President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage Wednesday. Yet, only a day earlier, voters in North Carolina had approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage and other domestic-partner arrangements — even though a majority told pollsters that they favored allowing same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships. If that seems confusing, it is. This issue brings together a complicated cluster of conflicting legal, social and moral claims. When thinking about same-sex marriage, and weighing my reasons for supporting it, I find it helpful to remember a few key points that many people get wrong.
1. Letting gay couples get married redefines marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that, with few exceptions, marriage has always been about uniting the two sexes and linking mother and father to children. Change that, and marriage ceases to be marriage.
True premise, false conclusion. Where the proponents of this view go wrong is in saying that marriage can do only one thing. Marriage multitasks. Yes, it binds biological parents to their children — something same-sex marriage will not change. But marriage also unites nonbiological parents to children: adoptive parents, for example, and step-parents and, yes, gay parents. And it does much, much more. It acts as a portal to adulthood and domesticity for the young; provides support and care-giving to adults; offers a safe harbor for sex and encourages monogamy; bolsters financial and emotional security; creates family networks (those sometimes-pesky in-laws); connects couples and kids to their communities.
I think the best definition of marriage is the one that most married people sign up for in their vows: “To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, until death do us part.” Extending the boundaries to include gay couples does not weaken that definition — it reinforces it. And to throw away the many social benefits that gay marriage provides because there is a single function that it can’t perform is perverse.
2. Same-sex marriage hurts children.
Opponents are right when they say that, other things being equal, children do best when raised by their married biological parents. But, again: true premise, false conclusion.
The great enemy of the traditional family in the United States today is not the desire of gay couples to get married; it is the failure of heterosexual couples to get married and stay married. Over the past 10 years or so, while the country was busy debating same-sex marriage, the number of cohabiting couples doubled. Because of cohabitation, divorce and single parenthood, a third of children today do not live with two married parents — an ominous trend that began decades before same-sex marriage came along.
The top priority for family policy today should be to reinforce the norm of marriage, which is exactly what gays want to do. By underscoring that marriage is something to which all Americans can and should aspire, same-sex unions are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
And don’t forget that many gay couples are raising kids. Why would anyone think those children are better off if their parents can’t get married?
3. A collision with religious liberty is unavoidable.
Same-sex marriage, like gay rights protections generally, brushes up against objections from people who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds. What if a Salvation Army bookkeeper seeks health benefits for her wife? What if a student at a Baptist college demands married-student housing for his husband? Must religious-affiliated institutions choose between their principles and their nonprofit tax status? It’s a real problem. The myth is that it’s an unmanageable one.
We know this because we have already dealt with it, in the context of abortion. Congress and the states have provided religious-liberty exemptions that let Catholic hospitals, for example, avoid performing the procedure. Many of the same kinds of exemptions can and should be offered in the context of same-sex marriage. Working out the precise balance between gay rights and religious liberty will take some time and effort, but, in the vast majority of cases, accommodations can be offered at acceptable cost to both sides.
4. The entire country must have the same policy.
We can’t have different marriage standards in different states; that’s chaos. Right?
Wrong. States have always defined marriage differently. Rules vary on whether you can marry a blood relative, age of consent, divorce and so on. Although states recognize one another’s marriages as a matter of convenience, neither the Constitution nor federal law requires them to do so.
In the District of Columbia, where I work, I am married. In D.C., my other half, Michael, is my husband. In Northern Virginia, where I live, I am legally unmarried. Michael is, legally speaking, a stranger to me. The situation is bizarre and, frankly, demeaning. We don’t like it. But we manage to live with it.
Mitt Romney and most Republicans want to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Most same-sex marriage advocates hope the Supreme Court will soon rule that same-sex marriage be made legal nationwide. Among supporters of such unions, I’m a rarity: Like President Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney, I think it’s healthier to let states continue to go their separate ways on marriage until the country is closer to a consensus. I believe a gradual approach is usually a safer and surer route to lasting social change when it’s available — and, on this issue, it is.
5. The battle is almost over.
A Gallup poll finds approval of same-sex marriage breaching 50 percent. Obama now openly supports it. The younger generation doesn’t see any problem with it. Won’t this fight be over soon?
Possibly, but remember: Most states ban same-sex marriage, many by constitutional decree. Absent a Supreme Court decision, those bans will take years to change. Even if the Supreme Court were to intervene, its ruling — especially on a 5 to 4 vote, which is the best gay-marriage supporters could get from the current court — would not necessarily end the argument. Indeed, as with the court’s 1973 decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion, it might escalate the argument.
This is a fight about the meaning of marriage, not just about gay civil rights. For traditionalists who believe that sex, procreation and marriage go together in a single bundle, same-sex marriage seems to threaten the very concept of family. For modernists who believe that birth control, feminism and artificial reproductive technology untied the bundle long ago, same-sex marriage is a step toward the revitalization of family. These are core values, and I would be surprised if either side gave up anytime soon.
The same-sex-marriage movement has traveled breathtakingly fast by historical standards, but it probably still has a long way to go. To paraphrase Robert Frost, the best way out is always through.
Jonathan Rauch is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and author of “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.”
Thank you Jonathan! I am encouraged by both your very sane and learned article as well as by the shift in conservative policy regarding marriage equality that was leaked to the press over the last several days.
Interesting opinions stated in the opinion piece. Unfortunately that’s all they are, the author’s opinions. They hold no more weight than obama’s position on the matter. Presidents come, and one day soon, this president will go. The debate will rage on forever.
Well, the author is a scholar specializing in gay marriage, so his writings hold a bit more water than most opinions.
not really…
no…really
Yeah, really. And the author is a participant in a gay marriage so it actually affects him. So stop pretending that it affects you, deblogger and Jon Sheets. It doesn’t. Seriously.
‘A scholar specializing in gay marriage’! How pathetic is that!!! Just one more example of what is so terribly wrong with America, that intellectuals can actually specialize in gay marriage! Obviously they are far superior to the common man!
Than you, yes…
Ah yes, another insulting voice form the Left! How utterly predictable!!!
Are you telling me with a straight face that your previous comment wasn’t insulting?
How dumb are you really?
Pot meet kettle.
He’s stating a fact – you are not a scholar specializing in anything; he is.
Actually, since it is the hottest social issue out there, I think the author is rather brilliant in his choice of specialization. Neither you nor I was quoted in the Times today, but the author was, so I do not believe his scholarship on the subject is pathetic.
The author is a gay man trying to justify his lifestyle choice.
So ?
You’re a supposedly straight man that is trying to justify his lifestyle choice of imposing his religious views upon everybody else.
I am an American that realizes that morality is one of the strongest characteristics of a great and powerful nation. Get rid of morality, and the nation will crumble. SSM is immoral.
Bigotry is immoral but that doesn’t stop the Religious Right.
Nor does it slow the non-religious left.
SSM is only immoral if you have one. Don’t. Problem solved.
There’s man named Hitler that said basically the same thing:
“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the idea of Christianity. Our movement is Christian.” Adolph Hitler October 27, 1928
Not allowing another to live under the freedoms as stated in the Constitution is UNAmerican and immoral.
Hatred and baring false witness against your neighbor is immoral. Not loving and accepting another is immoral.
No sir , he is a gay author specializing in rationalization !
Rage on forever? Just like the continuing struggle against inter-racial marriage? In 30 years history and young people will look back and wonder how the nation they live in could have not allowed gay marriage.
Yea right! Good luck proving that hypothesis!
Thanks for the wishes of luck, I do hope we have a chance to prove this, beginning this November here in Maine!
And if you don’t? We all know that ‘No’ only means keep trying until you win 51%, then cry “Mandate from the voters!” So be it, just remember, that goes BOTH ways!
But when the courts clear it up and gay marriage is legal, you’ve no recourse.
Stay tuned.
Groups who petition our government for equal treatment under the law tend to prevail in the end, and that is a good thing.
Even if we don’t win in November, our need for civil marriage is still valid, and we will continue to press our case, obviously.
Would you give up if your government were discriminating against you for no valid reason?
Jon this question will end up in the hands of the SCOTUS and they will decide the case based on the 14th Amendments “Equal Protection Clause”. Please explain to me how a marriage between 2 men or 2 women performed in say Massachusetts becomes “invalid” because they move to a state that doesn’t recognize it, say Virginia.
And before you start the dance, know that the exact same thing happened when a couple by the name of Loving got married in a neighboring state because their home state, Virginia banned interracial marriage. They were arrested and banned from Virginia for life because a black man loved and married a white woman. The SCOTUS stuck down the ban on interracial marriage in the 1967 landmark case Loving v. Virginia.
So please explain how SSM is different from Loving v. Virginia.
I disagree his opinions do not hold water – For example – And to throw away the many social benefits that gay marriage provides because there is a single function that it can’t perform is perverse. Not true – the single function it can not produce is the possibility of children. It is for that exact reason that wehave those social benefis to begin with.
Many, many heterosexual struggle to raise the children that are the fruits of that exact single “function”. It is our children that will continue to help our nation and our culture. It is our children that will be paying taxes, it is our children who will be providing payments into the social security system. It is our children who will be paying off the national debt. There is nothing wrong with giving heterosexual couples benefits and special priveledges to help raise their children. It is their children that will be building up this nation.
Every homosexual person has the exact same human dignity as every single heterosexual person. However, there is nothing wrong with merely recognizing that the fruit of the different “function” that is referred to greatly benefits our nation and culture.
There is no requirement for procreation in any state.
Anywhere.
You have got to be kidding??!! You do not have to have marriage to have a child and in fact many opposite sex marriages never include children so that argument is old and out the window. Maybe God created same sex couples to raise,take care of , provide for and Love the children that are produced and abandoned, a role they do very well.
You are completely ignoring that fact that many gay and lesbian couples have children. Also you are ignoring the fact that many marriages do not produce children. Look to Newt and his third wife Calista: No children. Is their marriage any less of a marriage in your eyes?
I am not ignorant of any of these facts. I merely stated the biological difference. The sexual union between a man and woman has the POSSIBILITY to produce children. The sexual union between two men and two women do not.
And procreation is still not a requirement for marriage. Anywhere. At all.
If a virgin can get pregnant, anything can happen.
Oh, and to add, my wife and I knew before we were married that biological children were not going to happen. Should we have not been allowed to marry? What about post-menopausal women? Should they not marry? Do you realize how hollow your argument is?
Religious marriage vows make no mention of procreation. It’s about the commitment to each other.
But regardless, homosexuals are not sterile, but even infertile homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against any more than heterosexuals who cannot have children.
When the courts have examined this issue, they have found that there is absolutely wrong being done to same sex couples when civil marriage benefits are denied them— and there is no legitimate state interest in this discrimination.
It’s just the right thing to do in our state, to allow same sex couples to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage– to allow them to protect the children they raise together with civil marriage.
Do gay couples marry in Asia?
Do they marry in Islam?
Does it matter?
Why pick Asia? Do you want to emulate them? If so you should have picked Uganda, I think their solution would be more up your alley.
SSM is working in Europe, I region I would much rather emulate then Asia.
The battle may not be quite over but the end is in sight. Since we live in a democracy, the majority of voters will ultimately determine the definition of our social constructs, including marriage. Religious denominations are perfectly free to decide what kind of marriages they wish to embrace but they cannot decide for the rest of us. The US will join its neighbor Canada and other leading western nations in sanctioning the basic right of homosexual citizens to enter into the civil contract called marriage.
We live in a representative republic, not a democracy. And as for the voters, so far in every state where it was left up to the voters, it has been voted down. Only the courts or the legislatures have allowed SSM. The majority of the people are against it.
That is obviously wishful thinking on YOUR part. I am not sure what polls you are reading or what your so-called majority stands for, but just as in the case of ending “Dont ask, Dont Tell” , the majority of Americans are actually either in favor of this or have no opinion whatsoever. Most are bullied into voting a certain way by the churches who have brainwashed many to believe this will be the end of humanity. Things change, we will all survive this i promise. I would be far more worried about life ending at the hands of our politicians than by allowing gay people to marry.
I wasn’t referring to polls, but votes that have occurred in many states.
As for DADT, I have many direct connections to those in the military, and I can tell you that the repeal has NOT been good for morale. It will take several years for the effects to be fully realized, but they won’t be positive.
You mention bullying. The supporters are the biggest bullies when it comes to SSM.
And, yes, we should be more worried about our elected officials, especially the progressive that are doing their best to socialize this nation and bring it down to the same level as the rest of the world. We really need to take note of the goings-on between the Obama administration and the Chinese. Every wonder why Clinton and Geitner just spent a few days in China? If Obama gets another 4 years, we’d all better get used to having Chinese officials all over this nation.
Hearsay EJP… and you know it.
If things were so bad, we’d see chaplains pouring out of the service rather than the ONE who has resigned his post as of December 2011.
Not hearsay at all. In fact, I know a chaplain that just returned from Afghanistan to a whole new set of rules that he has to follow in response to the repeal of DADT. We talk quite often, and he has stated quite emphatically that the changes are not for the better, and the changes make it much more difficult for him to do his job.
One chaplain… exactly the same as the number of chaplains who have resigned.
Meaning what, EJP? That he now speaks for all chaplains? Um… no.
Let’s see some sources on this… what are these changes? How does it make it harder? What is “for the better”? Sounds like opinion (again) to me. NOBODY works in ANY job free from change over time. Change does not equal bad, EJP, and you know it.
You’re going to need something substantive… something more than hearsay.
Here’s mine:http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2011/12/chaplains-panel-examines-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell.html
I know this chaplain personally, and he knows a whole lot more of them. I also have a daughter in the military and I live in one of the largest military communities in America. I’d say I’ve got a pretty good idea of what’s going on. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the hard liners to accept the testimony of someone that knows, unless, of course, the testimony is in their favor.
Polls consistently show your statement to be false.
I wasn’t talking about polls; I was talking about states that have had the issue on the ballots and have voted it down every time.
So far. That will change.
Thanks in advance for helping to make it happen !
“The majority of the people are against it.”
And history shows us that many, many times in our history the majority was “against” ending discrimination against minorities and it took the courts or the legislature to right those wrongs. This one seems to be no different.
You cannot have it both ways. As citizens of our respresentative republic we must respect the laws promulgated by our legislatures and courts, including any laws dealing with gay marriage. Ironically it was the democractic mechanism of the referendum that worried the Founding Fathers and that is the mechanism you now rely upon to thwart gay marriage .
By popular usage “democracy” has come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power.
How do you think Women’s Suffrage or civil rights for minorities would have faired if it were up to the voters?
Opinions. Everyone’s got one.
Liberals have many – usually whatever their polls tell them it is at any given moment!
sorry son, this isn’t a liberal vs conservative issue.
I’M NOT YOUR SON! Wouldn’t be very happy if I was, so keep you condescension to yourself!
You’ve earned it, sweetcheeks.
You’re right; it’s not a liberal vs conservative issue, it’s a moral vs immoral issue.
Exactly.
It’s immoral of you to impose your religious views on anybody; especially in state matters, and particularly when it has no impact on you at all.
Wrong, totally wrong.
No EJ… it’s your opinion over that of others.
That’s IT.
Hardly a basis for discrimination under the government.
I fight for what’s right, even when it’s unpopular.
Extending civil marriage benefits to Maine families who need it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether the couple is same sex or not.
And regardless of the consequences, right? As long as your motives are pure, the consequences don’t really matter, do they!
What consequences, hon?
Enola Gay …..
So the USAF is going to nuke Maine because we vote to approve SSM?
What have the consequences been in the places where it’s now legal ?
Grow up. Gay people are never going to be the invisible victims the systemic legalized discrimination against them has made them in the past.
Please, list the consequences Jon.
Well seeing how you are now making a vain attempt at using the Bible to justify this immorality you should read all of it and your will clearly see the consequences of any nation that disobeyed God. It will happen here too. God promises that and God keeps his promises.
If you believe in that superstitious crap then I feel sorry for you. No nation has suffered for disobeying God so I ask you to name some that you think have been.
That’s not the consequences of governance… that’s mythology.
What you’re telling us is that on this plane of existence, on this planet, legalizing gay marriage will do nothing except stir up spooky stories of mythology.
Not using the Bible for anything cp…but you always seem to jump into a question asked of others. Why is that? What are the civil consequences of SSM to Maine and the U.S’?
Sorry, it’s the conservatives that post links to polls and research every single day on here.
Conservatives have one opinion, the one they are told by the leaders.
or ALEC
Obama evolved! He was for it, he was against it, he voted present.
This poor excuse for a leader is using every possible means to
try and get the sheep to vote for him again. He knows he is in deep
trouble and will use class warfare, women and now gays to appeal
for a vote. This guy is a fraud and you fell for it hook line and sinker.
So tell us, just WHAT is he going to do on this issue? Say it is up to
the states to decide? And when every state…even the libber of libber
of states voted it down…it took an activist judge to stop the
people’s decision. Whoopie doo!
I thought he was de-evolving.
The BDN seems to be running many of the Washington Post liberal articles these days.
These “myths” are not myths, and the ultimate Judge is not you or I, but the One True God Whose Word is Truth. Sodom and Gomorrha is not a myth, and America is quickly getting to the point of God’s wrath coming down on us as a nation. Cna He find 10 righteous men in America?
Your god is not civil law.
Answer me this: Why should people who don’t believe in your god be forced to live by “his word.”
And why should people that believe homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice be forced to live by their standards and have to bury our own? Why can’t we just leave things as is, tolerating each other while not being forced to accept that which we don’t believe in? Why can’t we compromise with equal civil unions and leave the traditional institution of marriage as it has been for hundreds of years?
My marriage does not effect you in any way.
It’s you that are dictating and imposing yourself on us; not the other way around.
We don’t care about your “acceptance”; you know this, so saying THAT over and over again is irrelevant.
What we will no longer tolerate is your perpetual obstruction.
I’m not worried about how it would effect me. I’m worried about how it would effect America. My country is more important than I or any other individual or group. America is bleeding.
Yet, you can not articulate how it is my marriage is somehow magically going to destroy America.
We’re flattered, but your perception of our magical gay powers is slightly exaggerated.
Tell us EJ… how will it effect America?
It will further rip the moral fabric that holds this nation together.
What does that mean?
It’s just a string of words. How will that string of words actually harm America? Your opinion on it’s moral fabric is intangible, and irrelevant.
Concretely: what harm will befall America?
Ok, what effect has SSM had on ANY state where it is now legal?
That is exactly what people are asking for. You live your life, and we wont judge. We can live our life and YOU dont judge…but by tryign to keep people from enjoying the same rights that YOU have is not keeping your noses out of OUR business is it? I am sure that gay people would be happy to change the institution of marriage to “Civil Unions” just as soon as all of the heterosexual marriages are also transformed to this. You dont mind to ya? I mean lets just do away with the word marriage alltogether if there is such a huge argument over it, we can banish it from Webster’s Dictionary.
I am not asking you, nor advocating forcing you to live any other way than what you have been doing all your life. You will not be affected by marriage equality and if you don’t like it, don’t have a gay marriage or speak to anyone who has one. You do not have to change your standards one bit.
However, by voting no in November because of what your god believes, you are condemning all of us to live by what your god believes. That is wrong.
So, what you’re saying is that if one is a Christian and believes the Bible, one should not vote on issues that they strongly oppose. That’s kind of like being a Black Panther and intimidating voters that were opposed to Obama becoming President. An attitude like that will cause more people to vote no.
The black panthers were at the polls in Washington County intimidating me and forcing me to vote for Obama????!!!!!
Black Panthers?
Really EJP? You’re reverting to sad fear mongering these days?
No one is going to insinuate that I should not vote on an issue just because I base my vote in whole or in part on my Christian ideals. That is the same as the BP intimidation tactics that were used in 2008.
What “BP intimidation tactics”?
I’ve seen no one try to sway your vote, only questioning the validity of your points and opinions.
Because leaving things as they are is discriminatory and wrong to families in Maine who need the important protections of civil marriage. That’s why.
No one forces you to accept Muhammad as a prophet, nor Islam as your faith, yet Muslims are allowed to worship in Maine.
How are you being forced to live a homosexual lifestyle?
Why can’t we leave it the way it is?
Because US citizens are being harmed, and the change we seek only has to affect you if you let it. You will NEVER be forced to accept gay people and you know it.
Get the rest of your ilk to stop trying to end domestic partnerships and civil unions (as just done in North Carolina for gay and straight citizens) and we can talk. Til then, there is no real reason to compromise on something that is essentially just the meaning of an oft-changed word.
Sheesh, man are you a mixed up person.
NO ONE is forcing you to live a homosexual lifestyle. NO ONE is forcing you to be friends with a homosexual person. No one is asking you to attend or give your blessing to a homosexual marriage. You are in NO way being forced to accept or uphold a homosexual lifestyle.
YOU are the one trying to force your warped sense of Christianity on a country that is NOT Christian, but instead a country made up of people from thousands of religions and millions of individual belief systems.
As a patriotic American…GO live your life and LEAVE others alone. That is what the Constitution is all about. You think that only YOU are free under to Constitution to live by your belief systems. Taking away another American’s freedom is the most unAmerican and unpatriotic thing a person could do.
“The BDN seems to be running many of the Washington Post liberal articles these days.”
And why not? the BDN has always been (and will always be) a bastion of Far Left Extremism. It’s who they are, it’s what they do. Anyone familiar with it knows this. They have no reason not to reprint other stories from other Far Left Extreme sources. Makes their lives even easier – they don’t have to work!
You’re ignoring the arguments.
Zzzzzzzzzzz.
The old conservative fallback of blaming the “Liberal Press” when they run out of coherent arguments against something.
God condemns rape, not love.
More importantly, civil marriage is about equal treatment under our government’s laws.
Some religions oppose marrying outside their faiths, but we do not deny civil marriage based on religious view.
God condemned any form of sex outside of marriage. And Jesus made it quite clear that the only acceptable marriage is between one man and one woman. Granted, Jesus never directly mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels. He also never mentioned incest, pedophilia, or abortion. Just because He didn’t mention these things doesn’t make them right.
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. ”
Clean-up your own house, and leave your religious hypocrisy out of my marriage.
That is a misquote Guy. The word of God actually makes an exception for divorce , look it up !
It’s in BOTH
Luke 16:18 and
Matthew 5:32.
Look it up.
God never made an exemption for divorce. The only way you can have another wife is if the first one died or you get an annulment.
Or if she cheated on you.
Does that exemption work if the man cheats on the wife?
Most likely not since it is really only the woman who gets called an adulterer.
A man who has an affair with another man’s wife is also considered an adulterer but I believe that is not the case if the woman is not married.
How many times did Jesus mention children in the Gospels EJ?
Jesus did mention the severe consequence of causing a child to stumble. Teaching our children that homosexuality is just an acceptable alternate lifestyle would clearly fall in that category.
Yes he does. He also talked about causing harm to children. Which is why all the evils listed by EJ concerning children are condemned.
So how many times did Jesus talk about homosexuality in the Bible cp?
Children are mentioned multiple times. And Jesus was very kind and understanding to children. But, that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
Actually EJ you mentioned “incest, pedophilia” in your post. Jesus talked about children a great deal and valued them a great deal. He didn’t need to specifically mention what not to do.
So how many times does Jesus talk about marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman? How many times does Jesus specifically condemn gays and lesbians?
Isn’t it possible that He didn’t need to specifically mention homosexuality along with not specifically mentioning incest or pedophilia? Isn’t it sufficient that it is clear in the Bible that any sex outside of marriage is a sin? Isn’t it sufficient that any mention of marriage in the New Testament only involves a man marrying a woman?
I think Jesus was very clear that he did not want us to condemn nor judge one another, for we all have flaws.
Civil marriage is a legal institution, and extending its protections to more families in Maine is absolutely the right thing to do.
You are correct, we do all have flaws, we are all sinners in need of Gods grace. Homosexuality is a sin, a flaw. I don’t envy you and your struggle with it for I know it’s real. It is still is sin and immoral nonetheless. There have been literally thousands that have been freed from its grip.
Wow, thousands? Out of millions who are gay. That is incredible.
Oh and most of the thousands who have been “freed”, most go back to the “sinful” lifestyle within a year because it is their natural, born with sexual orientation.
Did they go to Marcus Bachmann’s (federally funded) pray the gay away clinic in Minnesota?
Um… no.
The founders of Exodus Int’l couldn’t even “free” themselves.
There is no evidence anywhere to support your claim. Even Robert Spitzer admits he was very very wrong and horribly ashamed of the harm his research has caused.
No EJ, that’s what your buy-bull says god said.
Fact is, you don’t have a clue… only what you hope to be real. That is not enough to govern citizens by.
Do you seriously believe God will judge someone for loving someone of the same sex, but will not judge you for hating someone you never met.
God will judge for all sins.
No, God loves all people. We are made in God’s image. God loves each and everyone of his creation, even bigots who spread hatred and discontent.
But he did mention divorce. No doubt you would welcome a divorced person into your circle even though Christ was VERY clear about divorce. Yet, you do everything you can to exclude, bare false witness and spread hatred over the people that Christ never directly mentions. Your religion is pick and choose. Thank goodness the younger generation sees the Bible for what it is and are willing to accept and embrace ALL people, not just some like you.
Your god doesnt exist, he is a FAIR god, a true and just god, a loving god, not one of hatred and maliciousness as you have led others to believe. You need to look into your heart and open it to all people, and in that you will find the TRUE GOD
Still not civil law.
not true. My god is not your god
You are right my God is not your god.
And yours is still not our civil law.
Judge much?
What a farce of an article, figures it comes from Washington.
And yet you provide no facts or anything at all to support your claim.
Even if we limit to Christianity how many different versions of God are there? How do you know you picked the rite “brand?”
6. It’s none of your business who I marry, because it doesn’t effect you in any way.
If your argument against SSM is compleatly religious based, why is it that you are behaving precisely in a manner which God has said you should not ?
The SSM issue has certainly brought out a great deal of religion-based hypocrisy and derision.
5 truths:
1. SSM will degrade and demean the traditional institution of marriage.
2. SSM will further confuse children, already overburdened with identity problems.
3. SSM will lead to court battles and calls for churches and Christians to be prosecuted for denying inclusion.
4. SSM supporters will demand all-or-nothing when it comes to a national law allowing SSM.
5. SSM is NOT a fight about the meaning of marriage; rather it is a fight against morality and all that is right that made this nation great.
In the end, and because of the immoral direction of this country, SSM will probably end up being the law of the land. However, it will be short lived, because the nation will be so corrupt and inwardly selfish that its end will be inevitable.
With any luck we’ll have same sex marriage via a poor Supreme Court ruling. At the very least it will keep the issue alive long after we’re gone.
1. How? Please be more specific and feel free to give examples
2. How? Please be more specific and feel free to give examples
3. why? Please be more specific and feel free to give examples
4. Really? What does this mean, exactly?
5. Really? Please be more specific and feel free to give examples
Opinions don’t need examples. That is, unless the opinions disagree with your beliefs. The article was written by someone that has expressed his completely one-sided opinion. I simply countered his unsubstantiated points.
Opinions that don’t need examples are what is called “lies”.
And the people that opine a series of false and half true statements are what we call “liars”.
All I am asking is for clarification of your opinions.
thank you
1. SSM will degrade and demean the traditional institution of marriage.Traditional marriage in America has been a union between one man and one woman blessed by God. Over the lase several decades, God has been pushed further and further away from the marriage ceremony. The progressive mindset in this nation has already demeaned the traditional institution of marriage by promoting living together, children 0ut of wedlock, more children-more welfare, mixed families, single parents, and so on. In other words, the traditional family, once the backbone of this nation, has been replaced by every other combination possible. And now the progressives want to completely kill the traditional marriage by introducing SSM. Sadly, it will most likely happen, but that doesn’t make it right.
2. SSM will further confuse children, already overburdened with identity problems.
Children are already having a hard time finding their roles in the game of life. Gender confusion, moral relativity, and the absence of God in their lives are damaging them to the point that there may be no way to raise them to face the challenges and realities of life. But, the government wants to take care of them from cradle to grave, so they still have the opportunity to become wards of the state.
3. SSM will lead to court battles and calls for churches and Christians to be prosecuted for denying inclusion.
This needs no explanation. It’s already happening. Just look it up for yourself.
4. SSM supporters will demand all-or-nothing when it comes to a national law allowing SSM.
This is already happening also. The call for the Supreme Court to make it a federal law is in the pipeline.
5. SSM is NOT a fight about the meaning of marriage; rather it is a fight against morality and all that is right that made this nation great.
If you need an explanation of this statement, then you don’t understand morality. And, by the way, morals are NOT relative.
1. So what about marriages that are not blessed by God, you know civil marriages not done in churches?
2. Children are more confused by adults telling them that homosexuality is sinful when they know themselves to be gay.
3. Christians always claim persecution when they a re not allowed to discriminate against others.
4. How is that different then Christians demanding laws all or nothing laws stopping SSM?
5. I know plenty of immoral heterosexuals that get married every day. Why is that ok?
All bunk EJ, and you know it… you can defend none of that with fact.
A steady stream of lies. How quaint and desperate.
o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/
Noun:A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
1. Petty… it demonstrates nothing more than personal opinion, validated by nothing measurable in any way.
2. See #1 above. There is nothing of substance to back that idea.
3. You know I will stand by your religious freedom and fight with you. Since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, it can be obtained without intrusion on houses of mythology. A judge or JP will do just fine.
4. As it should be. It’s a matter of treatment under the government, and the 14th establishes that all citizens WILL receive equal treatment under government.
5. See #1 above. Your morals are NOT my morals, are NOT civil law, and should NOT be forced onto anyone. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t go to gay weddings and your prudish “morals” are untouched.
EJ I stopped reading after you posted “mixed families” under number 1.
Do you really want to keep the races “pure” EJ?
That’s not how I meant mixed. I meant his, hers, adopted, single, and all the other combinations of families that are outside of the once-traditional father-mother-and-children family. I have nothing against racially mixed families. After all, I have a mixed family.
50 years ago people used the exact same “opinions” that you are using to justify laws against those mixed families.
Indefensible opinions don’t have examples.
You can’t cite examples EJ… that’s why you don’t.
o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/
Noun:A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
1. Heterosexual marriage has degraded and demeaned the traditional institution of marriage.
2. Heterosexual marriage will further confuse children, already overburdened with identity problems cause by the high rate of divorce among heterosexuals.
3. Heterosexual marriage will lead to court battles and calls for churches and Christians to be prosecuted for denying inclusion of those who do not live by their doctrine.
4. Christian heterosexuals demand all-or-nothing when it comes to a national law allowing SSM.
5. SSM is NOT a fight about the meaning of marriage; rather it is a fight of one group of arrogant Americans who believe that they must force their belief system on all Americans even though the constitution is very clear about religious freedom.
You have the freedom to embrace your religion, while others have the right to not live by your religion’s requirements to get into your “club.” You are free to live life according to your personal beliefs, gay Americans have that very same right.
The gay community does not keep you from living your life according to your beliefs, but you do the unAmerican thing by demanding that everyone live by your religion as you dictate it.
Well said TrueNative… well said indeed.
EJ’s “5 truths” put into perspective.
“1. SSM will degrade and demean the traditional institution of marriage.”
Care to provide any proof? How has SSM degraded and demeaned “the traditional institution of marriage” in Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, etc…?
~~~~~
“2. SSM will further confuse children, already overburdened with identity problems.”
Care to provide any proof?
~~~~~
“3. SSM will lead to court battles and calls for churches and Christians to be prosecuted for denying inclusion.”
I can think of several words to descirbe this lie but lie is the one that best fits this “truth”.
~~~~~
“4. SSM supporters will demand all-or-nothing when it comes to a national law allowing SSM.”
Marriage is a states issue. No national marriage license (issued by the federal government) has evere been asked for or sought. Again. the best word that fits is…lie.
~~~~~
“5. SSM is NOT a fight about the meaning of marriage; rather it is a fight against morality and all that is right that made this nation great.”
Rubbish. The same thing has been said about every single minority group looking to gain acceptance as equal citizens in this great nation.
I have a right to my opinions just as the author of this one-sided article expressed his. As for hour last sentence, all the other minority groups had no choice about their situation at birth. Homosexuality is a choice. Of course, that’s just my opinion. If it differs with yours, then so be it.
Nobody’s arguing that you don’t have the right to express your opinions.
YOU are the ONLY one saying that. This is what is called a “Straw-man fallacy”.
Pretending that your opinion is somehow threatened by simply being disagreed with or challenged is dishonest, pathetic, and more than a little laughable.
If you don’t want your opinion to be challenged in a public forum, shut-up.
EJ I have two points to make and then I hope you have a wonderful Monday.
#1 – You are entitled to your opinion that is true and I am also entitled to call that opinion into question and to ask for proof to support your position.
#2 – Be careful what you wish for concerning minority groups and birth. The same protections that our gay brethren are looking for is also extended to religion. Your religious beliefs are protected under the 1st Amendment and you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodations, etc…at both the state and federal level. Are you willing to give up those rights and protections since your religion IS a choice?
The direction this nation is headed, it may be sooner than later that Christianity is considered a hostile and threatening religion. If that day comes, so be it. It won’t change my beliefs, actions, or opinions. In other words, I’m willing to take whatever comes when it comes to my choice to be a Christian. And I believe that homosexuals should be willing to live with what comes with their decision to live the gay lifestyle.
Freedom doesn’t mean getting everything your way just because you want it that way. We all have to sacrifice here and there. Many Americans in the past realized that truth, and they went on to build the greatest nation on earth. But, now so many have turned inward and selfish and care not about their fellow man, just themselves. This inward, selfish, and greedy focus will bring this nation to an end, just like it brought other great nations and empires to their knees. It’s a matter of historical truth.
Christianity is not considered a hostile or threatening religion at all.
Certain people who claim to be Christians, that seek to impose their religious-based views on people that do not agree with them are increasingly viewed as hostile and threatening – because they are.
Veiled remarks like “I believe that homosexuals should be willing to live with what comes with their decision to live the gay lifestyle” are a perfect example of the kind of derision and judgement perceived as hostile and threatening.
There isn’t anything “inward and selfish” about marrying someone you love.
If you were married, you’d know this.
And simply calling your opinions “historical truth” – that’s ridiculous.
That’s because christianity IS a hostile and threatening religion. As we sit and type this, that mythology is being used to harm families and their children in the US of A.
The examples are a matter of public record. You know it to be true.
Until christians realize following a given mythology is a personal choice and NOT civil law, and that citizens should NOT discriminated against based upon that construct (live and let live in other words), this will continue.
This enforcement of mythology through civil law should and will be fought with the greatest resistance.
Seems you and RoostookGuy differ on your opinion of Christianity. Maybe you two need to get together over a coffee and donuts at Tim Hortons.
You have a right to express your opinion, just as we have the right to point out how wrong you are.
Sexual orientation is not a choice we make.
But even still, we protect choices like religious views in civil marriage– we do not deny people of different faiths marriage licenses based on their choice of religion, do we?
You can say that my opinion is wrong, but that’s only your opinion. Maybe we’re both wrong.
Or maybe it’s just you.
The funny thing is, you aren’t gay; so how is it you are so certain that those of us that are certain that we were born this way, are wrong ?
It’s one thing to opine about something you actually know something about and have experience with; quite another to assert repeatedly and insultingly, with judgement and derision, that you “know” otherwise – and then pass those repeated statements off as “just” your opinion..
Examples EJ… give them to us or admit you’re blowing smoke.
o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/
Noun:A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
Examples EJ… give them to us or admit you’re blowing smoke.
You’r so wrong on your opinion on this. How can it be a bad thing to offer the protections civil marriage conveys to families in Maine?
How can more couples entering into civil marriage degrade anyone else’s?
Your fears for churches being prosecuted is baseless— or we would be seeing churches sued for not marrying muslims, jews, and hindu now. Religious freedom protects churches from this.
You are correct that SSM is not a fight about the meaning of marriage, it is a fight for equal treatment under our laws.
The fact that you cannot see equality for all Americans as a positive, American value is sad. You sound just like all those other people from the past who predict the downfall of our nation if we free the slaves, give women the right to vote, or let black kids attend the same schools as white children.
Wrong on all 5 counts…. not bad.
Lies, one and all.
Petty little fear-mongering lies.
Opinions, one and all. Just like the opinions the author of this article wrote.
You could always move EJ, i believe that Syria is pretty nice this time of year. Anywhere in the Middle East really since you are so hung up on religion, you would likely fit right in…Of course they have their own book they go by as well…would be interesting to see how you deal with that view.
Cite examples of where any of this has happened in any state so far EJ…
Quit running and provide examples.
Trust me, your god is NOT my god. My God is a loving creator who lives in everyone and everything that I see. (Even you, despite your unloving thoughts about others.)
Actually accusing someone else of being a sin is a sin as well. Jesus was very clear about pointing fingers at others. A sin is a sin is a sin.
That’s the thing about this country. You are given the freedom to embrace the god of your understanding or to not believe in god at all.
Jesus pointed His finger at sin quite a few times throughout His ministry. And He instructed us how to identify sin and how to warn others when they were involved in sinful lifestyles. Jesus’ most used phrase was “go, and sin no more”.
Yet he had nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality.
He did, however, give us a New Commandment.
Maybe self-proclaimed “Christians” should read-up on THAT one.
Next.
Jesus didn’t give us a new commandment. Rather he condensed 9 of the original commandments into 3, conveniently leaving out the one that commanded us to keep the Sabbath holy.
Nice try.
John 13:34 “A new command I give you…” is very clear.
You can’t lie about the Bible and get away with it; some of us have actually studied it, you know.
The command to love one another originally came directly from God in Leviticus 19:18. Jesus simply put a new twist on our love for one another by using the example of His willingness to give His life for the sake of others as a baseline.
I’ll take what Jesus said, over your twisted and facile revisionism of it, any day.
And so you pick and choose which things in Leviticus to follow. Pick and choose, pick and choose…that’s all you do.
If your boss failed to mention that stealing from the cash register would be grounds for dismissal, would it be all right to take the money and then plead innocence?
Now, if the shift manager told you that stealing from the cash register was grounds for dismissal, would that suffice, or would you still take the money and tell the boss that since you didn’t hear it directly from him, that you could plead innocence?
The point is that Jesus didn’t directly address homosexuality. Nor did He directly mention many other things, like incest or abortion. Still, He did ordain Paul to become His voice and spread the word in His absence, and Paul made it quite clear that homosexuality was a sinful lifestyle that can be turned away from through the power of Christ. Unfortunately, those that support homosexuality but still want a connection with Christ negate the message that Paul preached in order to justify their choice. The argument, however, that since Jesus didn’t mention it, it’s all right, is empty. Of course, that’s my belief.
No EJP, the point is that your religion, no matter how much you wish for it to be, is simply not the laws enforced upon the citizens of these United States.
That’s all that really matters in this discussion.
I was responding to a comment spawned by this discussion. And it does matter.
As for SSM, it is a state-by-state matter. Even Obama said that in his coming out speech. So, it should be left to the people of each individual state to decide, and should not be a matter for the courts, the legislature, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
No it doesn’t… NO ONE should be forced by ANY law, state, federal, or otherwise to live under your mythology.
As for state-by-state, It is no different as sodomy laws, interracial marriage, or banning municipal governments from targeting gay citizens for discrimination (Romer v. Evans). There is no rational basis for treating it any different. In fact, there is MORE rational basis for treating it the same.
The federal government grants marriage benefits… that removes it from the sole purview of the state.
Which is it… end federal benefits, or apply them to all law-abiding citizens equally?
Ask Obama. He said it was a states issue. Surely you won’t disagree with him. That would make you a racist.
EJ stealing is illegal in all 50 states. Being a homosexual is not illegal.
“Jesus’ most used phrase was “go, and sin no more””
Which is one of the most out of context quote used from the Bible.
John 8
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones
first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Seems that Jesus was talking about judging others when the judges themselves are not free of sin themselves. He also doesn’t condemn the woman for her actions but commands her to “go and sin no more”.
This passage which you are clearly misusing is a direct reference to Dt. 13:9 and 17:7 where the actual ones who were to carry out the punishment of a crime had to be innocent themselves of that very same crime. The ones ready to stone this woman were most likely guilty themselves of the same offense which is why they all walked away. “go and sin no more” is also better translated “leave your life of sin” which is exactly what a homosexual life is. A life of sin, clearly, without reservation condemned in the Bible. For you to try and justify it using the Bible is is offensive and dishonest.
Cp444 I was pointing out that Jesus commands only those without sin to judge others. Spin it anyway you want but that is what the passage says. And why not call out EJ for using only five words…hmm.
Where do you see Jesus pointing that out?
You use the NIV. In the KJV verse 11, “She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.”
By simply telling her to go and sin no more, He certainly was condemning her sinful life. The point of the passage is that we all sin. The real question of this passage is simply this: What was Jesus writing in the dirt? Could it have been the names of those with stones ready to throw? Could it have been their hidden sins? Could it have been their lustful thoughts towards this particular woman, or their relationship with her?
Since you point out my use of the NIV do you have an issue with the translation?
Still doesn’t make religious law = civil law. I can think of several countries that govern based on religious laws and I wouldn’t want to live in them…would you?
Still not ONE valid legal argument against same-sex marriage.
Amazing… and so very very sad that Americans will let mythology and personal opinion harm their fellow citizens.
And EJP… stop… you’re sounding like an old scared shut-in.
Throwing the Hitler card is a mark of utter desperation. Hitler wasn’t a Christian. His actions proved him to be completely controlled by Satan.
Your correct EJ, Hitler wasn’t a “Christian” but a baptized Catholic. There are multiple disagreements concerning his religious beliefs later in life.
Being baptized doesn’t make one a Christian or a Catholic. Just like standing in a parking lot doesn’t make one a car.
Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian
http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm
Talk about blatant hatred for Christians. That’s a pathetic attempt to push a point. You can do a lot better than that.
You don’t get to decide such things EJP… he’s every bit as much a christian as Fred Phelps or you.
I don’t get to decide? But you do? I think you have just put your foot in your mouth.
Christ taught to look at the heart of a man, regardless of his words, claims, or appearances. Actions do speak louder than words, and Hitler’s actions screamed Satan. There is no way a Christian would do the things he did.
No, Tedlick doesn’t get to decide that either.
Hitler declared himself a Christian. Fred Phelps declared himself a Christian.
You are the one claiming you have some insight into who really is and isn’t a Christian, we are simply taking people at their word.
I feel sorry for anyone that takes Hitler and Fred Phelps at their word.
The mythology’s savior will decide. To my mind, Fred Phelps… Hitler… Jim Jones… Tony Perkins… Not much difference in the whole lot of them.
If you end up one day standing in front of mythology’s savior, I hope He has mercy on you.
Comment removed and placed where it should be.
I’m neither scared, old, nor shut-in. I just happen to believe differently from you. Don’t I have the freedom to believe differently? Or should I just bow down to the opposition and let them control my mind? That, by the way, will never happen.
And when those ideals that you hold so close to your heart are bigoted and your “opinion” is deny others the same rights your calming you will never give up, you should get used opposed and marginalized.
That’s all right. I’m used to dealing with bigots. There are many on here that treat my opinions with a scathing hatred, and then accuse me of what they are guilty of.
Israel.
Israel.
Are you saying you don’t jump into questions asked of others? I’ll have to remember that.and yes you did use the Bible….several times. I have listed consequences on many occasions.