by John Colapinto. It gives some pretty strong evidence against the "nurture" theory.
What I love about Nic's summary to Jemand is that he is attempting to find some kind of consistent rule for interpreting the way things are so that he can have a reasonable conclusion for the way things ought to be.
Yet the reason I don't adopt that particular view is that clearly The Designer left many things to chance from conception to the end of life. It seems like people are born with a variety of differences that are labeled as strengths or weaknesses. Many body parts--palates, lungs, immune systems, limbs and construction of genitalia--are among the human features that are not uniformly "normal" and "healthy," despite having come from The Designer's mindful oversight.
Whatever one's weaknesses or abnormalities might be, the most common thread is that we crave life and fight for life. "Life" includes not only breathing and pulsing, but finding meaning and purpose.
Sometimes the weaknesses are repaired with surgery. For other disabilities prostheses are fitted. But there are some abnormalities for which there are no adaptations. My personal belief, based on some (but not all) evidence is that one of those is homosexuality.
I think life from The Designer is like a card game. You're dealt a hand and you play it. Homosexuality is only one of many differentiated cards in the deck from the Designer, or if not from the Designer, then at least from his production line. If a person comes off the assembly line with homosexual orientation (as I currently interpret most of the evidence), then I have to think that God would expect that person to find as many wonderful experiences and godly characteristics as s/he could.
One card is for faithful, committed, mutual, monogamous living and loving. Is it the one flesh card? Should it be played?
For the sake of a gay person's survival in a fundamentalist church I hope he/she is also dealt the celibacy card. (wan smile) But for finding great meaning in life I hope s/he's not. (robust smile)
-- Tim
Alex,
I don't know if this has already been stated but the point of the Newsweek article you referenced was not that we need to be more tolerant, but how tolerant is too tolerant. The article pointed out that 13 year old kids cannot deal with sexuality whether straight or gay. So when you allow a young man who sees himself as homosexual (although his friends said sometimes he said he was straight, sometimes bi, and sometimes gay) to approach and infringe upon the rights of other students, and he is protected from being disciplined by the school on the basis of civil rights towards gays, you then have 13, 14, 15 year olds dealing with the situation in ways that are also not appropriate--killing. Just wanted to clarify the point of that article if no one read it. There is such a thing as being too tolerant.
Yes, now we're getting down to it. I repeat what I said earlier in the thread. If people believe that there are God-given roles for each sex that are definable, then stepping outside those roles is unnatural to them. Homosexuality is a major violation of such roles and thus produces even more of the "ick" effect. It's always interesting to me to see how gender equality and gay rights are so closely connected. There is a reason why male homosexuality raises so much more negative reaction than female.
As someone who values and celebrates the fluidity of gender roles, I am glad to see this, as with many things, lessening with the generations. Younger people are much more comfortable with figuring out what works for their own relationships. I think it is easier for older generations to believe in innate gender roles because fewer of their contemporaries violated them. Nowadays, younger people are freer to utilize their individual strengths.
And yet, it seems to me that the last strong pockets of traditional gender roles are firmly in the religious camps. I can't think of the last person I've heard from who upholds traditional roles that is not also conservative in their religion. I'm not trying to knock belief here, just pointing out that religion seems to form a strong rational for continuing such beliefs, especially some forms of both Christianity and Islam.
It will probably take another generation, maybe two, before tolerance of such differences becomes the norm. Old ideas die hard.
Tim, I believe God, who knits us together in our mother's womb, has to know ahead of time that some of us will be born homosexual. That is what is so difficult for some people to understand. If they believe that, they have to believe that God wants the best for His homosexual children, just as any parent would. The "best" includes a loving, intimate relationship.
And I certainly don't believe everyone who is born homosexual is also born with the "gift" of celibacy!
"I believe God, who knits us together in our mother's womb, has to know ahead of time that some of us will be born homosexual."
If that is accepted, it should also be accepted that the same God saw that his creation of man was very good and that it was not good that man should be alone.
It seems that many are equating tolerance with acceptance. And then equating acceptance with affirmation.
Could an individual be tolerant without accepting? How about accepting without affirming?
Sean--
That's a worthy insight. I think the answer is yes and yes.
However I also think it doesn't have to necessarily be yes and yes. People are not only all along the continuum in their sexual preference, but also in their observation and attitudes toward sexual preference. We are all along the continuum of
hate-->wariness-->tolerance-->acceptance-->affirmation.
I think theology can either stall us out or cause us to move to the next level. (Our kids can do that to us when they achieve adolescence! :-))
Why is it so hard to keep two concepts distinct
(a) One's personal moral beliefs about who can enter into what contract with whom
(b) The State's provision of a 'marriage contract' that it lets some pairs of individual sign up for, and assists them in enforcing
These are two distinct concepts. When I got married to my wife, in an SDA church, with an SDA pastor officiating, there was clearly TWO different activities
(a) The pastor and the congregation hearing us give our vows
(b) The signing by my wife and I of the State-supplied legal document that entered us into the State-supplied marital contract.
These activities are completely and utterly disjoint. Neither actually requires the other.
They happen to use the same English word. But that is hardly unusual - lots of English words have multiple meanings according to context.
Christian's oppose theft. To support the idea that the State should tax Gays to provide a contract and legal system that can only be used by Straights is to support theft from Gays by Straights. Theft, pure and simple.
Thou shalt not steal.
/Bevin
Tim,
Thanks for your comments posted on 14 August 2008 at 11:38. You have stated quite a few facts I agree with. There is one comment, though, I cannot share with you. You stated that "The Designer left many things to chance from conception to the end of life."
I believe that nothing was left to chance, but rather to the free will of the human beings he created. In fact I am amazed that, after all the disregard of the laws the Lord provided for his creatures' welfare, and in spite of the unhealthful practices they adopted, the majority of babies are still born relatively unafected by sin.
Some years ago I conducted an experiment with my copy machine. I took an original drawing and made a copy, then used the copy to make another copy, and repeated the same procedure about thirty times always using the last copy for duplicating. My last copy had little resemblance to the original. It had deteriorated significantly.
The human race has been duplicating for six thousand years, if we use Usher's chronology, and sixty or one hundred thousand years if we choose the appearance of homo sapiens, according to evolutionists, as a starting point. Isn't it amazing the so few errors have been introduced in the human genome? This forces me to have a high respect for the Designer. He is not to blame for the defects and pyysical and mental departures from normality after thousand of years since creation.
You seem to conclude that homosexuals unions should be elevated to the dignity of married individuals. For me this is like saying. Dwarfs are not to blame for the physical abnormalities they were born with; therefore they should be allowed to become policemen, firemen, or apply for any other line of employment available for normal individuals.
Marriage has always meant the union of two individuals of the opposite gender. Treating them as married will not make them so. Marriage implies the potential ability to procreate by combining their own genetic material without the assitance of donors. If society is determined to grant homosexual couples certain benefits, most people would go along with this; but, please, don't adulterate and ruin the marriage institution in the process.
Beth,
I tend to agree with the comments you posted on 15 August 2008 at 6:27. Religion tends to encourage people to look at what the Creator provided as normative for us. Human beings have a tendency to depart from what God designed for us. This is why Jesus said to his disciples: "But in the beginning it was not so." He directed the attention of his followers to the original creation as normative. We would do well to do the same.
Carrol,
I read your comments posted on 15 August 2008 at 10:08, and I have a question for you: What about the old men who have a strong sexual craving for young children? Should society deprive them from fulfilling their sexual desires? Or what about necrophylia, where there is no real victim nor suffering or pain involved? Shall I ask also about polygamy? Should society leave the offshoots Mormons alone?
Now, regarding the book you suggested that I read in your previous posting, if I do that, I won't have time to read the Spectrum and Adventist Today blogs. Blogs are more interesting. Books put me to sleep, while blogs keep me awake, because I am expected to react to the arguments, facts, and ideas presented by the participants.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
One thing in common with those that oppose equality - religion. Give me a break with the claim that "the best environment for a child is one man and one woman" lie. Valid statistical studies show conclusively that children raised by gays are just as well-balanced and happy as those raised by single mothers, fathers and two parent families. So stop with the hurtful lies. The key to a well-adjusted family is LOVE AND NURTURE.
Also, stop with the "marriage is a religious institution" lie. It most certainly is not. It is a CIVIL institution - that stands up in a court of law. Therefore it should be available to ALL citizens of this country. Again, stop with your religious hatred - it's really getting old!
Hey, if you want to discuss the concept of "marriage" in a biblical sense, why would you be against polygamy? Indeed, the holy bible promotes "marriage" as "one man and as many women as he wants."
Bottom line - keep your religious hatred to yourself.
Dale,
Instead of making blank statements about "statistical studies" showing "conclusively that children raised by gays are just as well-balanced and happy as those raised by single mothers, fathers and two parent families," how about providing some Internet links to those studies.
Give us some meat we can chew on, instead of making unsupported claims. As far as I understand, the "scientific" studies that have been conducted so far claiming such results have been conducted by those who have an axe to grind. Can we trust research sponsored by those in the homosexual camp?
Here is the copy of a comprehensive study which shows the opposite of what you are claiming. I did post this before, but perhaps you did not read it!
*********
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples” and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.
HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.
The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.”
The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.
To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.
In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.
Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.
The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.
View the Spanish-language report at: http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual... .
View the “Agenzio Fides” coverage at: http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html
*********
Let's compare this with what you can produce and thus give the readers of this forum a chance to make an intelligent choice. Perhaps you can win this debate and gain some converts in the process.
By the way, you seem to be oppossed to any religious argument. This is rather strange, since this forum is a religious forum, which means that religious arguments should not be discounted from consideration. Those who reject the argument from creation are in fact rejecting the Bible, which teaches that God is the Creator from Genesis through Revelation.
Why would a Christian reject this blows my mind. Of course, Darwinists are quite often delighted seeing the Bible discredited and its teachings rejected. Should not someone who believes in the basic claim of Scripture consider the fact that the "image of God" was made up of a man--Adam--and a woman--Eve? Why do Christians insist on blurring the clear image of God by persisting in destroying what the Creator provided for humanity?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic
you ask if I reject the study only because of one researcher. No. I don't reject it just because of one researcher. (By the way, I mentioned two: Paul and Kirk Cameron.)
Those work of those two researchers is the basis of many of the complaints and statistics that are used in the argument. And their claims are faulty for the reasons I mentioned among others.
I also reject the study because its claims are based on a view that for homosexuals the right to marry must be earned through some sort of task that has not been demanded of other groups: proving that they will be 'safe' parents. Not only do I believe this requirement would be met; more importantly it is incompatible with the respect that should be shown to homosexual union.
You write:
Are you trying to comvince me that I should trust the opinions of a bunch of researchers who have without doubt and axe to grind? The large group of Spanish scholars decided that it is not wise to trust the opinions of a group of homosexual activists engaged in research with the obvert objective of promoting a homsexual agenda, and I concurr with their opinion.
I am not trying to convince you to believe anything. I'm simply saying that it is not clear that the findings of the APA are biased. And the evidence of their clear bias is poor. I listed the six basic indictments and they are weak. They say nothing to make me question the judgment of the psychologists.
And this takes me back to the point I made -- that one of the conclusions cited by the study to support its agenda is that there is no proof that children of lesbians will fare as well. I say there is no proof they will fare worse. And I repeat that such evidence should not be required simply because of a religious sensibility.
So I reject the study because:
1. One conclusion is that there is no proof that same-sex couples raise kids as well. Why should the burden of proof be on those who want equal rights?
2. Another problem is the reliance on mere correlation of homosexual parents with stressors and difficult adjustment of the children: the contributing variables quite reasonably have little to do with 'parenting' but rather with the influence of prejudice and societal pressures that are based on bigoted ideas.
3. I discard the baseless claims of research bias.
4. I accept 'best case scenarios' of children of same-sex marriages are relevant. If nothing else they are proof that two men or two women can raise a child to be confident and competent while contributing beautifully to society.
And I would not trust a group of 10, 20, 30 or 40 psychologists who believe these problematic arguments provide enough reason to fear the impact of same-sex marriages.
Ultimately -- on principle I will never vote to deny marriage rights because of worst-case-scenario projections based on such fear.
You also link to an article that claims the relevance of Broca's and Wernicke's areas being bigger on average in women than in men. This is a physical description that has yet to be correlated with any research showing that women are better than men at language or expression.
Michael: in re your comment about "Females having a wider connection between the 2 halves of the brain" -- such claims are problematic.
All normal men and women use both sides of the brain in cerebral tasks. M.D. De Bellis et al in Sex Differences in Brain Maturation during Childhood and Adolescence ( ) write "CC areas did not differ between gender groups after adjustment for cerebral volumes". It's not a uniform claim. It's actually pretty good evidence that the neurological differences are less meaningful than a lot of pop-gender studies like to admit.
You mention the remaining question of how that compares with males, what are the results of the particular differences in brain chemistry and geometry.
That is a vital but often overlooked question. The implications are usually assumed with little reason. There is a lot of evidence that claims of hardwired differences are exaggerated. But there are plenty of people making money and publishing books ignoring all the evidence and even misrepresenting the research in favor of their lucrative claims.
I've provided some links in previous comments.
Back to Nic
You write By the way, you seem to be oppossed to any religious argument. This is rather strange, since this forum is a religious forum, which means that religious arguments should not be discounted from consideration.
It's because this discussion is about government involvement more than church policy.
Michael,
Thanks for your comments. I do not see why you are suggesting that, based on the sudy I cited, gays need to prove that they can do as good a job in parenting as heterosexuals. The conclusion this large groups of experts reached was that the evidence points to the fact that the data suggests that homosexual adoption is detrimental for the healthy mental development of children.
There is nothing to experiment. The results are already in, and a careful analysis of the data does not favor the homosexual agenda. Besides, the data also indicates that gay couples tend to be less stable than heterosexuals, which impacts negatively on children.
You are telling me that the APA studies are not biased, but you have failed to provide any reason for me to believe this. It is a well-known fact that those studies were conducted by individuals who are either homosexuals themselves, or else have a history of siding with the homosexual agenda. This is like saying that Democrats or Republicans are not biased in their opinions.
Here are the results of another study dealing with the same issue and similar conclusions:
*********
"Social science evidence agrees that the best environment for the well-being of children is a household with both a mother and a father. A homosexual environment, on the other hand, can model homosexual behavior to children. In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves.
Based on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that “by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children’s sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.” The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children.
Although gay advocates say that some children will be “languishing in foster homes,” if willing, any homosexual could apply to adopt these hard-to-place children. This is because single persons including a homosexual can already qualify to be an adoptive parent (this is already occurring, primarily in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas). Therefore, the push for homosexual couples to jointly adopt children is actually a back-door strategy to gain the rights and benefits of homosexual “marriage.”
In addition, unmarried heterosexual couples living together should not be allowed to adopt because how can they commit their lives to a child when they refuse to commit to each other in marriage? California needs to continue the current policy where children are adopted by married couples first, and second by singles whom case workers judge to have a healthy home.
Stability is the key to raising an emotionally and mentally healthy child; unmarried and homosexual partners simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couples can give. "Children need a role model, both male and female. Every child has the right to both a mother and a father,". Homosexual activists put their personal desires above the rights of these children to have a chance at a normal family life with a father and mother."
http://youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM
*********
Finally, my response to your argument that religious arguments should be excluded from this discussion because the topic deals with the role of the government. I disagree. The government has imprinted on our coins the following phrase: "In God we trust." God is everywhere in our governmental foundation documents.
If, as a nation, we trust in God, why should we kick God out of governmental policies dealing with the raising of the future geeneration? Besides, religious people will be voting on November. Why should we deprive them of religious reasons for voting against what is a spurios imitation of what the Creator has given us to model?
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
People should vote their conscience. But if the only argument for a view is religious belief the government should not be bound from acting independently from those views when there are contradictory factors. But if you are comfortable with government regulating based on religion the it remains a debate for another time.
Back to the original points. In re bias: Being homosexual does not mean that one's research is flawed. And writing for journals related to homosexuality is in no way an indication of bias. Where else should such studies be published? Those journals are the appropriate forums for such articles. I will not simply accept one groups poor argument that bias has been shown. It has not been shown to my satisfaction.
"The conclusion this large groups of experts reached was that the evidence points to the fact that the data suggests that homosexual adoption is detrimental for the healthy mental development of children."
There is no evidence of this provided in the study. The conclusion relies on the following:
1. Unexplained correlations. Correlation is not causality. It should not be used as evidence of such. I addressed this in my last comment.
2. Definitions of "harm" that assume homosexuality to be a fault. This is circular logic. I addressed it in a previous comment.
The paragraph that you quote does not provide any research. It also assumes that homosexuality itself is a problem and it argues in part that homosexual parents harm their children by showing homosexuality to be an acceptable lifestyle. That's not harm. Should homosexuals be less respected than heterosexuals? I say no. Should homosexuals say to their children "you should not approve of our relationship"? Should they say "we hope you are not a homosexual"? That's ridiculous. Raising a child not to judge homosexuality as an evil is not a liability to the cause of same-sex marriage unless you hold that homosexuality is by nature a failing.
The quote from Golombok and Tasker is inapt to the point. It makes no statement about outcomes or results. In fact Golombok herself writes in an editorial:
With respect to gender development, there was no evidence of confusion about gender identity among these children, and no difference in sex role behaviour between children in lesbian and heterosexual families for either boys or girls.
You should investigate your sources more carefully. I include here a later paragraph from the page you link to:
All of the available evidence demonstrates that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on the sexual orientation of their children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are no more likely than any other child to grow up to be gay.See Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (1978), Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L.
Thanks, Michael Covarrubias. I really appreciate your use of vetted sources.
"Here are the results of another study dealing with the same issue and similar conclusions:"
Nic... that was not a study. The page you linked too was a debate page, where anyone can come and debate either side of a divisive issue. In fact, the person who was arguing the side from which you quoted your paragraph cited NO SOURCES! None at all, this argument grew from unsupported allegations and if this is what you base your opinion on it is a stellar example of the unimportance of facts and primacy of bias in forming your opinions.
The debater who favored gay marriage linked to many studies, as Michael illustrated. I haven't actually read these original sources but I must say linking to reputed sources is far more credible than stating one's opinion.
Again, if you deem that page a "study"... you have very interesting ideas of what a study means. Probably this spectrum page qualifies, too.
Michael,
I do not think that you are reading my posts with care! I have consistently given you both religious and psychological reasons for voting against the legalization of gay marriage, and you respond with the following statement:
*********
"But if the only argument for a view is religious belief the government should not be bound from acting independently from those views when there are contradictory factors. But if you are comfortable with government regulating based on religion the it remains a debate for another time."
*********
The second study I cited in my last posting is a collage of pros and cons. I cited the cons of gay marriage and you cited the pros. It all depends on who you want to believe. This is why I believe that we need to combine both what research has provided with what religion con contribute. When you do this, you are safer than when you rely exclusively on science.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Jemand,
You are right. The reference I provided is not a study; nevertheless it contains a reference to a scientific study conducted by two London researchers indicating that “by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children’s sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.”
I consider this detrimental to the welfare of children. Of course, you believe the opposite. If you believe that being gay is normal and desirable, then you win. But if you grant that having a strong preference for the same gender is less than desirable then I win.
Based on what I have read indicates that most gay individuals are not really "gay" in the original sense of the term. They are not exactly happy with their anomalous attraction for the same sex. My argument is: If this is the case, why would we want to increase the number of children affected by this anomaly? Here is the reference to said longitudinal study:
*********
"In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Based on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that “by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children’s sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.” The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children."
http://youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM
*********
Perhaps I should have chosen a different study. I thought that an admission by two researchers with a gay bias was more forceful than using someone who was trying to prove the opposite point.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic,
You stated yourself that "Here are the results of another study dealing with the same issue and similar conclusions:" and called this link a "study" at least three times. That is blatantly false and it is all I can do to not call it an outright baldfaced LIE. You cited "RESULTS" from a site only mentioning this study to prove a partisan point, and having absolutely NOTHING to do with the original research!
So... What does that study ACTUALLY say?
The abstract:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1996-01705-001
"Their study followed 27 lesbian mothers and their 39 children and a control group of group of 27 heterosexual single mothers and their 39 children from the time the children were around age 10 (1976-77) to when they were around age 24 (1992-93). Sixty-two percent of the original sample of children took part in the follow- up study. There was no significant difference between adults raised in lesbian families and their peers from single-mother heterosexual households in the proportion who reported sexual attraction to someone of the same gender."
Summary by the ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/par/tools.html
"Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families
Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker
This study found that there was no significant difference in the number of self-identified lesbian and gay young adults from lesbian-headed families and from heterosexual-headed families. Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups in those who reported experiencing same-sex attraction. Daughters of lesbians, however, were significantly more likely to report being open to same-sex attractions or relationships. Children of lesbians were significantly more likely to have had a same-sex sexual experience. 1996. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 3-11."
Note there are no differences in sexual behavior or activity in adulthood. During the teen years, these children may be more likely to consider their orientation as not being a given heterosexual one, but this confusion is short-lived like much other confusion experienced during adolescence.
However, YOU stated that this study had the following results, including:
"The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children."
and
"Stability is the key to raising an emotionally and mentally healthy child; unmarried and homosexual partners simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couples can give. "Children need a role model, both male and female. Every child has the right to both a mother and a father,". Homosexual activists put their personal desires above the rights of these children to have a chance at a normal family life with a father and mother."
These and others are NOT REMOTELY a part of the study or it's conclusions or even connected in ANY way to this study! However, that IS what you claimed it was. This kind of behavior is misleading bordering on pure dishonesty.
Nic
The cons you cite are based on no data and on the blatant misuse and misunderstanding of statements. The statement you cite is not a result. It is not a conclusion. It is not data. It is not all that relevant.
Read Jemand's post for more on this. And refer back to my post in which I provide a link and a quote to the very same researcher's (Golombok) own thoughts on the matter that directly contradict your reading of that line.
I have read your comments carefully. And I have responded to points in those comments with more than mere contradictions. I have told you why I reject the evidence and the criteria and the conclusions with explanations of why the evidence is faulty and why the conclusions don't follow.
At this point you are offering nothing more than the repetition of arguments whose invalidity I have argued and explained.
It comes down to this most simply. There is research and data out there that is cited by both sides of the issue. The data you are relying on is full of mere correlations and circular logic. I have gone over this before in comments. Unless you can try to defend your data against these criticisms the discussion cannot move forwards.
Jemand,
You stated:
“Nic, you stated yourself that ‘Here are the results of another study …’”
My Response:
Yes, I did call this a study, and I admitted this already in my previous posting. How many times you want me to make the same admission? What is the point of beating a dead horse? I should have said: “Here is a reference to a study …”
You stated:
“Nic, you stated … ‘study dealing with the same issue and similar conclusion’ …”
My Response:
Yes I did! I should have said: “similar conclusions with respect to the influence on children future attitude towards homosexuality.”
You stated:
“That is blatantly false and it is all I can do to not call it an outright baldfaced LIE.”
My Response:
I suggest that you read again what I stated in its proper context on 18 August 2008. The context reflects clearly that I was referring only to the effect of gay adoption on the children’s attitude towards homosexuality, and not to other aspects of child rearing by gay couples. When taken out of context, it gives the impression that I was making a false statement or even worse: lying.
You need to be more careful when reading what I have written and avoid jumping to hasty conclusions. I was highlighting an honest admission by two scientists whose study claims that there is no significant difference between child rearing by heterosexuals and homosexuals. In their defense of gay rearing of children, they clearly admit that there is an effect on the attitude of certain children towards homosexuality. This effect, in my view, is negative and detrimental for the reasons I have already explained.
You stated:
“You cited … this study to prove a partisan point, and having absolutely NOTHING to do with the original research!”
My Response:
I don’t understand. How can you say that an admission by the researchers supporting my contention about child rearing has, as you claim, “absolutely NOTHING to do with the original research!” You lost me here!
You Cited the Following Study:
"Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" By Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker, which includes the following admission: “Daughters of lesbians, however, were significantly more likely to report being open to same-sex attractions or relationships. Children of lesbians were significantly more likely to have had a same-sex sexual experience.”
My Comment:
Thank you for including this! This supports my contention. We have now the evidence I was referring to alluding to the fact that gay parenting does exert a, what I call, detrimental and negative effect on children. This was the main argument of the Spanish study I originally cited, and this was the reason I cited this study by two scientists whose aim was to prove that gay parenting had no negative effect on children. Of course, those who are pushing for gay marriage see this effect as something positive, because then little by little the gay movement would gain future adherents to their mission of obliterating the difference between normal and abnormal sexual preference.
You Argued:
“Note there are no differences in sexual behavior or activity in adulthood. During the teen years, these children may be more likely to consider their orientation as not being a given heterosexual one, but this confusion is short-lived like much other confusion experienced during adolescence.”
My Comments:
Notice the following statement from the study you cited! “This study found that there was no significant difference in the number of self-identified lesbian and gay young adults from lesbian-headed families and from heterosexual-headed families.”
Can you trust the report of those who “self-identified” themselves as gays? Would you consider the fact that even today a considerable number of homosexuals prefer for many reasons not to come out of the closet and make their preference known to their relatives and the public? If the truth were known about the actual number of individuals who grew up with a homosexual tendency as a result of gay parenting, wouldn’t this invalidate the researcher’s claim?
You Stated:
“However, YOU stated that this study had the following results, including: ‘The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children.’"
My Response:
Here is another evidence of the careless way you read my posting and thus reached erroneous conclusions. Please go back to my original posting dated on 18 August 2008. If you do, you will discover that I was citing from the source I referenced. Those were not my words! Should I follow the example you set for me and conclude that you were making false statements or else even lying? I hope I will not make the same mistake!
You Concluded with the Following:
"Stability is the key to raising an emotionally and mentally healthy child; unmarried and homosexual partners simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couples can give. "Children need a role model, both male and female. Every child has the right to both a mother and a father". Homosexual activists put their personal desires above the rights of these children to have a chance at a normal family life with a father and mother." These and others are NOT REMOTELY a part of the study or it's conclusions or even connected in ANY way to this study! However, that IS what you claimed it was. This kind of behavior is misleading bordering on pure dishonesty.
My Response:
Did I claim that those statements were part of the study? Those comments belonged to the individual who posted said reference to the study.
Did you notice that? You erroneously interpreted them as my comments on the study. How can you be rather careless in your reading and then conclude that my “behavior is misleading [and] bordering on pure dishonesty.”? Let the reader examine the facts and make a proper judgment about this unsupported claim!
You Cited the Following Reference:
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/par/tools.html
My Comment:
I gleaned from the source you cited the following statement in support of my theory:
"Argument #4: Children raised by gay parents will grow up to be gay.
The research on adolescent and adult children who were raised by gay parents shows that, like their peers, the vast majority grow up to be heterosexual. One study found that while few of the children of gay parents identified as gay, a larger minority of children in this group reported being open to or actually having had a same-sex sexual experience. It would seem logical that growing up with parents who do not condemn homosexuality- and openly gay parents presumably would be among those parents who don’t- would reduce an individual’s reluctance to acknowledge, accept, or act upon same-sex sexual desires if they experience them."
Isn't this incredible? You are actually helping me in solidifying my contention regarding gay parenting!
To the Management of this Spectrum Blog:
I apologize for the length of this response, but I had to respond to the unsupported allegations made against me. If you were to delete this posting of mine, please delete the posting which forced me to respond!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: FWIW your comments will certainly not be deleted for being long, just if they violate guidelines. And you did not violate anything. The point about keeping them short is merely a recognition that if you want people generally to read what you write you would do well to not engage in frequent long interlinear rebuttals directed essentially at one or two people. This can come across to the broader group as pedantic and/or combative. People form attitudes and just skip reading you. I value your contributions and I think the editorial feedback to 'keep it short' was simply made in your best interests. You are never 'forced' to respond to anything. Sometimes it is best to just move on, even if you feel misunderstood or don't get in that last word. Just my $.02.
Rich (and Nic)
I presume that once a given post has reached over 150 comments those who stay are interested in reading what is written... even if it is fairly long. Furthermore, while much directed commenting early on can cause single points to "get lost in the chatter" so to speak, at this point I don't think that is as much of an issue either.
Nic
To have a justification for a secular law against gay marriage you have to have a secular reason for it. Welfare of children would qualify, if you could show actual detriment. However, to point to increased homosexual experimentation during the teen years is only begging the question. Apparently the only secular evidence against homosexuality-- is homosexuality! You can't claim a recursive argument and state these teens' behavior is harmful because of THEIR kids, because by the time they have children they are heterosexual adults.
I am not "helping" you with your claims, I am linking to the published research behind your smokescreen arguments whether it helps my position or not! That is how an honest debate is conducted. I also find it highly amusing you refer to the work of Golombok and Tasker as "my study." I merely located the actual research and abstract mentioned offhand in a partisan debate which you claimed as a new study. So it's actually yours :)
You also claim I am twisting your words. I do not think I am.
From your post dated 18 August 2008 at 9:41
Here are the results of another study dealing with the same issue and similar conclusions:
*********
... The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children. ...
Stability is the key to raising an emotionally and mentally healthy child; unmarried and homosexual partners simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couples can give. "Children need a role model, both male and female. Every child has the right to both a mother and a father,". Homosexual activists put their personal desires above the rights of these children to have a chance at a normal family life with a father and mother.
http://youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM
*********
You must forgive me if I thought that you were calling the section between the asterisks the "conclusions" of your "study!" Also note that these statements are nowhere near the actual conclusions of Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker.
After I called your attention to the fact that your linked website was NOT in fact a study, you responded to Michael Covarrubias in your post dated 19 August 2008 at 8:28
The second study I cited in my last posting is a collage of pros and cons. I cited the cons of gay marriage and you cited the pros.
Then you contradicted yourself in your post dated 19 August 2008 at 9:13
the reference I provided is not a study; nevertheless it contains a reference to a scientific study conducted by two London researchers...
However later in this same post you again link to the debate site followed immediately by:
Perhaps I should have chosen a different study.
Again this appears to be a reference to the debate site, contradicting your admission that this site was NOT in fact, a study. There is no twisting or misrepresentation occurring on my part. Your statements above are at least misleading, possibly to the point of being dishonest.
So again, the adult rates of homosexuality for those raised by homosexuals is unchanged from that of the general population. The incidence of homosexual experimentation during the teen years cannot be used as secular evidence for harm by homosexual parents because it is a circular argument. It is only harmful for the children if homosexuality is harmful-- and the only secular reason you have for claiming homosexuality itself is harmful is this difference in the gender distribution of these teens' early sexual partners. Without resorting to biblical arguments of the evils of homosexuality, there is no demonstrable harm, and therefore no basis for a secular law.
Michael,
Thanks for your comments! First let me say that I entirely agree with the following statement you made in your latest posting: "There is research and data out there that is cited by both sides of the issue."
First I cited the Spanish study, which favor my view of the issue.You rejected it. Then I cited a reference containing an allusion to the study conducted by Golombok and Tasker, which claimed that gay parenting had no adverse influence on children, but admitted that growing up in a gay environment did affect the attitude towards homosexuality of a number of the children and made them more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior.
They also argued that, by the time these children reached adult age, there was no more any significant difference between the two groups. My argument is twofold: I do not believe that having children experimenting with homosexuality in order to discover whether they prefer said lifestyle is beneficial to children. You may disagree, of course!
For me sexual experimentation in order to discover which lifestyle a child or an adult wants to adopt is either adultery or else fornication. The government has an interest in the detrimental effects of sexual experimentation and sexual misbehavior. It costs the taxpayer billions of dollars when people sucumb to sexual experimentation. It causes divorces, sexually transmitted diseases, and the spread AIDS. The taxpayer ends eventually picking up the tab.
Second, I do not trust the result obtained by the experimenters who were relying on the self revelation of participants regarding their sexuality by the time they became adults. There is a significant segment of homosexuals who are not comfortable coming out of the closet. This means that this segment of the Golombok and Tasker study is unreliable.
You label my arguments as invalid, and I consider yours the same. Who is right. Let the reader decide! This is why I will concur with your closing assessment that, unless additional imput is provided, the discussion cannot move forwards. Hopefully, this exchange of ideas might have helped someone make up his/her mind of how to vote in November!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Jemand,
Thanks for responding! I feel that we are reaching the point where any further discussion may not be very productive. Nevertheless, I will try to respond to your latest post:
You said:
"To have a justification for a secular law against gay marriage you have to have a secular reason for it."
I say:
I agree, I have provided secular reasons all along. Read at least my answer to Michael above.
You stated:
"Welfare of children would qualify, if you could show actual detriment."
I say:
I agree. I did provide evidence to that effect. Read my last two posts!
You said:
"However, to point to increased homosexual experimentation during the teen years is only begging the question."
I respond:
Not so! Read my two latests posts!
You argued again:
That I provided a reference to a debate which included an allusion to the Golombok and Tasker research and referred to such a debate as a "study" more than once.
My Answer:
You are right. I should have said: "Here is a reference which contains an allusion to a study ..." I did admit this error of mine twice already, but you keep beating on this dead horse. If this behavior of yours makes you happy, go for it!
You conclude:
"Your statements above are at least misleading, possibly to the point of being dishonest."
My Response:
This is stretching the point. Misleading? Yes! But without the intention to mislead! Dishonest? Let the reader decide!
You argue:
"So again, the adult rates of homosexuality for those raised by homosexuals is unchanged from that of the general population."
I say:
I question the researchers wisdom in relying on the self identification of participants regarding their sexual orientation. Read my response to Michael!
You state:
"The incidence of homosexual experimentation during the teen years cannot be used as secular evidence for harm by homosexual parents because it is a circular argument."
My answer:
Wrong. Read my response to Michael!
You conclude:
"Without resorting to biblical arguments of the evils of homosexuality, there is no demonstrable harm, and therefore no basis for a secular law."
My response:
Wrong again. Read my answer to Michael!
I hope we can somehow end this debate soon. I have the suspicion that we have already probably lost most of those who have previously followed this blog!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic, you fall back now on two arguments, one, that the government has an interest in controlling the private sexual lives of it's citizens, and two, that same sex couples actually do cause more of their children to be homosexual but that they are not openly so.
Your claim that same sex couples cause more of their children to grow up homosexual but as adults they behave as any normal heterosexual, is crazy. You're trying to tell me that during the teen years, when the need for peer acceptance is at it's height (and high school students are pretty negative to gays), they experiment with homosexual pairings, but as adults they enter the closet? Why would they, with the example of a completely open parental relationship, choose to hide their own sexuality? They obviously grew up in an environment that for the most part accepted same-sex activity... to say they won't accept it in themselves and hide in the closet is too ludicrous an idea to seriously consider.
For your first argument, I concede that excessive sexual experimentation as a teen, especially as a young teen, can be detrimental. However, there is no evidence that these children of homosexual homes experiment more than those from heterosexual homes, only that they are more likely to try a same-sex partner. Without additional data measuring the amount of opposite sex teen experimentation, there is no way to say which group of teens is more sexually active. However, your claim was stronger than just that.
You state:The government has an interest in the detrimental effects of sexual experimentation and sexual misbehavior. It costs the taxpayer billions of dollars when people sucumb to sexual experimentation.
The supreme court disagrees with you. In a 6-3 decision they ruled that the private sexual lives of citizens are outside the government's purview. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/) This struck down 13 different anti-sodomy laws, four applying only to homosexuals, the rest banning oral and anal sex between any two citizens. I would like you to propose ways the government can make sure all citizens marry as virgins and never have oral or anal sex, or sex with anyone but their married partner without trampling on their constitutional rights to privacy. I would also like you to provide proof that there is a secular reason to support such measures, to provide data to back up your claim that unsupervised sex costs the government billions of dollars.
jemand,
You said:
"Nic, you fall back now on two arguments, one, that the government has an interest in controlling the private sexual lives of it's citizens ..."
I say:
There was a time when both adultery and sodomy were a crime. There was less family break up, and children did benefit from this. I realize that improper sexual behavior are extremely widespread and it would be impractical to reverse this situation.
Then, the majority of people lived on a farm, teenagers did not have private automobiles, and it was easier for parents to control their children's benavior. I am not expecting the government to do what today parents can no longer control, but at least I hope the government will not encourage sexual promiscuity and abnormal sexual behavior with their laws.
You further added:
" ...and two, that same sex couples actually do cause more of their children to be homosexual but that they are not openly so."
My Answer:
Exactly! That "same sex couples actually do cause more of their children to be homosexual" was confirmed by the Golombok and Tasker study. That some of those children with homosexual inclinations prefer not to disclose their sexual tendencies is my comon sense guess.
I have no data to prove this, so you can dismiss this if you want. The fact that a child grew up in a gay environment does not guarantee that he/she will be proud of this. The majority of children are still straight, and some children will prefer to hide the fact that they have abnormal sexual tendencies.
You further stated:
"However, there is no evidence that these children of homosexual homes experiment more than those from heterosexual homes, only that they are more likely to try a same-sex partner."
I say:
Precisely! That is my point. Thanks for admitting this. This is like smoking. Kids who never try smoking, are less likely to be tempted to acquire said habit. Children who have grown up with smoking parents are more likely to experiment and develop this habit. This is common sense logic! Are you going to ask me for scientific data to prove my point?
You stated:
"The supreme court disagrees with you. In a 6-3 decision they ruled that the private sexual lives of citizens are outside the government's purview."
My answer:
Did I suggest that the government do what once was the responsibility of parents? All I am hoping for is that the government will not create a legal situation which will have the tendency to encourage children to experiment with abnormal sexual behavior.
You said:
"I would like you to propose ways the government can make sure all citizens marry as virgins and never have oral or anal sex, or sex with anyone but their married partner without trampling on their constitutional rights to privacy."
I respond:
Wrong suggestion! Read what I stated above!
You suggested:
"I would also like you to provide proof that there is a secular reason to support such measures, to provide data to back up your claim that unsupervised sex costs the government billions of dollars."
My answer:
There is no need for me to do this. Just think: What happens when there is a divorce, family breakdown, or separation? Don't many of the women end by applying for welfare for themselves and their children?
Doesn't common sense lead you to conclude that sexual experimentation by children will have a tendency to encourage them to engage in a similar missbehavior after they are married, which quite often leads to family breakdown and divorce or separation? This is why I said that the government has an interest in not encouraging improper sexual experimentation which may eventually cost the taxpayer money.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic says:
Exactly! That "same sex couples actually do cause more of their children to be homosexual" was confirmed by the Golombok and Tasker study. That some of those children with homosexual inclinations prefer not to disclose their sexual tendencies is my comon sense guess.
I have no data to prove this, so you can dismiss this if you want.
(Emphasis mine)
You have no data. You freely admit you have no data. You prefer to concoct an elaborate conspiracy theory rather than face the facts, and you continue to misrepresent the work of Golombok and Tasker.
You have every right to keep doing this but at some point you will cease to be taken seriously by anyone, and become a strident voice from the margins saying "la la la la don't bother me with facts, I KNOW the truth! My common sense is infallible!"
Nic
you write:
"First I cited the Spanish study, which favor my view of the issue.You rejected it.
And I gave a point by point explanation why.
"Then I cited a reference containing an allusion to the study conducted by Golombok and Tasker, which claimed that gay parenting had no adverse influence on children."It costs the taxpayer billions of dollars when people sucumb to sexual experimentation. It causes divorces, sexually transmitted diseases, and the spread AIDS. The taxpayer ends eventually picking up the tab.
These are not homosexual issues unless you still believe that only homosexuals are promiscuous and only homosexuals get aids. Same-sex marriage is about the state recognizing an equal right to the benefits afforded to a monogamous relationship. The model of monogamy should be encouraged and supported for precisely the reasons you think it is dangerous. Do you not trust homosexuals to be monogamous? If so that's a prejudice that I don't share.
There is a significant segment of homosexuals who are not comfortable coming out of the closet. This means that this segment of the Golombok and Tasker study is unreliable.
That is not an argument. It's an unsupported guess.
"You label my arguments as invalid, and I consider yours the same. Who is right. Let the reader decide!"
Well of course. but if you want the reader to accept your arguments i'm guessing there are several that would like to know why you're willing to accept circular logic (homosexuality is harmful because it begets homosexuality -- the crux of Cameron & Cameron's research and the HazteOir study) and why you're so willing to accept the relevance of mere correlations.
That's like saying that I wish I had never gotten my driver's license because ever since then I've lost all four of my grandparents. Or more appropriately to the point you make about same-sex marriages: if children of mixed-race marriages get into more fights at school should we outlaw mixed-race marriages? This is an old analogy that some people reject. I addressed this in my first comment when I wrote that such issues are
relevant to the argument because we have recognized in the past that some practical and economic and considerations, and the fears that accompany some paradigm shifts, are not enough to justify the continued exclusion of certain groups from legal protection and a full claim to the rights provided by the government. We must call attention to those arguments that rely on a priori assumptions about the value of an individual and the deservedness of lesser status..
Now that I have quoted myself on this very thread I will stop. I don't want to swallow my own tail. I'm willing to continue but I don't want to just start over.
I wish you well.
Thanks, Michael C for essentially ending this "I said, he said, no you said" back and forth. As a reader, I'll happily say, "Amen!" Enough. If anyone really cares to follow it, there's more than enough to take away to digest. And, Nic--we won't assume that just because you stop commenting (please) that you are agreeing or "giving in"--just hopeful that some sense of the repetitiveness that this tired back and forth is old for the rest of us.
Jemand,
Anybody who reads your comments isolated from everything I have said before will erroneously conclude that I have provided no data whatsoever to bolster my position. I did provide you with the data from the Spanish study, and I did provide you with the honest admission by Golombok and Tasker verifying the influence of gay parenting on children.
In addition, I gave you the common sense reasons why I did not trust the researchers conclusion that said influence on children evaporated once they readh adulthood. Instead of responding with the reasons you consider said conclusion of mine to be invalid, you keep hammering on what I already told you: that I have no data to support my personal opinion.
Is a critical approach to the conclusions of a scientific research wrong? Must a reader swallow the results of a study without subjecting them to logic and common sense? This is the way science advances. Scholars question the conclusions of a study, perform their own study, and quite often invalidate the conclusions of the first study. I did provide the common sense reasons why someone should replicate this study and devise a way to control variables which were not managed properly.
I don't understand your determination to dismiss my approach to science! Methinks that you are not a real scientist, or else are purposely ignoring the rules of scientific research. Instead of rejecting outright my criticism of the study, give me something solid to chew on! Tell me why my reasoning is wrong! I gave you common sense. You responded that I have no data. Common sense is the first step in search for data in order to either confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis!
Is this blog designed for an exchange of opinions, or must every side issue be supported by scientific data? Can you tell me why expressing the reasons for rejecting or doubting certains details of a study needs to be denigrated by those who are of a different opinion. Can you counter my argument for doubting this minor detail of the study with something solid, instead of demeaning my personal opinion?
You stated the following: "You prefer to concoct an elaborate conspiracy theory rather than face the facts, and you continue to misrepresent the work of Golombok and Tasker."
Please, show me where I suggested that Golombok and Tasker did conspire to write fraudulent conclusions! Also, show me where I "continue to misrepresent" their work!
Jemand, be honest: Did I suggest that my common sense was infallible? Do you uncritically accept the conclusion of every scietific research? If you don't, then why do you choose to denigrate those who seek to advance science? Your last comments have disappointed me!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Michael,
You said:
"These are not homosexual issues unless you still believe that only homosexuals are promiscuous and only homosexuals get aids."
My answer:
These are sexual issues. Homosexual issues are rooted in sexual ones. I don't only oppose gay marriage and gay adoption. I also oppose fornication, infidelity, and adultery, which are detrimental to the best interest of children. AIDS is shared by heterosexuals, but it is more prevalent among homosexuals. The reason is quite simple, homosexual unions tend to be less stable than heterosexuals ones.
You suggested:
"The model of monogamy should be encouraged and supported for precisely the reasons you think it is dangerous."
My response:
Yes, I am for monogamy. Did I ever state that monogamy was "dangerous"? Heterosexual unions are in harmony with nature. Homosexual ones are not, but if society is determined to grant gays civil rights, then this can be done without elevating such unions on par with heterosexual marriage.
You asked:
Do you not trust homosexuals to be monogamous?
My answer:
Yes, I believe that some homosexuals can be monogamous. Nevertheless, there is less stability in gay unions. This is where children's best interest comes in!
You said:
That is not an argument. It's an unsupported guess.
My response:
Unsupported by what? Scientific data? Yes. I did not claim that it was supported by research data. I explicitly stated that it represented my own opinion, but based on common sense. This is the way science is advanced.
Some research scientist may pick on my criticims of the Golombok and Tasker conclusion and replicate their study in order to either confirm or disconfirm my common sense guess. I have lived a long life, and I have seen much research invalidated by the conclusion of other scientists.
You stated:
"if you want the reader to accept your arguments i'm guessing there are several that would like to know why you're willing to accept circular logic (homosexuality is harmful because it begets homosexuality ..."
My answer:
Evidently you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying. Homosexuality is an aberration of nature. Many gay people have admitted that they are not exactly "gay" in the original sense of the word. I interpret this to mean that they are not really satisfied with their abnormal preference for the same gender. If this is correct, then my question is:
Given the fact that the Golombok and Tasker study revealed that children raised in a gay environment tend to experiment said lifestyle more than children from heterosexual couples, then why would society encourage the spread of homosexuality? Placing children in an environment where some of them who were born with heterosexual tendencies will be tempted to experiment with homosexuality makes no sense to me.
Tell me why you are so determines to spread an absnormal lifestyle which has the tendency to make gays less happy with their sexual preferences. Why would the government create laws that would multiply aberrant and against nature sexual behavior.
This reasoning of mine is not simply "circular". It is based on logic, and it is crystal clear to me! If it is not clear to you, it might be by the fact that you have a totally different worldview from mine, in which case we are wasting precious time arguing!
You stated:
"... are not enough to justify the continued exclusion of certain groups from legal protection and a full claim to the rights provided by the government."
My answer:
When did I say that homosexuals should be deprived from legal protection? Have you been listening to me? I am not oppossed to legal protection for gays! What I am oppossed is to the elevation of legal unions to the category of marriage, which has been historically reserved for the union of heterosexuals.
If you are convinced that preference for the same gender is not abnormal, aberrant, against nature; and that it is as desirable as heterosexual behavior, then no amount of arguments on my part will disuade you from your posture.
Therefore, please, tell me how we can stop this nonsense. There is a point beyond which progress is impossible. I do not see how we can agree on this. The best we can do is probably to agree to disagree.
You ended with:
"I'm willing to continue but I don't want to just start over."
My response:
I agree! The way to accomplish this is to avoid misrepresenting the position of the opposition. If we do this, we won't need to swallow our own tail!
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
Thank you Nic. This is where we can settle on one very basic difference. Just as you suspect: I am indeed "convinced that preference for the same gender is not abnormal, aberrant, against nature."
It's as simple as that.
One minor point just to clarify what I meant (and not to add any argument) -- When I said you believe that encouraging monogamy would be dangerous I meant specifically your view of same-sex monogamy.
I do not agree with the author when she says gay marriages will have a detrimental effect on heterosexual ones. The fact that heterosexual marriages are on the decline and are problematic lie at the feet of the heterosexual individuals:- lack of marriage preparation, 'unequally yoked', lack of committment, not willing to work through issues, infedility etc. I think we need to address these issues before we have anything to say about the homosexuals.
Wow! Obviously a hot topic. (Who says sex doesn't sell?)
I don't know. I frankly don't understand this whole argument. I'm happily married, coming up on 29 years with two sons. I don't understand what two men or two women who want to live together and have their relationship acknowledged has to do with me or my marriage. Nor would I want it said that I disapproved of two people making a commitment to a loving, exclusive relationship, even if I don't understand (or approve of?) their gender choices.
"Let each be fully persuaded in their own mind." And let those who see it differently alone.
Mark
The last two messages have said it well: Why should it bother any of us as to how other people decide to live their private lives? Unless it can be shown it it destroys any heterosexual marriages; harms anyone else, shouldn't we "let every one be persuaded in his own mind" as long as no one is trying to persuade you to enter into a gay marriage? Such fear is irrational.
For Those Still Defending Gay Marriage:
You are ignoring the best interest of children. Were any of you raised in a homosexual environment? Would you have preferred to have been deprived of either a mother or a father? Are you trying to improve on what the good Lord designed for humanity? Our money says that "In God we Trust," but you seem to place your trust in the opinions of puny human beings determined to obliterate the image of God from the human race.
Divorce and family breakdown are horrible experiences and the main victims are the children. Many reports have been written showing the baleful effects of divorce on innocent children. Their school performance is adversely affected, and their future is altered for many years to come. What is the main cause of family breakdown? Up to a great degree sexual misbehavior plays a major role in this.
When a man or woman goes for marriage counselling, quite often the first question he/she is asked is: "Let us examine what is the best course of action for you and your happyness," instead of saying: "Let us analyze how may the best interest of your wife and children be served!" We are a self centered generation, ignoring the fact that our true happyness is the result of looking for the best interest of our loved ones.
This applies to homosexuals as well. If they were to ask: "How can I look for the best interest of children?" They would not insist so much on seeking to destroy the basic unit of society, the traditional family institution. If they want civil union benefits, they do not need a marriage certificate. Society can provide them with all the civil rights they truly need, short of denigrating what the good Lord has blessed.
Nic Samojluk, Editor: http://www.sdaforum.com
It's interesting to note how issues change over the years and and no longer appear on the agenda.
At one time the issue was whether men should wear beards or not; that's no longer an issue. Another issue concerned whether women should cover their heads in church or not; that's now a minor issue. At one time we debated whether women should speak in church or not; that is still ongoing but is more accepted in some parts of the globe. We are now discussing the issue of 'gayness and homosexuality' with a certainty on a subject we little comprehend. Men usually have a lot to say on women's issues and little on men's issues. Heterosexuals have a lot to say on gay issues and neglect their own issues.
Family life has changed over the years and what constitutes a family has also changed over that time. For some of us we have had positive experiences and for others it has been the opposite. Having a father and mother does not guarantee that one will have positive experience. Children need to be nurtured in a loving and safe environment. We fear that a gay couple will adopt children who will become gay; nothing could be further from the truth. Fears allow us to have hatred to toward others. But 'perfect love caseth out fear.'
In ten to twenty years who knows what we may be discussing!
Libert,
We have a double duty. We are required to love both homosexuals and also children. The best interest of children is served when they have the benefit of what God has provided for them at the beginning: a mother and a father. I think that the legal needs of gays can be provided for without destroying the marriage institution. Look at what some experts are saying regarding the harmful effects of homosexual parenting:
*********
"REASONS TO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL ADOPTION
A child raised in a homosexual home will be deprived of either a mother or a father. They need both. Social researcher David Blankenhorn, author of Fatherless America, declared that "fatherlessness is the "engine driving" social pathologies such as crime, adolescent pregnancy, child sexual abuse, and violence against women".
Research is confirming that the domestic environment most favorable to the well-being of children has both a mother and a father. Granting legal status and social support to homosexual adoption constitutes a social experiment with potentially tragic results. Children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments.
Gay adoption has deep implications because it forces a radical redefinition of marriage and family. Gay adoption denigrates the traditional role of father and mother.
The Annual Report on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Domestic Violence highlights the occurrence of domestic violence in the homosexual community. Perhaps as mush as a 33% rate. Heterosexual marriages have a domestic violence rate around 1%.
THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING ARE OBVIOUS.
Such journals as Developmental Psychology, Journal of Sex Research, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Child Psychology, and Human Development have all published articles illustrating the negative effects of homosexual parenting.
Homosexual parenting, in fact, undermines family and marriage. Why?
1) It teaches that marriage is temporary and based on sex.
2) Sexual relationships aren't based on procreation but on pleasure.
3) Monogamy isn't the norm for homosexuals.
Homosexuals also suffer increased substance abuse, mental health problems, and reduced life span, and sexual identity confusion is more common among children of homosexuals.
One study found that 29 percent of the adult children of gay parents were sexually molested - compared to less than one percent for heterosexuals."
http://www.queerattitude.com/forums/posts.php?t=2088
*********
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
The plethora of family life programs we operate is targeted for heterosexual couples to enrich their experience together. We are aware that 40 - 50% of first time marriages (heterosexuals) end in divorce. Four children die daily as a result of abuse by heterosexuals; there are over 3 million reported cases of abuse by children under 12 years of age (conservative figure). There many cases of incest. We cannot bury our heads in the sand to these abuses. These are perpertrated by heterosexuals.
I am not against the 'traditional family', I fear that 'levees' have been breeched in our homes and we need to fix these before we point the finger at the gay community.
Where are the heterosexual couples coming forward to provide a home for the many children who languish in institutions up and down the country? When we make family life rock tight not even the 'gates of hell will prevail'.
There are many things we do not understand about the gay community; there are terms that are esoteric. What is sexual orientation? Who gives birth to 'gay' individuals? Did Jesus come to die for the 'gays' as well? How should we relate to gays in the church? Do individuals 'choose' to be gay? Do others choose to be heterosexual? Why do the gay community have more mental issues?
I see the consequences of heterosexual family breakdown; the major causalties are children and wives.Children experience life situations that I have never experienced or dreamt of. My emphasis is to own up that things are not 'rosy' in the heterosexual family and we need to address the situation.
Libert,
If you have followed my Spectrum posts, you should be aware that I have spoken against divorce as well as against gay marriage. I have also condemned child abuse, fornication, and adultery. Anything that harms the family and the normal and healthy development of children should be discouraged.
The topic of this blog is homosexual marriage, and my arguments have tended to provide evidence, both from religion and experience, that same-sex marriage does not take into consideration the best interest of children. You will always find exception to the rule, but exceptions do not invalidate the good rules of behavior.
It appears that those who are against same-sex marriage believe that homosexuality is a sin. Those who are proponents of same-sex marriage believe that homosexuality is not a sin.
I could be wrong, but in my personal conversations with people I run into, very few who support same-sex marriage also believe it's a sin and those who are against same-sex marriage are rarely in favor of homosexuality.
It seems this belief has a great influence on what side of the coin one stands. Not to say there are the exceptions.
Here are some questions that I think way into this discussion. Would anyone like to answer them?
1) How should morality be decided in society?
2) Do the people decide or the government?
3) What moral code do we use since many moral codes originated or are found in some religion?
4) If a moral code is found in a religion do we then void it as applicable to society so as not to force religion on anyone?
5) Perhaps morality should not be decided collectively, what nature then should our laws take? Do we not steal because it is morally wrong or because we have collectively decided that taking goods from another is not beneficial for whatever reason? It could be argued that stealing is a religious moral and that when I take something from you I am not stealing, but merely taking what I need. I take what I need, that is what gives me the right to take from you.
In effect we have no right to make laws that enforce the religious conception of stealing on the basis that we take away someone else's right to fulfill their need.
I hear some say that we shouldn't legislate morality. How far do you want to take that?
Excellent.
That's an essential question, of course we all vote our morality, the rub lies in epistemology, means and ends.
Ryan Bell writes:
"John, the difference is categorical. Proposition 8 proposes to *take away* civil rights (as currently defined by CA law) from a minority group. Our work on housing and renter's rights is about fairness for those who are marginalized by our economic system. No one is saying that Christians are not to act out of their moral convictions. We obvious do. In fact, my opposition to Prop 8 is motivated by my moral values of fairness and justice for marginalized people.
And to one of the other objections I keep hearing, there is no objective ethical problem with two people loving one another and getting married. One person emailed and said that if we can legislate against same-sex marriage on the same grounds we legislate against murder. This is just preposterous. Same-sex marriage is like murder on some natural law level? Laws against murder are obviously in the public interest and common good. Laws against same-sex marriage are good for no one. Outlawing same-sex marriage does not protect "traditional" marriage. How could it? What protects any marriage is two people who work hard at that marriage and refuse to get divorced no matter how hard life gets. Scapegoating gays for the problems with "traditional" marriage is shameful and cowardly."
___________________
Elsewhere responding to a comparison made between liberals who say Obama's policies mimic Christ's concern for the poor and conservatives who say that we should support Prop 8 based on the Bible, I wrote:
The crux, all too briefly, is the difference between codebook vs. casebook hermeneutical approaches.
Jonah [of NRO] is right to hint that it's a matter of emphasis, but in going for a mere rhetorical jab, he misses the varieties of ways that believers draw upon their faith and moral teachings to make decisions. For anyone who you can show trying to make economic policy out of a quote of Christ, I'll show you a thousand linking to an actual doctrine, as Alan Reinach and Adventists for Prop 8 do separately.
The difference might be more clear if we look at who is pushing Prop 8. Two actual denominations are the most prominent backers. That's not wrong in itself, but that most other denominations are not picking sides, or are against it, shows the (I don't this word lightly) extreme sectarian nature of the movement. Because we live in a plural America, we have to make sure that our own public policy works outside of our church context. Experts can be wrong, but they should be shown to be within the scientific method, not just dismissed via scripture. And most biologists, psychologists and historians of sexuality don't agree that defining marriage as between a man and a women protects it - whatever the Prop 8 folks mean by that.
Consider prohibition - were Adventists wrong to support it? I think so. Both from a case-book perspective on scripture as well as from a behavioral science perspective.
Some folks made doctrine-based arguments to help pass it, others made "history/tradition" arguments about the deleterious effects of alcohol. As someone who doesn't support prohibition, I see some Biblical guidelines in scripture that remind us that "sin" or personally destructive behavior is not actually solved through more laws. In the face of someone quoting Adventist health tradition and the traditional Biblical arguments against alcohol, am I joining church and state to point out that Jesus and others drank wine or am I merely meeting folks on their own epistemological ground? I don't say that wine should be legal because Jesus drank it. That's deployed to counter the Biblical argument, I'm actually opposed to prohibition (despite our Adventist beliefs) due to the evidence that it doesn't work.
In personally believing that we should prioritize the least of these in our public policy, I'm inspired by Christ's life, but I don't use that in discussions with non-Christians. I'll just make my case that trickle down economics doesn't work in a rapidly globalizing world.
There's nothing wrong with speaking publicly from a moral stance. However, separation prohibits more code-based doctrinal understandings, this follows from our founding fathers' grounding of our constitution in the idea that laws must make primary sense outside the world of church doctrine. Unless one is going to argue that same-gender love is a greater sin than adultery or lying (an abomination) and that making laws against sin is good policy, I don't follow the logic in saying that getting government involved in defining marriage in a State (churches are free to define it as they wish for their sectarian purposes) is even on the same playing field as saying that I want policy that fits my morals as well as evidence-based economic analysis. Beyond a First Things article or two - I think that we'd find most Prop 8 supporters less open to biological, psychological and sociological analysis than I would be to our dismal scientists, who, fwiw, according to the Economist, overwhelming prefer Sen. Obama.
In regard to children and parental rights I'd like to set forth some truth amongst all the falsehood.
The issue of homosexuality can be taught in public schools without parental consent because they "do not qualify as comprehensive sexual health instruction or HIV/AIDS prevention instruction, and therefore, are not subject to the same rules that govern comprehensive sexual health and HIV/AIDS prevention instruction" (1).
Also, on page 31 of "LGBT Legal Issues for School Attorneys":
10. Can parents "opt out" of their children's participation in school programs that discuss sexual orientation and gender identity?
State law explicitly provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions” is not subject to the parental notice and opt out laws. Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. California law does not support a broad parental veto regarding the contents of public school instruction. (2)
I cannot count the number of times I have heard people say that the issue of homosexual indoctrination is a mute point because parents can opt out and it's not required.
TRUTH: Schools are not required to teach sex education. Education Code (EC) Section 51931(b) defines comprehensive sexual health education as: "Education regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, family planning, and STDs."
If schools choose to teach comprehensive sexual health education, they shall follow specific laws regarding course content and parental notification, as described below. (3)
TRUTH: While they are not required, "96 percent of California school districts provide comprehensive sexual health education." (Ibid)
That means the "96 percent" that do "provide comprehensive sexual health education" do not have to notify parents when "instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual
orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions" (4, Section 51932 B).
The fact that schools are not required to "provide comprehensive sexual health education" is irrelavent in light of the fact that "96 percent of California school districts provide comprehensive sexual health education."
If same-sex marriage remains legal after November 4th, homosexuality will be taught favorably in public schools.
Once again, voting No on Prop 8 will begin the decline of our rights. This is just one example.
1. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/
2. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:mwdDHhjtu2sJ:www.transgenderlawcent...
3. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp
4. http://www.sdcoe.net/lret2/hpe/pdf/ED%20Code%2051930-51939.pdf (Section 51932 B)
Alex:
I'm reposting the following because it was deleted along with the article it was posted under. You had asked for evidence from Canada in regard to loss of religious freedom.
__________
I have collected articles that tell stories of individuals and organizations that had their freedom of speech or religion trumped by homosexuals suing them. Dates are from the article not the case.
I. January 19, 2007 - Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural” (1)
II. May 1, 2008 - Canadian ministry Christian Horizons has been fined more than $23,000 for firing an employee who was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship.
"The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality." (2)
III. September 14, 2005 - Canadian Pastor Faces Jail Time And Fines Over Criticism Of Homosexuality.
"David Lund, a University of Calgary professor filed charges against Boission for violating the human rights act. His initial complaint was dismissed but he refiled and Boission now faces fines or jail time for his statements." (3)
Update June 10, 2008
"A Christian pastor in Canada has been fined $7,000 and told he must stop expressing his views on homosexuality in public. The ruling orders Stephen Boissoin to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” (6)
IV. June 3, 2008 - Commissioner Fined for Refusing to 'marry' Homosexuals
"The Canadian Marriage Commissioner, a Christian, referred them to another commissioner but was fined $2500."
"The tribunal ruling stated that Mr. Nichols had contravened section 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and that his refusal based on religious belief conflicted with his duties as a public officer."
"The Commission stands by its position that to allow public officials to insert their personal morality when determining who should and who should not receive the benefit of law undermines human rights in Saskatchewan beyond the issue of same-sex marriages." (5)
I didn't attempt to collect all the cases. I'd also like to include a section of Bill C-250:
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...
(7) In this section,
"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (7)
There was strong opposition to this amendment, which added sexual discrimination to the list of crimes. Proponants of the bill rejected the argument that this bill prohibited religious groups from preaching of certain texts about homosexuality on grounds that they were already protected under the amendment; however,it's up to interpretation as to what will promote hatred.
Very clever of them to "protect" the rights of religion and speech, but still give them (homosexuals) the option of defining it as hate. In other words Canadians have little if no rights on this topic.
Is it really so hard to believe that what has happened in Canada could happen here? We have already seen shadows of these things in the U.S.
"Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 or LLEHCPA), H.R. 1592 was a proposed federal bill that would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." (8)
While this doesn't necessarily prohibit freedom of religious expression on the homosexual issue, it certainly does follow in the foot steps of Cananda. Freedom of religioun is paid lip service, but as we can see in Canada it doesn't seem to have much ground. It might not be long before we see people being fined and threatened with jail for speaking out against homosexuality. It's happened in Canada. Why not here?
This is a fight for rights. Not homosexual rights, but a potential and likely loss of my rights, either in the near or distant future.
1. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07011902.html
2. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=83422
3. http://www.narth.com/docs/faces.html
4. http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28122
5. http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28122
6. http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080610/canadian-pastor-fined-and-gagg...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act
I'm acknowledging some errors in my first comment.
mute-moot
irrelavent-irrelevant
Perhaps a few others.
In that thread I replied as did at least another person, noting that Canada has a very different legal approach to free speech than the U.S. does.
For instance, the Westboro Baptist Church, the God Hates Fags folks are prohibited from even entering Canada, but are free to roam America.
http://www.godhatesfags.com
Visit their web site, they clearly are an extreme in hateful discourse and yet they can show up all over America, including military funerals. I would take the Prop 8 fearmongering a lot more seriously if these hateful folks were in prison, but the sky is falling slippery slope from Canada to us just does not apply.
This is just one example, but almost no constitutional scholars see same-sex marriage as a threat to religious discrimination.
Most of these objections have been addressed on this site in the past not to mention being available online from Christian sites that support human rights. I would encourage folks who disagree to play their own devil's advocate and look around for objections to their ideas before just posting them here.
I've got to focus on some other matters this week.
What exactly is so different about it that their situation does not serve as an example of what could potentially happen?
Citing the Westboro Baptist Church as being prohibited from Canada shows what? It shows how religious freedom on this topic is next to nill.
We haven't gone to the extreme Canada has, so of course they can roam around here all they want.
You didn't negate my basic premise: religious freedom is being undermined in a country that gives its citizens freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Our country does the same and I fail to see how Canada's "very different legal approach to free speech" is so different it doesn't apply AT ALL.
Another incident confirming parents fears about homosexuality and same-sex marriage being taught in the public schools as favorable. Far from fearmongering or hype my friends. Prop 8 hasn't even been dealt with and it's already happening.
Posted: October 22, 2008
9:34 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.
The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies."
The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.
According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.
The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."
Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar."
When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.
Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.
"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
Shane,
Way to set the bar high! If the kind of freedom you're advocating is the kind of freedom the Westboro crowd enjoys - freedom to incite fear, hatred, bigotry and injustice...
I don't even know how we can converse any more.
Jared:
I will always advocate freedom of religion and free speech. What Canada is doing is wrong, even if they have good intentions. It is suppressing freedom of speech and religion. That cannot be denied. Do you deny that is what they are doing?
You're sarcasm has not gone unnoticed. Are you insinuating that I support the Westboro group? I do not support fear, hatred of people, bigotry, or injustice.
Are you accusing me of supporting these things? On what grounds?
This is the first time you have addressed me.
I may have misread what you intended to say when you said:
Citing the Westboro Baptist Church as being prohibited from Canada shows what? It shows how religious freedom on this topic is next to nill.
It gave me the impression that you're arguing for a definition of religious freedom that includes shouting hateful, fear-inciting epithets and curses in public places, often at times of emotional trauma (e.g. funerals of those killed in war).
If you do not advocate that sort of liberty, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
If you do endorse that sort of liberty, then we are at an impasse; I don't know how we could continue to converse with such diametrically opposed views.
I do not "advocate that sort of liberty". I see now how one could make that interpretation.
Then my apologies for mistaking your intended meaning. Whew! We can go on conversing after all.
: ]
Then please do, Jared, Converse.
What do you think of Shanes point about the sacramento school district ally day ect?
Jared:
Do think the origin of homosexuality has an influence on how people react to Prop 8? Nature vs. nurture to put it simply. I see potential for this affecting ones views significantly. What do you think?
Shane, citing World Net Daily raises some issues about your epistemological assumptions.
That piece you cited is essentially a press-release from a law office. Seriously Shane, read the New Yorker, the Atlantic (moderate to conservative), not this hack site.
Doubts? I will bet you $500 that I can find 5 stories from the past week that are demonstrably false, even to someone agreed upon by both of us and biased conservative.
It's just basic facts.
Here's an article from today published by them (as part of a series on how Soy Products Make Children Gay.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
My favorite line:
"Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality."
This is intelligent critically-reflective discourse?
And you may recall that WND was the outfit that just a month or two ago was embarrassed because they have a automatic censoring program for everything that appears on their site that turns the word "gay" to homosexual. When an athlete with the last name of Gay made the news, WND called him Mr. Homosexual.
Seriously, having worked in DC and hung out that the interns for these right-wing propaganda sites, they are paid to make stuff up and spin the news. Don't cite them without checking the facts out yourself. Google-ing support for an opinion, without first checking out the facts for the citation is a low form of modern discourse.
Jared:
Thank you for the heads up about WND. I was unaware; however, the story is still real. True, I may have cited from a "hack site", but it was also reported by ABC7 news (1).
Do you believe that "[t]eaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8" is a fiction?
I haven't seen anyone address this issue. YES on Prop 8 is being called deceitful when they claim it will be taught in public schools. It will, it is, and will continue to be in greater numbers as time goes on.
1. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6467358
Alex:
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the one that responded to my comment. I thought it was Jared. I shouldn't have assumed it was him.
So my last comment is addressed to you then.
Read the title of the article and then the piece itself. Hilarious to compare the "uproar" promised with the actual reality which is about one mother.
Hmm. . .this isolated event, thrust onto the national stage by a PR-hungry firm is, wait for it. . .an accident.
>>"But the whole issue is a misunderstanding, according to school Principal Dana Levy."
Did you actually read the ABC article all the way through? Did you have any thoughts that it is a logical stretch to claim any sort of historical narrative based on this mix up anecdote?
Seriously, have some dispassionate analysis.
Notice that the GSA already exists for the middle school students and no one is forced to join that.
Seriously, you are making a big deal out of something that was an accident.
It is, NOT school policy, much less, a sign of the loss of American freedoms. Notice that the mother is completely free to ask questions.
Having attended a very conservative public high school for one year in rural WA - in which any hint of gayness among my peers was ridiculed and sometimes responded to with threats of physical violence - something tells me that GSA awareness will not sweep the nation. With any historical reflection one sees the same hyping of very contextual stories on other social changes (often mistakes like this) which turn into BIG DEALS for political, especially fundraising, purposes.
Note the ending of the exact same article you posted, shows evidence of the same kind of irrational fearmongering by the exact same person:
>>But Voelker is now worried about another event listed on Miller's newsletter. On Nov. 20, the class is scheduled to have a "gender-bender read aloud - Jane and the Beanstalk."
OMG: but it's so traditional to have men the center of most fairy tales. . .
Let's be frank here, kids flip stories all the time, a mother that's also worried about this is probably reading too much into the mix up.
Michael,
What's an ally day ect? (That is to say, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for my comments on.)
Shane,
Since the issue at stake in Prop 8 is using secular law to impose a religious viewpoint on a religious minority, I'm not convinced that the nature / nurture argument has much (if any) bearing on how one votes. In fact, I know people who come out on both sides of the nature / nurture divide who will vote "No" on Prop 8 because it mandates a patently religious view on the public, which is unconscionable and I would say un-Adventist when Adventist history is taken into account.
Jared
I was referencing the news artical Shane posted. One from World Net Daily the other by ABC.
ALex.
You say, "Hilarious to compare the "uproar" promised with the actual reality which is about one mother."
Is your point that if only 1 mother objects its OK? Or are you demonstrating your ability to create straw men?
You further state," Hmm. . .this isolated event, thrust onto the national stage by a PR-hungry firm is, wait for it. . .an accident.
>>"But the whole issue is a misunderstanding, according to school Principal Dana Levy."
Did you actually read the ABC article all the way through? Did you have any thoughts that it is a logical stretch to claim any sort of historical narrative based on this mix up anecdote?
Seriously, have some dispassionate analysis."
I would suggest the same for you. The historical narritive in this artical was that a year prior this teacher did the same thing. Also it was a different parent that notified Levy that it happened before and that it happened without any parental notification.
If you wish to further the dicussion it would be better to make your comments pertain to the real issue rather than, who reported it and the idea that only 1 mother complained.
The fat is you dont know how many complained. The only thing you know is this one mothers complaints made the news.
Someone above addressed Tom about a gay uncle. Be assured it was not this Tom. All of my uncles on both sides of the family were very active heterosexuals. Some more so than others. Be assured that none were celebate or gay. Tom
Michael, the story as reported is about one mother.
There might be others, but the story as reported is about one mother.
You can guess about all kinds of things, but absence of evidence does not prove a positive.
The only additional bit in the story is a sort of recollection by another parent about a something in a movie a year ago - hardly a parental uprising and journalists love this stuff so if there was more (always important to get corroboration quotes and keep a story going, but nothing, after almost a week.
The absolute worst possible reading of this is that this is an activist rogue teacher, but clearly this kindergarten mistake is not school policy or district policy or state policy.
In teaching this in a media class, I'd have my students read both the WND and ABC report. It's telling to compare how what Shane posted first artfully twists the ABC story.
First, here's the actual ABC story:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6467358
>>But Voelker is now worried about another event listed on Miller's newsletter. On Nov. 20, the class is scheduled to have a "gender-bender read aloud - Jane and the Beanstalk."
Now here's the WND story which is essentially copied directly from this press release (same structure and key words, if a student turned this in, I'd flunk 'em):
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
>>The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."
http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR08102...
>>Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."
Having seen this happen a lot in right-wing activist circles, it's clear to me that Pacific Justice Institute sensationalized the ABC story and fed it to their fellow far-right wing media arm at the WND who moved around the syntax, used a thesaurus and put in a quote from the very people who sent over the press release.
And none of this justifies the sensationalist and very misleading headline from the org:
"Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to California Elementary Schools
Hardly. The evidence shows that at most it's one classroom in one school in all of California and that it was a mistake.
Now look at all the right-wing site now hyping this to various degree and even adding in their own spins.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=%22Faith+Ringgold+School...
I should not escape the careful and critical read that several of these sites are the vary ones that Shane as cited on the slippery slope from Canada into the U.S.
_________
Shane and Michael, if we are going to continue this conversation, I need to know if you agree that this WND story is epistemologically troublingly close to a PR document by an activist organization and that the Pacific Justice Institute seems to not share significant information beyond the ABC story and, additionally, employs imprecise language that hypes the danger beyond the facts thus far known in this case.
What can we agree on?
Alex:
I see no reason to debate where the WND story came from. Verbiage hyped or not, this does not negate the point I was attempting to make: that homosexuality is being presented in public schools as favorable.
True, the incident was one classroom. One documented classroom. I'd like to refer you to another article by CBS5 that seems to shed more light on the incident (1).
Here are some facts from the article:
1. "...a kindergarten teacher asked her pupils to sign pledge cards promising not to use anti-gay slurs."
While I never support people making slurs toward anyone, this still doesn't negate that homosexuality was being presented. I'm knocking the teachers efforts to teach students not use slurs, call people names, etc.
2. The cards were "[p]roduced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the cards were given to the children as part of Faith Ringgold elementary's commemoration of National Ally Week, an event sponsored by the network and designed to discourage harassment of gay teenagers."
3. The pledge read: "I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression," read the pledges. "As an ally, I pledge to not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs."
I will not deny that it's a good thing to teach kids that it's inappropriate to gay bash; however, a better approach would be to make this type of instruction all inclusive and not just centered on homosexuality.
4. "Joyner told The (Hayward) Daily Review that the pledge cards given the kindergartners were meant for students in middle school and beyond. The district plans to review materials used for National Ally Week more carefully in the future, she said."
Now, despite the good intentions of the school and the teacher, the fact still remains that sexual orientation was presented. It presented homosexuality in a favorable light.
Yes, it's one little ol' classroom, but it still stands as an example of what will become more prevalent in our public schools. The issue about it being a mistake is irrelevant, because it was going to be presented anyway. The mistake was that it was presented to an age group that was younger than what the curriculum was intended.
1. http://cbs5.com/education/gay.marriage.schools.2.851074.html
So, you're standing by your original source as reliable? I'm just trying to understand where your standards for fact and good reportage lie.
Now you're using the word "favorable" quite loosely.
Learning to treat all humans, including LGBT-identifying students, without fear/hate/ignorance-based slurs in public schools is part of the whole attempt to protect basic human dignity and reduce the high rates of suicide and dropouts by minorities. This is just like efforts to reduce ethnic ridicule, which will happen for African-Americans during February.
What are you saying, that this is bad?
Teaching kids not to call anxiety prone students 'fags' is more neutral than favorable - although, much of that is going to be more interpretation by teachers and parents.
The way you also use favorable strikes very close to the nutty right-wing, science-absent fear that talking about the reality of LGBT identity will gay-ify kids. It's as ridiculous, as thinking that you're straight because you choose it.
As several gay pastor friends of mine have joking said: do they really think that as a teen I decided to be beat up and excluded by family and lose friends and actually have less love and sex than the average high schooler because I heard that gay people exist in the 8th grade?
If you walked into a classroom and you observed a student bullying a gay student, calling him or her a faggot, would you intervene and protect the gay student?
Would you then be portraying gay identity as favorable? That's all that this is about.
The AP story confirms that the kindergarten thing was an accident. The cards discouraging slurs have been a part of middle school GSA weeks for years.
Check out the student-run site here.
Warning, real gay young people, not media or right-wing scary-o-types!
http://www.allyweek.org/about/index.cfm
Here's the pledge:
1. Not use anti-LGBT language and slurs;
2. Intervene, if I safely can, in situations where other students are being harassed;
3. Support efforts to end bullying and harassment.
Would you sign that? WWJD?
"It's one little ol' classroom, but it still stands as an example of what will become more prevalent in our public schools."
On swallow does not make a summer.
And the point is that this will become prevalent in public schools? Since this incident, what evidence is there to prove such an assertion?
Alex:
You keep referring to the WND story. Aside from WND, I have given you to other sources. All three give similar stories. It sounds as if you're trying to debate whether this even happened or not.
>What are you saying, that this is bad?
No. I support teaching kids to treat all people equally and with respect. No one should be bullying, violent or harassing anyone. I think a better approach would be to teach kids to be allies of humanity. By drawing attention to homosexuality, students are being taught that the homosexual lifestyle should have some degree of acceptance. I can respect and love the individual and treat them with the equality that I give everyone, but I do not have to nor should I be taught by the public school to be an ally of a lifestyle I believe is a sin.
>If you walked into a classroom and you observed a student bullying a gay student, calling him or her a faggot, would you intervene and protect the gay student?
Yes. I do not tolerate those words being used at all in my classroom. My object in teaching students not to use language like that is not to promote homosexuality, but an attitude they should have toward all people.
I applaud what is allegedly GLSEN's intention of creating a safe environment where LGBT students don't have to be bullied or harassed.
Through this perhaps well intentioned push, GLSEN is also introducing the idea that LGBT is "healthy and normal" (1). I assume this is because GLSEN assumes one must think LGBT is "healthy and normal" in order to thwart bullying and harassment.
This is more about "lesson plans used to expose students to homosexual ideals" (2). They teach through their literature that "we are all responsible for eradicating heterosexism" (1). Look at the name "Ally Week". The connotations of the name itself lend itself to the idea of accepting homosexuality as "healthy and normal".
Teach love, respect, and acceptance of all people. Do not teach students to be allies of something they may not agree with--homosexuality.
1. http://www.allyweek.org/studentseducators/WhatDoWeReallyThink_exercise.p...
2. http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10830678?source=most_emailed
Alex
You are unfortunately hung up on the one website or source origionally mentioned. You have failed to actually respond to the real issue which was also reported by ABC.
You try and stain the issue by association.
You are hung up about one woman but you poo poo the account for the 2nd parent who told of an earlier incident.
Two events a year apart speak to a pattern and practice with this teacher. Of course the pricipal disapproved, it was not even for kindergardeners.
How does anyone claim it is a mistake? It happened 2 years in a row. Even if it was, had no one complained it would still be going on and a violation of parental consent.
Your arguements for reliable sources and if teaching Gay awareness techniques to children is bad or not is comepletely off the mark and a deflection of the core issues which you have not addressed.
This is all about activist teachers/people discussing sensitive/contraversial issues without parental approval.
As to this quote of yours.
"The way you also use favorable strikes very close to the nutty right-wing, science-absent fear that talking about the reality of LGBT identity will gay-ify kids. It's as ridiculous, as thinking that you're straight because you choose it."
Do you choose to discount published evidence that what you believe is untrue or do you just not know? Perhaps you should research the issue of what gays choose because it sounds like nutty left-wing fear about the reality of LGBT identity.
Take Melissa Etheridge and her former lover Julie Cypher who was at the time of their meeting, married to actor Lou Diamond Phillips. She married Phillips in 1986. In 1988, Cypher met Etheridge while directing the music video for the song Bring Me Some Water and split with Phillips in 1990 to embark on a relationship with Etheridge
Julie Cypher had two children with Etheridge through artificial insemination using sperm donation from rock legend David Crosby.
In September 2000, she and Etheridge split. It soon came to light that Cypher had begun to question her sexuality. She discovered she wasnt gay anymore.
Cypher married Matthew Hale in 2004.
What? Gay no more? This is only 1 example of many that contradict your constant drumbeat of "you dont choose to be gay." which is demonstrably false.
You choose to paint all GBLT people as totally out of the same cloth which is totally wrong. There are a significant percentage of Gays who are indeed influenced by things other than genetic abnormalities.
Sure, I recognize that gender identity and gender attraction is actually a continuum, influenced by a mix of factors. Sure there are anecdotes, actually more than your People-magazine-esque reference, but the overwhelming evidence is that the overwhelming number of people don't choose their place and movement on the gender continuum. Remember that sexual identity is more than an act.
Pardon me, but I do evaluate sources and a person's critical thinking abilities by how they evaluate sources as well. Given the politician-esque dodges I see above (remember I'm not the person who brought up the story and shared the terrible articles) until you take some personal responsibility for the evidence above I remain dubious as to our shared epistemological foundation.
A mistake and a vague memory a year apart do not make a pattern make. Period.
Particularly in the context of this being sold to the public by the Protect Marriage spokesperson to the AP, note the politicization and hype below, given the facts in the ABC story.
>>Protect Marriage, the coalition of social and religious conservative groups sponsoring Proposition 8, offered the episode at Faith Ringgold Elementary School in Hayward as proof for its claim that the measure is needed to prevent public schools from discussing gay unions with students.
"Since the words 'between a man and a woman' have been taken out of the California laws, it has created a can opener for gay activists to take this kind of curriculum into our elementary schools—not 9th grade, not 12th grade, but kindergarten," said campaign spokeswoman Sonya Eddings Brown.
There is no evidence that Prop 8 had anything to do with the mistake that happened in one school. THIS IS A CLASSIC LOGICAL FALLACY called post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up.
Note that the Prop 8 supporters are using an unconnected mistake (and a memory from a year ago which has not connection to Prop 8) to hype fear among the California voters on something that won't really have anything to do with anything mentioned in the news stories. Follow the logic back. Will passing Prop 8 keep a mistake this this from happening? Will straights and gays be less likely to ally on issues of human rights in their own schools? But that doesn't keep the Prop 8 spokesperson from saying that this is proof, while actually invoking a logical fallacy.
That's what this is about, creating a frame of fright, of radical scary change and then feeding it with any sort of random evidence that they can twist into it. People get paid a lot of money to know how to manipulate the media into these sorts of political narratives but when one follows the pattern, and goes back to the original source, it's pretty clear what's happening.
PJI, WND and the Protect Marriage are all part of the same coalition - you're being manipulated by your own ideological partners. Doubt me? Go back and read their articles - it's even more fun with a good critical thinking book on hand.
Michael:
Why not just stop and laugh? Isn't it funny, being lectured on critical thinking by a Spectrumite liberal? One of them actually advised Shane to abandon WND in favor of Atlantic and New Yorker, like advising an alcholic to change up to a more expensive brand of Scotch.
(I'll refrain from making a list of propagandistic falsehood regularly promoted by slick "opinion" magazines of all kinds, but they make "soy is feminizing" look like a shining light of reason.)
But if you do laugh you'll need a thick skin. The rules here are that they can insult us all they want, but we can't even chuckle at them. Example: Alex, in his pro-Prop 8 comments, calls me an unChristian homophobe (his word), not because I disagree with his conclusion (I've not stated my position on Prop 8), but merely because I make gentle fun of his slippery arguments.
Alex:
Are you denying that homosexuality or same-sex marriage are not or will not be taught in public schools?
This is the crux of my argument: that it is taught (in some schools) and will be taught.
Do you disagree with this?
"Why not just stop and laugh? Isn't it funny, being lectured on critical thinking by a Spectrumite liberal?"
Look, Clifford or Settembrini or whoever you are, this business of mockery and name-calling is getting sort of ridiculous.
If you don't appreciate being described as homophobic, rise above it. Responding by piling on labels that you intend to be derisive certainly does not rebut anybody's arguments. It's what children on the playground do when they run out of intelligent things to say. You're certainly better than that.
When is the last time you made a substantive contribution to the conversations here that did not involve derision or resort to calling someone "stupidhead"?
Taking cheap shots from behind the façade of a 19th Century anti-government quasi-intellectual Italian guy will not bring credibility; responding with reason and well-articulated facts might.
Ernest followers of Christ will be voting 'yes' and 'no' on Prop. 8- some denominations would like their members to agitate on this issue, from the U.C.C. to L.D.S., but Seventh-day Adventism, I think, would do well to sit this out, officially.
The comments by Pacific Union President Ricardo Graham are excellent as is the suggestion that members reflect on this issue and Adventist values by reading church statements and scripture.
I am persuaded by the notion that I'm not voting on marriage as a religious issue in a church but rather a 'yes' vote would see us as citizens deciding whether or not we should remove what has been found to be a constitutionally-guaranteed right from a minority group.
settembrini, you can't even get my position on Prop 8 correct. Something tells me that you're not familiar with the thoughtful conservatives at the Atlantic or the much-vaunted fact-checking department at the New Yorker. Contra your misleading statement, I never addressed you specifically in that way. Just so you know, Spectrum is not a place where we "refrain" from evidence.
Shane, taught, as in discussed: Yes. Taught as in influencing students to be gay, ala the wacky fear of the right: No.
"Note that the Prop 8 supporters are using an unconnected mistake (and a memory from a year ago which has not connection to Prop 8) to hype fear among the California voters on something that won't really have anything to do with anything mentioned in the news stories. Follow the logic back. Will passing Prop 8 keep a mistake this this from happening? Will straights and gays be less likely to ally on issues of human rights in their own schools? But that doesn't keep the Prop 8 spokesperson from saying that this is proof, while actually invoking a logical fallacy."
Posted by: Alexander Carpenter | 30 October 2008 at 5:36
What is with your inability to discuss the fact that activist teachers are doing things without parental concent?
You jump all over prop8 but Shane only brought this case up to show this type of stuff is on the increase PRIOR to prop8.
You jump all over other media for making their case in their own outlets but you do the same thing. Grow up. I appreciate the passion of youth but not the sanctimonious ideology.
"I am persuaded by the notion that I'm not voting on marriage as a religious issue in a church but rather a 'yes' vote would see us as citizens deciding whether or not we should remove what has been found to be a constitutionally-guaranteed right from a minority group."
There is the key; a found right! No one found that right until a couple years ago and then the finders were a bare majority of a 7 member court decision a 4-3 decision. Is that really how constitutions were meant to work, wait a hundred years until some judge finds a hidden right in a constitution? Is that really how we want government to work? Apparently it is for some people.
Hey Jared:
Apparently you are not concerned about the humorless "we're on Jesus' side, the rest of you are depraved" tone of the so many of your frequent contributors, and it's deadly effect on the discussions here. I didn't hear you scold Alex for his insults, so I conclude that you approve name-calling as long as it comes from your side of the debate. (Notice Alex's defence: he called somebody a homophobe but didn't mean specifically me. That's a defence? How is that not laughable?
"When is the last time you made a substantive contribution..." you ask? I don't keep track, but many people make non-scolding responses to my postings. (See the current piece on the Catholic festival, for example). It may be that some of the bloggers who honor me with apposite responses are too "average" in their Adventism to have any standing with you. I'm quite aware that I come from the wrong side of the Spectrum tracks.
By the way, what was that you said about "rise above it"? Was that only for me?
Hey Alex:
Forgive me for thinking you included me among your homophobes. The posting that made me think that has been deleted, but I did read your insult several times and felt sure you included me. But if not, I accept your explanation. You probably didn't mean to say I'm unChristian either.
Cheers
" Is that really how constitutions were meant to work, wait a hundred years until some judge finds a hidden right in a constitution? Is that really how we want government to work?"
Well, it has been the pattern for the U.S. Supremes hasn't it? If you have a problem with less than a 9-0 decision, you might wait a long time. Many former decisions were overthrown by only one vote. That happens to be the way things work, even in a democracy--where there is rarely, if ever, a 100% vote on any proposition.
If the California Supreme Court is modeled after the U.S., their proper role is to "interpret" the constitution, and in so doing, many former decisions have been changed, and may do so in the future.
BTW, isn't the only way this California Supreme Court ruling can be overturned is through another constitutional amendment? Or only a majority vote of the people?
Alex:
>"...taught, as in discussed: Yes. Taught as in influencing students to be gay, ala the wacky fear of the right: No."
I think we can both agree on this point. I would expand "discussed" to mean that same-sex marriage or homosexuality will be discussed in a favorable light, as in "healthy and normal".
And it is that last part that I take issue with. I'm against any indoctrination of the youth through the public school system that homosexuality is anything more than any other sinful act.
If I were a parent, I would want to be notified if such teachings were happening at the school my kids attended, but under CA Ed Code I legally don't have to be notifed when sexual orientation is being discussed.
Hi again Alex:
I owe you another apology. I did indeed misrepresent your position on Prop 8. I wrote that you were pro-Prop 8, when I meant pro-NO on Prop 8. An unforgivable error, when your position is so obvious.
Or have I got it wrong again? Please straighten me out if I have.
BTW, isn't the only way this California Supreme Court ruling can be overturned is through another constitutional amendment? Or only a majority vote of the people?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 30 October 2008 at 8:31
Props become the law by vote and voice of the people. The courts then enforce that law. A California Supreme Court ruling is a ruling on the interpitation of existing law. If they interpit in a way contrary to the voice of the people an additional prop can tighten or clarify their interpitation so it is more in line with the citizenry.
In case these comments have not been posted yet, here are the official statements by the California Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, who wrote the majority opinion:
"In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be intrpreted to guarantee this baic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain.
The California Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision, which was like the same-sex case, a 4-3 decision. It was not until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit. (Which should be a reminder that California is often a pace-setter.)
Of interest: Six of the seven justices on the California court, including all the dissenters, were appointed by Republican governors; and the present governor is opposed to a constitutional amendment that would overrule the court's decision.
Again, quoting Chief Justice George:
"The right to marry, represents the right of an individual to establish a legally rcognized family with a person of one's choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual." He also added, "Tradition alone, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were sanctioned by the state for many years." (This current ruling
drew rationales from the interracial marriage decision of 1948.)
The Chief Judge also took pains to reassure that there were limits of this ruling. It does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-sex marriages; nor does it "affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives."
The last paragraph is intended to quell the previous "worries" over possible polygamous or incestuous marriages, or infringment of clerical and religious institutions.
We're talking about issues that we're invested in emotionally and in a lot of other ways. Proposition 8 is an issue that I care a great deal about, but I think I have let my emotional investment get the better of me. Perhaps we all have at times.
I think that Johnny spoke most clearly and lucidly of all of us when he noted that earnest followers of Christ will come out on both sides of this issue. That's a very important point that I'm taking to heart.
I'm also pushing my chair back from the table to take a breather from this conversation for this reason:
Whatever happens on November 4 and afterward, we still have to go on living together as a community. I am convinced that there are more important things that we share in common than our differences of opinion on matters like same-gender marriage.
I don't say that in an attempt to stop conversation, rather I say it because at this point, I think I have said all that I can say, I've heard about all I can hear, and after I cast my vote on the 4th, I want to come back to the table and keep talking with you all in this community we have going here.
I apologize for speaking at times more emotionally than intelligently. I look forward to many more productive and community-building conversations.
(And so saying, I extend my hand)
-Jared
"BTW, isn't the only way this California Supreme Court ruling can be overturned is through another constitutional amendment? Or only a majority vote of the people?"
Actually Elaine if courts make the laws then it matters little what the constitution or amendments say at all. Only thing that matters is what an activist court reads into the constitution and amendments.
it is kind of funny to hear them cite the 1948 decision on interracial marriage which was clearly based upon one man and one women, so it is is probably as much a precedent against the courts position as it is for the court's decision. But of course even there there were federal constitutional amendments dealing with race and they were not finding some hitherto hidden right.
Whether it was a "hidden right" or not, the facts were, that until the 1948 ruling in California and U.S. ruling in 1967, they were "rights" not previously seen for interracial marriage.
What about the "equal rights" ruling on education (formerly called "separate but equal")?
Also, in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy was the key, which, had not been viewed similarly before. "The times they are a'changing."
What about the equal "rights" for women to vote?
It seems as rather "quaint" today, but the women who fought for that right spent time in jail and were treated very cruelly.
History shows that people must fight for rights as they are not usually handed them on a silver platter.
Shane,
Thank you for sharing with the Spectrum readers the information you posted on 28 October 2008 at 6:30 as evidence of what will likely happen in California in the event Proposition fails to pass in the November election. I am taking the liberty of inserting here a portion of said valuable information:
*********
“I'm reposting the following because it was deleted along with the article it was posted under. You had asked for evidence from Canada in regard to loss of religious freedom.
__________
I have collected articles that tell stories of individuals and organizations that had their freedom of speech or religion trumped by homosexuals suing them. Dates are from the article not the case.
I. January 19, 2007 - Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural” (1)
II. May 1, 2008 - Canadian ministry Christian Horizons has been fined more than $23,000 for firing an employee who was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship.
"The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality." (2)
III. September 14, 2005 - Canadian Pastor Faces Jail Time And Fines Over Criticism Of Homosexuality.
"David Lund, a University of Calgary professor filed charges against Boission for violating the human rights act. His initial complaint was dismissed but he refiled and Boission now faces fines or jail time for his statements." (3)
Update June 10, 2008
"A Christian pastor in Canada has been fined $7,000 and told he must stop expressing his views on homosexuality in public. The ruling orders Stephen Boissoin to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” (6)
IV. June 3, 2008 - Commissioner Fined for Refusing to 'marry' Homosexuals
"The Canadian Marriage Commissioner, a Christian, referred them to another commissioner but was fined $2500."
"The tribunal ruling stated that Mr. Nichols had contravened section 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and that his refusal based on religious belief conflicted with his duties as a public officer."
"The Commission stands by its position that to allow public officials to insert their personal morality when determining who should and who should not receive the benefit of law undermines human rights in Saskatchewan beyond the issue of same-sex marriages." (5)
I didn't attempt to collect all the cases.”
*********
I have the suspicion that, if Jesus were confronted with this issue today, he would probably state the following about homosexuality: “In the beginning it was not so.” Both nature and God’s revelation testify to the fact that marriage should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The evidence for this is in our official documents, in our monuments, and in our money. The trouble is that the enemy is slowly erasing from our hearts what is stated on our coins: “In God we trust.”
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
To Shane Hilde Re: 30 October 2008 at 8:34
Samantha is 6 years old. She lives in Texas. Her parents divorced when she was 3 years old after 8 years of marriage. Her mommy is now openly lesbian and has her partner living with them in their home. Samantha goes to public school. She sits next to her best friends Timmy and Mary. She talks about her mommies at recess. Samantha draws pictures of her family, including their pet turtle, alongside her classmates during Art Time.
Do you want Samantha to be taught that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy or abnormal? Or do you want the issue silenced?
Do you want Samantha and her class to be taught that a homosexual lifestyle is bad/sin, like stealing or hitting?
In your world, how will Samantha feel about herself and deal with the confusion and pain of being told her mommies are bad?
Or, if in your world parents were informed ahead of time what sexual issues would be brought up, and Samantha was not in class that day, do you think her classmates would not open their 6 year old mouths?
I doubt a 6 year old would keep this home life a secret, so this means not only will Timmy and Mary know who is raising Samantha, and who bought her the new bicycle, but Samantha's entire class.
I do not understand your world, Shane, where American children, raised by diverse families with diverse beliefs can come together to learn that their loving mommies are abnormal and unhealthy.
Or make it 13 year olds.
Heather:
>Do you want Samantha to be taught that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy or abnormal? Or do you want the issue silenced?
Teaching kids to treat others with kindness, respect, and love is what I'd like to see taught. I see no necessity for homosexuality to be taught in public schools. There is a lot of controversy over whether it should be taught; I can only imagine what there would be if it were taught as unhealthy or abnormal.
>Do you want Samantha and her class to be taught that a homosexual lifestyle is bad/sin, like stealing or hitting?
I think she should know, but I don't think the public school should be teaching her that. There are sins that we can commit that directly affect others, such as stealing, killing, etc. Homosexuality, unless forced on someone else (rape), is a sin that does not directly affect his neighbor.
This is why I believe the laws dealing with morality should not ban every sin. I think we should only have laws of morality that deal with our relationship to each other.
Alexander,
I agree with the statement you made on 28 October 2008 at 7:03 suggesting that “Canada has a very different legal approach to free speech;” nevertheless, I hope you will agree with me that Canadians share with us their human nature. What happened there, will take place in California. I could bet all my meager assets on that.
Jared,
You raised a valid argument on 29 October 2008 at 10:49: suggesting that it was improper for the majority “to impose a religious viewpoint on a religious minority.” The problem is that this minority are determined to force the majority to think that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle, when it has never been, it is not now, and it will never be, even if we pretend that it is normal. Pretending that the Emperor is clothed when in fact he is totally naked will not make it so.
Settembrini,
Your posting dated on 30 October 2008 at 8:09 is probably in error. You and someone else—I forgot who—got the impression that you were alluded to as “homophobic.” I think this cannot be the case, since I had the idea that it was I who had been described in such manner! I doubt that Jared would think that everybody who disagrees with him on this issue is affected by the homophobic bug!
Elaine,
I read your comments dated on 30 October 2008 at 9:11, and I have a question for you: How can same sex marriage be a fundamental right if it was created out of thin air by four liberal minded judges who think that they can outlaw the will of the majority? The job of creating new laws is the prerogative of the Legislature—not the unelected members of the Supreme Court.
Rc,
On 31 October 2008 at 12:35 you hit the nail on the head when you stated the following: “if courts make the laws then it matters little what the constitution or amendments say at all. Only thing that matters is what an activist court reads into the constitution and amendments.”
Elaine,
Regarding your comments dated 31 October 2008 at 2:34, I have some news for you: In Roe v. Wade, women’s alleged right to murder their own unborn children had not been “viewed similarly before” for the simple reason that said alleged right was never there, it is not there, and it will never be there; unless the U.S. Constitution is formally amended to reflect that new atrocious right.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Shane,
I only get a sense of what wouldn't be allowed in your world. I want to understand what would happen when kids ask those wild questions to see their teachers squirm, or when little kids blurt out innocent questions.
Do you see any need for heterosexuality to be taught in public schools? Or should, as much as possible, discussions of sex remain gender neutral?
Are you suggesting that teachers who are asked a question about same-sex marriage/lifestyles should refuse to answer? What is your neutral stock PR piece that a kindergarten teacher could use? (I can think of about 20 questions at the moment that a 6 year old could blurt out, and 80 more if given a few more minutes.)
Create a stock PR piece that would not hurt Samantha.
What about when 8th graders are taught about sexual issues in science class, what line would you like the teacher to give the class after being asked a challenging question?
Good points Heather,
How about what we hear expoused here?
Research has shown that there are differences some people have that causes them to be attracted to other mommies.
How about the truth as well?
A little less than 2% of all people have this condition.
and the rest can be sunshine......
Michael,
What does expouse mean?
Can you tell me directly what condition 2% of people have and cite the research?
Thank you.
Heather
es·pouse (-spouz)
tr.v. es·poused, es·pous·ing, es·pous·es
1.
a. To take in marriage; marry.
b. To give (a woman) in marriage.
2. To give one's loyalty or support to (a cause, for example); adopt.
Just google ratio of homosexual to heterosexual.
The ones I found with only a very short search used a number around 2% of population.
If you are interested in a very abreviated summary on the research you might start here and then get more specific if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
If you do make an in depth search be sure to include the study of Bearman and Bruckner
The part I found most interesting in that study is when they,
"....analyzed data from a large longitudinal study of adolescents. They found the data did not support genetic influence:
“ Among [identical] twins, 6.7% are concordant [that is, both express same-sex romantic attraction]. [Fraternal] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5% concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between [identical] twins and others ... are even remotely significant. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.[6] ”
Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."
here is a link to the Bearman and Bruckner study. This work was published in the American Journal of Sociology (Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002) Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology 107, 1179–1205.) and is available only to subscribers.
But one can find a PDF of it at Columbia University. Bearman and Bruckner are from Yale and Columbia respectively.
http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/research/working_papers/downloads/2001_04....
Heather:
Do you see any need for heterosexuality to be taught in public schools?
The public school I teach at now does not have a comprehensive sex education program; however, it does have "Health and Safty". The issue of marriage is not addressed to my knowledge, only human sexuality in regard to reproduction.
I do not see a need to teach heterosexuality in a public school.
Or should, as much as possible, discussions of sex remain gender neutral?
This is a very touchy subject and might need to be addressed like the issues of religion. I can't teach my beliefs to kids, but if asked I can give a brief answer. I think that might be the way to go with issues of sexual orientation.
Are you suggesting that teachers who are asked a question about same-sex marriage/lifestyles should refuse to answer?
No. Teachers will answer according to their own convictions in the manner that is outlined for sharing their own religious views on any topic. If that is not an option, then it should not be addressed at all. If that were the case, than teachers should always refer their student to their parent(s). Otherwise, according to state law, teachers are allowed to briefly state their opinion, but not to teach their opinion.
We've talked about Prop 8 at length in my senior classes. They know my personal views because they ask, but I don't preach to them on the issue.
I think it's ironic that we're discussing how homosexuality should be addressed in the classroom when originally it was being claimed that it would or is not being taught in schools.
This whole controversy about homosexuality and same-sex marriage being taught in the classroom has been put to rest. I think most of us see that.
Michael,
Your two sources (wiki article and Bearman and Bruckner 2002) are not good friends.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation > Empirical Studies > Conclusions:
"Counter-studies such as Bearman and Bruckner (2002) are also subject to critique, because of their reliance on self-reports from adolescents (ie. between 7th and 12th grade), who have not reached sexual maturity."
You're making this too easy for me.
My questions: What points are you making saying that a small percentage of people are practicing homosexual lifestyles and that there are different reasons they do so?
If I were writing a badly needed Sex/Health Education textbook for junior high students, I would definitely report the research showing what percentage of the population is practicing homosexual lifestyles and the various reasons research has shown for them to do so. I would not rely on Bearman and Bruckner 2002, but I would include "Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources", Dan Black, Gary Gates, Seth Sanders, Lowell Taylor, Demography, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May, 2000), pp. 139-154.
I thought you were asking what to tell a kindergardener named Samantha.
All studies are open to critque. So what. Thats why I gave you the Wiki reference because it told about many theories and gave refrences to some studies each theory refrences.
What is so easy for you? Are you proving some undisclosed hypothosis?
The point is as you have stated.
A small percentage of people have a condition where they are attracted to people of the same gender. The debate and research is still out on the details of why this happens. Those are the facts and can be discribed in a way a kindergardener can understand.
As to junior high kids. They are not into scientific research studies nor will they be convinced by one study over another.
A sex education heath textbook should remain what it is, a operators manual for male female procreation, sexually transmitted diseases and for the reasons abstinance is the best course until mentally/emotionally/financially ready for the responsibilities a baby brings whether planned or unplanned.
If you feel the need for including what is specifically recreational sex whether it be hetero or homo, would you include all recreational forms as too? Beastiality? Necrophilia?
Why or why not?
If not, why the special exemption for homosexuality?
PS. the weight of the Bruckner Bearman study is that it seeks to find the answers to genetic factors.
By removing variables other studies cant account for, they are able to track the genetic occurances of homosexuality through the genetic similarities or dissimilarities of identical and fraternal twins.
By doing so you can rule out environmental factors, certain social factors and isolate the genetic factors. This is only possible because each set of twins grew up in the same environment. This type of control sample is practically impossible with any other type of study.
Also you should note that they will be able to track these twins into their adult lives and see what the results will be.
In the end, this ability will remove the reservations you mention in the Wiki conclusions.
While certain genetic factors have proved to have statistically higher chances of resulting in same sex attraction, their work showed that societal factors played the largest part in same gender attraction.
Shane,
I do not think it is ironic to discuss homosexuality being included in school curricula. Voting for or against Prop 8 is not going to change the fact that same-sex residents of California, in a legally recognized committed relationship, can attain some rights shared by different-sex married persons. Prop 8 is addressing the term "marriage."
I am seriously frightened by the lack of Sex/Health Ed required in our public schools. What better way to increase the spread of STIs among young people?
I am happy to hear you can not preach to your students your religious beliefs.
I do not see the concept that there are adults who choose to enter homosexual relationships as religious. I see it as an issue relating to sociology and health science. Oh, and history, literature, government, and psychology.
You provided a good stock PR piece for the kids, regarding hot topics in class: "Ask your parents." And it even works for the inevitable follow-up question kids give: "Why?"
I think that is a good answer, but I still do not see homosexuality as a religious issue.
My question: If agnostics practice homosexuality, are they being religious or anti-religious or still riding that fence of indecision?
Michael,
I disagree with you that junior high kids are not interested in scientific research. An enthusiastic and challenging teacher can bring a lot to a classroom. :)
Maybe our beliefs of what a public school Sex/Health Ed textbook should include are diametrically opposed. I believe in teaching about condoms and birth control. I agree abstinence should be taught as the only 100% safe method, but the lesson does not need to end there.
Yes, I believe recreational sex should be addressed in Sex/Health Ed class because it can invite the spread of serious infections (STIs).
No, I do not believe it is necessary to include beastiality or necrophilia in public school Sex/Health Ed class. Why? I think that can wait to be addressed in college level textbooks.
Why the special exemption for homosexuality? Sex between two consenting adults is the topic.
Heather:
>I am seriously frightened by the lack of Sex/Health Ed >required in our public schools. What better way to increase >the spread of STIs among young people?
I agree.
>but I still do not see homosexuality as a religious issue.
In the classroom I was not suggesting that homosexuality was a religious issue. I was saying that it should be treated as religion is in the public schools.
Shane,
I have to take exception to the suggestion you made on 31 October 2008 at 8:16 that homosexuality “should be treated as religion is in the public schools.” My opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage is based both on religious and non-religious reasons. The religious reasons are well known and I have no need to elaborate on them.
The non-religious reasons are connected with what the elevation of homosexuality to equality with heterosexual marriage will do to future generations of children not born with homosexual tendencies. I am convinced that indoctrination favoring a healthy attitude towards homosexuality will entice many youngsters to experiment with this less than ideal and less desirable form of lifestyle.
I don’t want my grandchildren to be exposed to this. Predilection for the same gender represents a fluke of nature, and it deviates from nature’s design for family life. Children are entitled to have a mom and a dad, and I believe that they feel more secure and more protected in a family where both sexes are represented.
This is what nature provided for children to grow and become well adjusted in society. Deviancy from nature’s norm should not be treated as equal with heterosexual marriage.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Hey Art! Are you out there?
Looks like the "spectrum" doesn't like actually having a REAL spectrum of ideas presented. Yeh, they have shut down TWO boards so far--let's see how long THIS one lasts!
Where was I now--oh, yeh......
Kinship International states, "sexual orientation...is seen in nearly all species." This statement is pure baloney, as a sample of more actual statements from REAL researchers and scientists, even gays and gay apoligists, will show.
The phony idea and myth that homosexuality is seen in animals pervades the Gay Agenda literature. Bonobos are one of the favorite species to parade out as being "homosexual."
But, as veteran bonobo researcher, Frans B.M. de Waal who has spent many hundreds of hours observing, studying, and filming bonobos states, "There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobos answer to AVOIDING CONFLICT. First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at at time tends to result in SEXUAL CONTACT.....they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
"Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts, totally unrelated to food.
So, bonobos may perform gay sex for avoid conflict, divert attention, diffuse tension or in aggressive situations. NONE of these have anything to do with bonobos having a homosexual orientation, as Kinship so ridiculously asserts!
Cesar Ades, animal behavior researcher at University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, speaking of male dogs mounting each other, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of POWER, NOT SEX."
Jacque Lynn Schultz, Animal Science Director for the ASPCA, explains further, "an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social DOMINANCE...Males may mount the FIRST THING (or unlucky person) they come in contact with."
Simon LeVay, gay researcher and gay advocate admits, "Although homosexual BEHAVIOR is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very UNCOMMON that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior...a homosexual ORIENTATION, IF one can speak of such a thing in animals, seems to be a RARITY."
Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics, goes even further: "Properly speaking, homosexuality DOES NOT EXIST among animals...INSTINCTS (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that APPEARS to be homosexual. Such behavior CANNOT be equated with an animal homosexuality."
Gay apologist and biologist Bruce Bagemihi, in his book, "Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" also admits, "We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants...the BIASES and limitations of the human observer...come to the forefront...we can often only directly observe their sexual behaviors but can only INFER or interpret their meanings and motivations."
In summary, Kinship International's pathetic attempt to convince straight SDA's that homosexuality and homosexual orientation exist in "nearly all species" or in ANY species is totally without substance and appears to be simply another attempt to TRICK, as Kirk and Madsen suggest, unwary SDA Church members who may not have studied this matter themselves.
I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone would base today's modern definition of marriage (the one based on a declaration of love, commitment, stability, and permanent monogamy, NOT the one based on women being property, oppression of women, hoarding of riches, creating heirs, and the desire to create as many human beings as possible because of the ancient mortality rate of children) on the split second union of a sperm and egg, instead of the foundation that is required for the 18 years of hard work afterward (LOVE). Considering that this union could come from any source (premartial sex, extramarital sex, rape, a trip to the sperm bank, surrogates, etc.), the argument that marriage should be based on ancient traditions, and not on love and commitment and our understanding of "choosing one and forsaking all others", is incredibly weak.
The one thing that totally stands out in this article, and is completely bogus, is that gay and lesbian couples can already adopt children in most places and have been adopting children FOR YEARS. It has been established by all the major, accredited medical and mental health care organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association, in over 25 years of research that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as opposite-sex parents. Additionally, recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are often more committed parents because, like any other unfertile couple who desparately wants to raise children, their parenting is DELIBERATE. Considering that our foster care system is overloaded by children who have been taken away from unfit heterosexual parents, children given up by rape victims who CHOSE LIFE, and by orphans who have lost their parents, it is unbelievable to me that we would deprive any of them of loving homes. Furthermore, it is unbelievable to me that we would insist on depriving those children the opportunity of being raised IN WEDLOCK by committed, loving parents who want to love, cherish, and care for them, and making sure that their families are protected by the legal status and protections of marriage.
Until every single orphanage in the world is closed down, the demand to adopt children is such that we no longer have a foster care system, there are no children who are wards of the state, and our country becomes a theocracy where we have repealed the First Amendment, have only one religion, one version of that religion, and its doctrines require that we force all Americans to follow its beliefs that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, then perhaps we can revisit the issue.
Hi Dr. Stone,
I'm here... I saw your name listed after posting on the Des Ford Atonement at the Cross thread... it's going on around 450 postings since Dec 1st...
I guess that various views of the atonement in the SDA church are not as controversial ANYMORE... at least not as controversial as homosexuality and how homosexuals are treated in the church... I guess.
As I posted on that atonement thread... ALL homosexuals definitely MUST be treated KINDLY... and "acceptance without acquiescence".
_________________________
As I mentioned on the other thread that you referenced above, from my perspective... despite the facts that you adduce from the homosexual advocates themselves... you remind me of the watchman on the night watch... who is being IGNORED...
Is there no one with point/counterpoint facts of history and science and medicine to refute what you post?
Just wondering... since I'm not an expert on the history and science about homosexuality.
You may be wasting your breath, as Tom Zwemer suggested in the previous thread... because a decision apparently has been made... 2 times already.
Psalm -
127:1 Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; unless the LORD guards the city, the watchman keeps awake in vain.
Isaiah -
21:6 For thus the Lord says ... Go, station the lookout, let him report what he sees.
21:9 ... Fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the images of her gods are shattered on the ground.
>> Dr. Stone...
>> you are the watchman crying out
>> "fallen, fallen"...
>> but no one is listening...
>> on this SpectrumMagazine.org semi-public and controlled blog... which, of course, is their right to control as they desire.
21:10 ... what I have heard from the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, I make known to you.
21:11 ... Watchman, how far gone is the night? Watchman, how far gone is the night?
21:12 The watchman says, morning comes but also night ... .
_________________________
Dr. Stone, have you considered setting up a FREE blog at http://www.Townhall.com on which you can "revise and extend" your comments any time you choose?
Go to http://townhall.com/youropinion then click on "Create Your Own Blog"... and start blogging in 3 easy steps... that's it.
At least, there your will have total control over your content and, after posting something short and interesting, you can refer the post readers who are interested to check out your fully referenced material.
I got a Townhall.com blog last November to see how it looks... I will be posting to it in the future, but for now it has only my initial post... similar to LiftUpJesusOnly.net ... my online single page evangelistic brochure...
>> You can see the initial page here... http://liftupjesusonly.blogtownhall.com
Since it is a community of bloggers with their own Townhall.com sites, there is cross posting going on all the time; as a way to promote a personal site to like minded posters... and the content is ALWAYS in your control.
Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection
Art
http://www.LiftUPJesusOnly.net
Art
Thanks for your comments. I don't believe I'm wasting anything, though, as maybe someone reads these posts and actually is prevented from accepting the fraudulent information parroted by such a dishonest, deceitful, and disreputable organization as SDA Kinship International.
Kinship obviously believes they have a "right" to proclaim the "Gay Gospel" but doesn't want someone to actually comment of the CONTENT of what they have printed on their website.
I've got LOTS more to say about their idiotic statements aimed at straight SDA's to try to convince the Church that "Gay is OK!"
They may block me out or try some other tactic. Kirk and Madsen proclaim that gays and gay advocates must "vilify those who 'victimize' gays" so that the the opposition "will eventually be SILENCED in public.." (p. 189)
This website is certainly trying their best to do JUST THAT!
Dr. Stone,
Yes... I see your point... and I fully agree... you are here because THIS is where SDA Kinship Int. is...
I guess... that's why I'm here too... also trying in my own way to advocate for the "called out" church that Peter refers to... to "proclaim the excellencies of HIM who has called you out of darkness into HIS marvelous light" (2 Peter 2:9).
All of us are "commanded" to proclaim the "truth" of the "good news", as Jesus said.
Each of us in our own unique way, are to bring the "light of truth"... because all truth is related.
So, you definitely are NOT wasting your time... "write on" Dr. Stone.
Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection
Art
http://www.LiftUPJesusOnly.net
Hi again Dr. Stone,
Picture a restaurant with an outside alfresco section with umbrellas over tables and chairs... and at one table is a group conducting a coffee klatch about the Atonement at the Cross, and at another table is a coffee klatch discussing homosexuality...
... and people are walking by... some stop to listen... some may know the participants and they comment... some may not know the participants and they comment too...
... that's me.
One day surfing the net, minding my own business, I came upon this SpectrumMagazine.org blog and saw that Des Ford had something to say about the Atonement at the Cross... so, I stopped to "listen" to what people were saying about what he said.
I even made a few comments with my original and unique perspective about the INcarnation at-ONE-ment and how it relates to the statement of Jesus on the cross when he said "it is finished"... breathed his last breath, bowed his head and dies... until he breathed again at his resurrection.
Then I "heard" some interesting words coming from the coffee klatch table discussing homosexuality...
... and to my surprise, I discovered that the majority of the participants were for including homosexuality into the SDA church as a way of promoting "diversity" and "unity" for our homosexual brothers and sisters...
... what REALLY surprised me was their advocacy for "acceptance WITH acquiescence"... i.e., accept homosexuals into the SDA church AND it's "OK to STAY" homosexual... just be monogamus and faithful...
... in other words... acquiesce to THEIR homosexual agenda demands...
... but, do NOT be "unkind"... do NOT require homosexuals to acquiescence to the biblical advocacy of our "original genesis" and to God's "original intent" for his creation to be TRULY HUMAN... i.e., "be fruitful and multiply"... and thus fulfill God's ORIGINAL "choice" for Adam and Eve and their progeny.
Well, I also made a few comments at the homosexual coffee klatch table... until I was told that I had not read the same material that the homosexual coffee klatch participants had read... so, I had better move on... or I can stay and "listen"... maybe I'll learn something after hearing their point of view.
So, Dr. Stone... since I have not been an Adventist for over 25 years (I am not a member of any denomination) and have not kept up with the internal debates... I'm moving on to another coffee klatch table because, to change the metaphor... this is a merry-go-round going nowhere.
Sir, this is your coffee klatch discussion -
I agree with your sentiments that you wrote above -
>>I don't believe I'm wasting [time]
>> as maybe someone reads these posts and
>> actually is prevented from accepting
>> the fraudulent information parroted by
>> such a dishonest, deceitful, and disreputable
>> organization as SDA Kinship International.
"Write on" Dr. Stone...
... where else will that "someone" read analysis and commentary that refutes the homosexual agenda... and from the writings of leading homosexual advocates, researchers and scientists, themselves?
I'll come back again to your table Dr. Stone... where you seem to have the weight of facts... figures... history... science... medicine... on your side...
... even those who have read the material do not seem to be able to handle your informed dissent against the homosexual agenda and the incursion into the SDA church of an alien (to the bible...) point of view. (... Maybe it is alien... who knows?)
It is amazing that the Roman Catholic Church has the biblical "original genesis" and God's "original intent" position and the SDA Church does not... or at least some prominent people in positions of educational authority do not... it seems to me.
1 Peter 2:9, 11
>> ... "proclaim the excellencies of HIM who has called you out of darkness into HIS marvelous light"
>> ...I urge you ... to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul.
Looking forward to your informed dissent and emotion Dr. Stone... my new "see you at the resurrection" friend...
Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection
Art
http://www.LiftUPJesusOnly.net
Art
Your remarks are right on the mark! I've had a few "problems" with local SDA churches in my past, but I have remained a member, nevertheless.
My major complaint about the SDA churches I'm familiar with is that they are not strongly enough opposed to the garbage thrown out by organizations such as Kinship, which tries to associate the "Seventh-day Adventist" name with their fraudulent organizations and dishonest rhetoric.
I belong to a NON-"affirming" SDA church with regards to homosexuality and any OTHER sin. ALL sinners are welcome to attend our church. But, as far as I can tell, we don't "accept" "affirm" or publicly condone any outward sin. "Sin" that is "inward" or hidden is always between the individual and God, or course,
We also don't berate, bash, or otherwise use "hateful" words or actions against these individual sinners. But, we also do NOT tell them "everything is A-OK" just KEEP doing what you're doing. The basis of living a "changed" life is, of course, CHANGE!
Which is where Kinship International went wrong--WAY WRONG!!!
Dr. Stone, I agree with Art. What you are saying should be heard. It should be heard by a larger audience than the SDA denomination. There used to be a website called "Strange Facts About Homosexuals." If it is still around, I haven't seen it.
I was surprised by some of the material mentioned there.
Few people are aware of the information which you present regarding the social engineering agenda of gay interests. Frankly, as a medical doctor, you naturally have the ear of many people. A layman presenting the same material would simply be tarred as a homophobe and marginalized.
Responsible handling of the massive amount of public health information regarding homosexuality is needed. I hope you will continue your work for a larger audience.
Hansen
Thank you for your support.
I couldn't find that website, but I'll keep trying. I HAVE proclaimed my message(s) on other sites. I am working on trying to get more SDA'S aware of these issues, because the main goal of the Gay Agenda AND Kinship is to "water down" and degrade the moral standards of our nation and Church to satisfy their own anti-Christian goals.
Although I am not a biblical scholar, (like Dave?) I do NOT see the "Gospel of Inclusion" in any of my numerous Bible versions. And neither do any SDA pastors I have spoken to, although I'm sure there are some (perhaps Ryan Bell?) who would LIKE this to be true.
The Gay Agenda (who actually ADMIT this) and Kinship (who probably would vehemently DENY this) realize they cannot continue their fraudulent, dishonest, and simply FALSE proclamations without SILENCING the Christian Church, including the SDA denomination.
I'm only doing my small part.
More Kinship distortions and lies to come!
An Amazing video of how far christianity has gone.
Being gay is now declared to be a "GIFT" from God.
http://gawker.com/5125850/oprah-grapples-with-gift-of-gay
Michael
Oprah has many "christian" ideas that would stand your hair on end. They are publicized on the Internet, although not really discussed much by the rest of the media.
The SDA Church is certainly being embarrassed by groups such as Kinship, which try to associate the name Seventh-day Adventist with the Gay Agenda. Although looking at Kinship's own numbers would make me think they are NOT fooling too many SDA's!
Take a look at the Australian division's 2008 Kampmeeting--SEVEN gay guys in ONE apartment! They even got pictures to prove it.
U.S. Kampmeeting picture looked like maybe a hundred people. Again, not all GLBT.
And, over 30 YEARS of bellowing their Gay Gospel, and what is the result? Maybe a little over a thousand "members" worldwide, not all gay, even by their own admission.
And yet they proclaim that 10% or over 1.5 MILLION SDA's are gay?! Using their own statistics, they've recruited LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of all the "homosexual" SDA's to join their organization. Less than one out of a thousand. In THIRTY YEARS!
It appears that MOST SDA's are NOT so dumb as to believe the distortions and lies preached by Kinship.
More of THOSE to come!
Another absolutely ridiculous and idiotic idea Kinship International bellows is the "Jesus said nuttin"
argument one can read in just about any Gay Agenda, gay advocate, or gay apologist book, article, or website.
Kinship's statement is, "Homosexuality is neither mentioned in the Ten Commandments nor by Jesus..." Technically, this is "true" but, but, of course, the argument continues-- thus, there must not be anything wrong with it.
Usually, gay advocates emphasize their point by stating "period" "case closed" or some other ridiculous summary.
However, as anyone with even an OUNCE of brains can determine, this particular philosophy can lead to the assumption that many things are A-OK, because they aren't specifically mentioned by Jesus.
John 21:25 even states (using the Bible itself to "explain" itself) "Of course Jesus did MANY OTHER THINGS, and I suppose that, if every one of them were WRITTEN down, the world couldn't contain the books that would be written."
Thus, the Bible itself argues AGAINST this false assumption.
I have never met anyone (even Gay Agenda proponents) who support PEDOPHILIA because Jesus never specifically condemned it:
INCEST. RAPE NECROPHILIA COPROPHILIA INFANTICIDE
ABORTION DRUG ABUSE ALCOHOLISM GAMBLING ADDICTION
PORNOGRAPHY SPOUSAL ABUSE ELDER ABUSE ANIMAL RIGHTS (protection against cruelty, etc)
I could list more, but you get my point. I know of no other sin or "societal problem" that is defended vehemently by using Jesus's lack of specific condemnation.
Whatever one may believe about what IS said about homosexuality in the Bible, using Jesus's lack of comment is totally ridiculous.
It is simply another example of Kinship International trying to "put one over" on straight SDA's. It definitely looks like it ISN'T WORKING. And I PRAISE THE LORD for that!!!
Post new comment