Gay Marriages To Be Recognized In DC
The D.C. Council voted unanimously to recognize gay marriages performed in states where they are legal. This comes the same day that Vermont recognizes same-sex marriages and a week after legalization in Iowa.
“I think we’re going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, national marriage project director for the advocacy group Lambda Legal. “Each time there’s an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow.”
But 43 states still prohibit gay marriage, and 29 states have constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Family Research Council, a conservative anti-gay group, is trying to get in the way of completing this process. Peter Sprigg of the FRC wants to get Congress to oppose gay marriage in D.C. or launch a public referendum to renounce it. Thankfully, though, momentum is clearly on the side of those pushing for marriage equality.
God’s Will is evidently not on the side of the anti-gays. God loves gay people and is not going to instantly condemn them all for being what they are and doing what they do.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Any church or “charity” that opposes gay marriage should have its tax-free status revoked.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Why because they disagree with you about the practice of a sexual behavior?
Speaking out and opposing a behavior on moral grounds is not “hate speech”
Do you hate the soldiers over in Iraq??
You speak out against our involvement over there don’t you??
I’ve got news for you, Religious speech is protected speech, and if you love the freedom’s that you claim to love then you will fight for my right to speak out against homosexual behavior.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Trees:
1. Why should it concern you what two consenting adults do?
2. We don’t hate the troops. We LOVE the troops which is why we want to bring them home and out of danger. I’m not so sure about you. It seems you’re happy keeping our troops in harm’s way.
3. Yes, we do speak out against our involvement in Iraq and Afganistan. We don’t condone the slaughter of innocent people.
4. And if you are against homosexual behavior, you are definitely in the minority and strike me as an intolerant person.
blissfulconservative Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
3. So you do condone the slaughter of the guys and gals with explosives strapped on killing children and soldiers AND the guys with RPG’s, machine guns, etc. shooting at us??
4. put it to a vote. a majority of americans believe marriage is between one man and one woman
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
BlissfulConservative:
Well, maybe if we didn’t invade their country, we wouldn’t have to worry about suicide terrorists killing our soldiers and innocent people, now would we?
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
What did anyone do to create terrorism?
Are the terrorists justified?
We worry about the terrorists coming over here, don’t we?
Did you forget 9/11?
Did we deserve 9/11??
Did America’s chickens come home to roost?
Do you support the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s free speech?
VegasLib Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Trees: “What did anyone do to create terrorism?”
Maybe somehow ‘anyone’ really did somebody else wrong, but I dunno. Terrorism isn’t limited to the US, but I think envy and ideology might have been a contributor at first. Now, though, terrorism has escalated because we went and invaded one of the countries where they reside. These people are just maniacs, but I don’t know that our approach to the ones in Iraq was the right one. It created more resentment towards us and in turn more terrorists were recruited. We’re smarter than they are, but what we did in Iraq was done with a similar, vengeful mentality to that of the terrorists.
—–
Trees: “Are the terrorists justified?”
Very much no, but they believe they are, whole-heartedly. It’s simply ideology, but theirs is a very radical one. A less radical ideology would be you believing that all practicing, ‘unrepentant’ homosexuals are condemned to hell, though, in my humble opinion, a pretty radical ideology as well.
—–
Trees: “We worry about the terrorists coming over here, don’t we?”
Indeed. Our fear gets the best of us sometimes. The fear is more prevalent now than ever before, though, becuase of the escalated terrorism caused by the war in Iraq.
—–
Trees: “Did you forget 9/11?”
No.
—–
Trees: “Did we deserve 9/11??”
Nobody deserves to die. Nobody. 9/11 was not God’s Will.
—–
Trees: “Did America’s chickens come home to roost?”
WTF?
—–
Trees: “Do you support the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s free speech?”
Very much so, in the same way that I support Rush Limbaugh’s free speech. Everyone is entitled to say as they please.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Hmm… so when two consenting adults rob a liquor store I shouldn’t let it bother me??
If what two consenting adults do is harmful to society then we don’t accept it.
There’s a reason why homosexuality has been taboo ever since the beginning, it’s harmful to society.
See TDro, you say hateful things all the time….. I’m happy that they are getting killed right?
If practicing homosexual behavior was the majority opinion then it would be commonplace, traditional, and the “norm”, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.
Your statement is completely false, but you know that already.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
2. We don’t hate the troops. We LOVE the troops which is why we want to bring them home and out of danger. I’m not so sure about you. It seems you’re happy keeping our troops in harm’s way.
—
Hey TDRO…sounds like you took a “radical religious cuckoo right” statement and just changed a word..
“we don’t hate the gays…..”
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
When churches step into the political arena it’s no longer “religious speech,” and when they mount political campaigns they’re no longer a “church.”
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
When’s the last time a church ran for office?
How is disagreeing with homosexuality political? We are discussing behavior, not politics….
Churches discuss behavior, whether you like it or not.
A church is free to discuss the morality of a political figure, morality concerns behavior.
Try again.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“Do you hate the soldiers over in Iraq??”
Hey that’s relevant. So did you stop beating your wife??
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
1. Who created terrorists? Maybe haters like you.
2. No, there is no justification for terrorism
3. We don’t need to worry about terrorists coming here. They’re here already.
4. No, I didn’t forget 9/11
5. No, we didn’t deserve the 9/11 atttack
6. Chickens coming home to roost? What the hell are you talking about?
7. Yes, I support Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s free speech.
What’s your point?
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Is everyone who disagrees with you a hater?? At some point you have to ask yourself, why do I hate trees?
Do you hate me? tell the truth….
Daddio Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 8:29 am
“Any church or ‘charity’ that opposed gay marriage should have it’s tax-free status revoked.” That is mighty dictatorial of you Rocky.
That is a very assinine statement to make.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Mercy Me! Teh Gay…IT’s Spreading!
May 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
The bigoted homophobes are not praying hard enough, Vegas, that’s all it is. I mean, prayer works…look at the price of gas!
It doesn’t work so well for…erm….you know, ‘foreign’ people….but it works for true believers!
That’s why when the next REAL pandemic comes along, the vaccines will be saved for us non-believers that still trust in science….the creationists can pray their way to health…
May 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
This is good news!
Another step in the right direction.
I am more than ready to repeal Prop 8 here in CA.
Give it time.
I predict the majority of the states will recognize gay-marriage in the next five to ten years.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Eric, do you live in California???
what does it matter to you?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
District of Columbia … you got Alan on that one. Give yourself a pat on the back.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
May 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
1. Terrorism has always been around. Nobody knows who “created” terrorism.
2. No acts of terrorism is ever justified.
3. We don’t need to worry about them coming over here. They’re already here.
4. No, I didn’t forget about the 9/11 attacks.
5. No, we did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11.
6. Chickens coming home to roost? What are you talking about?
7. Yes, I support Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s free speech.
Now. What’s your point.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
By the way, the above was in response to Trees post.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
That you don’t have one (a point) concerning the removal of the tax exempt status of churches because they choose to speak out in opposition to what the majority of church goers believe is an immoral act.
Churches have the right to discuss their values, and they and their parishioners have protected free speech, and that you are not for free speech at all, you wish to limit it and stifle opinion.
You are a hypocrite, you demand free speech to speak out against a war, and you base your opposition to the Iraq war on moral grounds, and yet you do not defend the rights of others to speak out against a behavior that they disagree with.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“What did anyone do to create terrorism?”
………………………………………………..
When you overthrew democratically elected and beloved Mossadegh in Iran and replaced him with a brutal dictator, you sent the message that “freedom and democracy is not for you…”
When you helped in the coup against Abd al-Karim Qasim, and supported Saddam, you sent the message that “freedom and democracy is not for you…”
When you supported the Muslim Brotherhood over Nasser, and dictators in Pakistan, over India, you sent the same message.
Confirmed when you supported and armed the Saudis knowing they where supporting the most virulent form of religion.
You helped to nurture the feeling that maybe fundamentalism IS the only answer….that opened the door to the jihadists.
Then you armed every religious wacko in Afganistan with RPGs and stinger missiles , left the country in chaos, then walked away, while they morphed into al Qaeda.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Me??
That’s a lot of “you’s” your throwing around there Lefty.
Don’t you mean “we”?
So, we deserve the terror attacks against us?
What about Israel, do they deserve it too?
Daddio Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Trees, it’s the old line of Blame America First.
Obama’s Apology Tour in Europe. Telling the Arab broadcaster that “America dictates” policy in the Middle East. “America is arrogant”. Sitting for 50 minutes while Daniel Ortega goes on a diatribe denouncing America, and he doesn’t even walk out. Then afterward he won’t even defend America against that thug Ortega. All he would say was he was glad Ortega didn’t blame him for something when he was 3 yers old.
The liberals always fail to see the good in America. We freed the world of tyrants like Tojo, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, and quieted thugs like Kadafi (sp).
We continue to feed the world. We ship medicines and doctors all over the globe to heal people and make life better.
During disasters we send tons of supplies and money and people to help. Our Navy even uses their hospital ships to take on the many who are injured during natural disasters.
We have missionaries all over the globe teaching not only about God but teaching children to read and write and math and science. We have a program like Heifer International who ship various farm animals to third world nations to teach them how to raise and care for these animals and they use these animals to make a living. This is not a hand out, but a helping hand to make a life for these people.
So I wll never “Blame America” for the worlds ills and the worlds dictators and thugs.
I recognize America for it’s greatness and it’s great heart for mankind. America is a land of peace and we spread that peace all over the world. America is a land of prosperity and opportunity.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
OldLefty Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Blaming Republicans is NOT blaming America any more than when you blame Clinton or Carter.
The liberals do NOT fail to see the good in America, And while we DID “free the world of tyrants like Tojo, Hitler, Mussolini,( a liberal president), the fear of liberals is that conservative will destroy it, if left to their own devices, (just like conservatives think of liberals).
Conservatives like Bush Rumsfeld and Cheney supported and profited with , Saddam, and Kadafi.
Many liberals feel that the right has absolute contempt for the values that this country was founded upon……it’s just a matter of who gets to define pro or anti American.
The most childish sentiment is that you think you are more pro American than the other side.
It requires one to completely ignore history…..like an overly indulgent parent who believes that in spite of the evidence, EVERYBODY is lying except MY little angle.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Trees: “What did anyone do to create terrorism?”
It would seem to me that ideology created terrorism. So, maybe philosophers and thinkers? They thought and thought a lot and thought wrong. So much more wrong than others. The worst thinkers, even though they would and will forever believe they were and are the best thinkers, created terrorism. They were the most radical of thinkers. Lesser radical thinkers believe that God will condemn all practicing homosexuals, but they’re radical nonetheless. Much less radical than the former, though, even though the former believe that same idea.
Trees: “Are the terrorists justified?”
Very much no, but, again, they undoubtedly believe they ARE. It’s really tough. And when we kill terrorists, the remaining ones’ beliefs become stronger and stronger and even other innocents are dragged into thinking like them from the wrong actions of others. It’s incredibly delicate and complicated.
Trees: “We worry about the terrorists coming over here, don’t we?”
Indeed. And now more than ever. 9/11 succeeded very much at turning the world into what the terrorists wanted to turn it into. A panic has spread since then. Fear is prevalent and sadly we have forgotten that ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ Fear has made us react hurriedly and stupidly. It made us think in a more similar way to the terrorists; in a more vengeful way. They pretty much succeeded at making us more like them, but we’re now coming to our senses again as the smart society we have always been.
—–
Trees: “Did you forget 9/11?”
An American implying that another American forgot about 9/11 is, in my view, an ignorant one. That is the type of ignorance that the terrorists have succeeded in imposing on us. We have to rid of that ignorance.
—–
Trees: “Did we deserve 9/11??”
No one DESERVES to die. No one. 9/11 was NOT God’s will. We very much did NOT deserve 9/11. It is a dumb implication.
—–
Trees: “Did America’s chickens come home to roost?”
Wha?
—–
Trees: “Do you support the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s free speech?”
Yes. Very much so. The same way that I suppors Rush Limbaugh’s free speech. Now THAT is good ideology.
This is simply my view and my ideology. I don’t see it as radical, but who knows how others might view it. Maybe in the same way in which I put theirs. Who knows…
OldLefty Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
By “you”, I mean a tiny circle in the government and those who supported these policies.
There is a HUGE difference between a government operating under a disconnect between it’s actions and the lip service it gives it’s people while fostering enmity, among others in the world, and it’s people “deserving” to be attacked by those enemies.
To deny that these policies have caused long term problems is to keep repeating them, and to keep being suprised by them.
VegasLib Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I totally agree. If we maintain the mentality we’ve had about terrorism it will be the end of us. We need to recognize our mistakes and improve from there. There will FOREVER be room for improvement.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
blissfulconservative,
You wrote, “4. put it to a vote. a majority of americans believe marriage is between one man and one woman”
Now, indulge me for a moment. If the majority believes something, does that make it right?
If the majority of the nation voted to continue slavery, would it be okay to continue to have slaves?
If the majority of the nation voted to continue Jim Crow laws and de jure segregation, would that mean its the right thing to do?
Did you know that religious/Christian arguments were made in favor of slavery? (See Noah’s Curse by Stephen Haynes). Yet I think everyone would agree today that those preachers were wrong in their interpretation of the bible and wrong in their beliefs about slavery.
Fewer arguments were made for the religious justification for segregation, yet they were still made. Do you think that those preachers in the 50s and 60s were right to believe that blacks are so subordinate to whites that their quality of life should be diminished (see Politics and Religion in the White South edited by Glenn Feldman)?
Why then are gay rights any different? Even if the majority holds an opinion to be true, even if they believe themselves religious justified to hold that opinion, the fact of the matter is, banning gay marriage subordinates and marginalizes a segment of society who should have the same rights as anyone else in this nation. Even calling it a “Civil Union” sets it off as “other” and different, so that they are somehow less official, less normal than everyone else.
I’m going to preempt Trees or anyone else here, and say that no one thinks someone should be allowed to marry a dog or a cat or a rock. Those things are not sentient humans and can not consent to a marriage. Children are also unable to fully consent, and should not be allowed to marry. Two gay adults however are able to consent, and they should be allowed to enter a legally binding contract with the government. And before anyone argues for/against polygamy, I don’t have an argument for why polygamy shouldn’t be allowed. Honestly, unless it’s a polygamous relationship that involves the abuse of minors, there really shouldn’t be anything wrong with it.
I write all of this knowing that blissful, trees, guido, willy, et al. will misconstrue my argument and reduce it to absurd strawman arguments, or accuse me of being un-American. What is more American, however, than wanting all of my fellow citizens to have the same rights, protections, and status that I am afforded as a white heterosexual male?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I didn’t know I made strawman arguments…and you are only unamerican in a sarcastic way…
The only argument I can really make is that laws should be followed and any law legally and lawfully created is as just as any other law. Feel free to lobby, fight and persuade others to reverse that law but the law should be followed.
There are many ways in which a law can be made and they have different levels of authority. States have the right to regulate a lot of levels in their respective states, including marriage. That’s why different states have different consent rules an regulations, and that is the way our nation was founded.
Many states constitutions allow majority votes to create provisions within constitutions. 29 states or whatever the number is have decided to make a constitutional provision that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The only way to change that is to either change the constitution within the bounds and methods created to change the states constitution or create an amendment to the US constitution.
In regards to slavary, it was never a good thing, but it was the way of life and in order for a binding constitution to take effect certain things were compromised…we could debate the minutiae of what started the Civil War but the end result is that we have a constitutional amendment that disallowed slavary.
If you would like a US constitutional amendment on the issue of gay marriage there is a process to be taken. IF you would like it to be legal in your state there is a process to be taken. Unfortunately (for both sides really) is that most states recognize gay marriage in a very fragile state, one that can be taken away. Prop 8 ultimately won’t be overturned by a court because it’s absurd to argue that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.
It’s doubtful that presently a US constitional amendment could pass oweing that 29 states have their own rules and constitution outright prohibiting it.
I believe that Slavary and Jim Crow laws eventually would have been abolished of their own accord, the Civil War accelerated that timeline (for the better)
Liberal equals Freedom Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Thank you for an intelligent response.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:05 am
that’s what I strive for….I realize I said a lot and yet said nothing at all…but that’s because I don’t really know where I stand, and in lieu of that, I give long seemingly semi-intelligent answers that upon closer examination take no stand whatsoever.
The only thing I’ll firmly say is that in the context of religion I believe the homosexaul act is a sin.
And states should have the right to govern themselves including the issue of marriage, to whom, for how long and, what that means.
Drk H Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Liberal Eq Freedom – I would also add, that slavery was voted on by every state, some for, some against, until the constitutional amendment banning slavery. It was a despicable practice, that we eventually discarded thru laws based on the majority view that slavery was immorral. Same as should be conducted for gay marriage.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Here, I wanted to post it here…..
They have all the same rights you do…… a gay man has the right to marry….. a woman.
There is no discrimination based on race, or color.
Sexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior.
I being heterosexual could in fact engage in homosexual behavior if I should choose to, I am not restricted to heterosexuality any more than a homosexual is restricted to homosexuality.
A black man will always be a black man no matter how hard he tries to be white, or any other color. Race is not a behavior, sexual practices are.
Lee Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Trees,
The problem with your views on homosexuality is that you lack any real objectivity on the issue. In your mind, the bible states its wrong, therefore from that point onwards, all arguments/evidence to the contrary must be disregarded and the only evidence that is valid (in your opinion) is that which supports your view (and any such evidence is always right).
Take for example the way you throw around the term ‘unnatural’. How do you define that? Sure, homosexuals are in the minority but that alone doesn’t characterize abnormal or the more ‘loaded’ adjective you like to use ‘unnatural’.
My son likes Strawberry milkshake but my daughter hates Strawberry and loves Chocolate. Neither of them are abnormal but they were born with their brains finding different tastes desirable. Their particular tastes are not ‘behaviors’ but characteristics they were born with.
Similarly homosexuals are born this way and generally exhibit these characteristics long before they could ‘learn’ it from some homosexual mentor etc. Nor are they abnormal.. Its just another characteristic that many Christians find particularly hard to accept because it conflicts with _their_ indoctrinated view of what is normal and what is not.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 4:05 am
LEE,
I’ve read through enough of TREES’s post to know that when he says “unnatural” it means:
The sole natural purpose of intercourse is procreation (whether we men want to agree with that assessment or not)…there is no procreation potential with gay sex. Hence…unnatural
Lee Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Jared,
“The sole natural purpose of intercourse is procreation”. No this is subjective again.. There are a few points here.
Firstly, while our organs are our sole method of propagating our genes, they also have the function of pleasure. Masturbation is natural yet does not use the organs in such a way to procreate.
Secondly, many homosexuals manage to procreate quite happily without heterosexual intercourse.
Thirdly, homosexual behavior is quite common in other species although its either like humans not a dominant characteristic or else more pansexual in form.
Finally, getting back to the issue of it being subjective, ‘unnatural’ does not mean ‘that which inhibits procreation or survival of a species’. If it did then folks not blessed in the beauty department (and therefore able to attract a mate) would also be ‘unnatural’!
Instead the definition I believe you are referring to is ‘against nature/natural law’ etc. But since it occurs ‘naturally’ without some artificial source etc (and as stated occurs in other animal species), its not even against nature..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 6:14 am
LEE,
Pleasure is a byproduct of the procreation process, yes? Whether it’s via masturbation or not…the pleasure a person feels is a result of the organs doing what they’re supposed to do…
I’m not following your “subjective” argument. The male and female organs were created/evolved (pick your poison) in order to facilitate procreation, yes? That being said…it’s “natural” for those organs to be used for procreation.
Yes, homosexuals can have babies without having intercourse…thanks entirely to modern medicine. But there’s no denying the obvious “natural fit” between the man and woman in this regard.
Ugly people are not “unnatural” with regard to procreation as they still have all the working parts, right? Their looks don’t preclude them, (scientifically, not socially) from procreating.
You’re correct, there is evidence of homosexual activity in the rest of the animal kingdom…however, it is readily apparent the activity is “unnatural” with regard to procreation…as it, in no way, facilitates procreation and the sustainability of a species.
I’ve gotta say, this is the best debate I’ve had on this site in a while. Elevated vocabulary…no finger pointing or overt agenda.
Refreshing…thank you!
Lee Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Jared,
Stating things like ‘Pleasure is a byproduct of the procreation process’ is I would argue an assumption, not a fact based on science. Pleasure is not necessary for procreation so why is it automatically a ‘byproduct’?
There are lots of (other) organs with more than one purpose..
Again, it depends on how you define unnatural. If you are using the procreation argument (which as I stated is not actually a definition anyway) then why does it only refer to functioning organs? In animals the mating process often involves more than simply jumping on a mate and having intercourse. Its more usual to have a mating competition where the ‘weak’ or those that are otherwise ‘unattractive’ are rejected. Thus, if you happen to be unable to attract a mate, this would imply another example of ‘unnatural’ characteristics..
I would freely admit that its not just ‘Christians’ who feel homosexuals are ‘unnatural’. Although, I do think thats the basis in Trees case. However, I think its still a subjective/relative judgement based on whatever our particular perception of ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ is.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 7:22 am
LEE,
I say pleasure is a by-product of the procreation process…because the pleasure comes from the organs doing their job. For the male…it’s the result of the ejaculation process. For the woman…it’s a scientific mystery (heehee). I don’t think you’d deny that the male organs and the females organs were made for procreation. You’re saying they might be useful for other purposes? Such as?
If you’re talking about attraction between potential mates, you’re limiting the discussion to physical attributes. Socially, the ugly duckling may not procreate because he/she is deemed “weak” by the opposite sex…but scientifically, all the parts are there. That fat chick in a club doesn’t procreate because she’s fat…not because she doesn’t have the ability. That is NOT unnatural.
If you’re talking about non-working parts, then the argument becomes one of physical deformity…in which case that would be deemed “unnatural” as there is no way to conceive.
And you’ve misspoken…Christians don’t feel Homosexuals are “unnatural” (I don’t believe TREES feels this way, either)…the ACT of gay sex is unnatural as there is no procreation potential.
Lee Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Jared,
But if the organs aren’t procreating when ‘doing their job’ yet delivering pleasure, it implies procreating isn’t their only job. Again, its just an assumption you are making here.
As for mating, I deliberately chose the term beauty to imply characteristics people were born with (such as a really unattractive face) versus something they acquired or a disease/medical deformity. The point is that these ‘features’ prevent mating from taking place due to an absence of physical attraction. Therefore it prevents procreation. Yet we would both agree they are not unnatural.. So what exactly is your definition here..
Not all Christians are as judgemental here as Trees. However, I believe Trees fits a certain stereotype here. Otherwise, as I was pointing out, I believe the idea that homosexuality is abnormal/unnatural/wrong is a relative concept versus something based on absolute logic.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
LEE,
What I’m saying, with regard to the “pleasure” debate is this:
Unless you engage in an act that jump starts the whole process…then you’re not going to have pleasure. The pleasure a man feels comes from the procreation process of ejaculation…sperm leaving the body. The ONLY reason sperm leave the body is to fertilize an egg. That is sperm’s ONLY purpose.
You keep telling me that “pleasure” is an additional function of the sex organs of a man and woman besides procreation. I’m saying without the act of sex (or simulated sex – masturbation), there would be no pleasure. Therefor, procreation is the only NATURAL result of sex. Pleasure is only one of the results….a baby being the other…wait…and the hormonal mate being yet another…and the bills…can’t forget the bills being another…
NO…a person’s lack of physical attraction does NOT scientifically prevent procreation. Which is what I’m basing my argument on. Socially, maybe…although if you saw the 5 kids my sister has…then you might reconsider your argument. (yeah…it’s wrong…but it’s the truth).
And I said that physical deformity IS unnatural as it would preclude procreation.
You believe that homosexuality is normal…it may very well be…that’s a debate for another time. HOWEVER, homosexual SEX is scientifically unnatural.
Lee Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Jared,
Ok, you win on the purpose/pleasure issue as I could argue that the procreation is the side-effect of pleasure but its not very credible/rational in fairness.
However, the mating aspect is very much scientific as mating rituals are very important in many species. For example some birds have bright plumage used in their rituals and a bird with ‘drab’ feathers won’t successfully mate (I did laugh at your comment btw..).
I would reiterate that your ‘definition’ of unnatural here is vague. It doesn’t directly relate to the ability of a species to procreate and I’m guessing you are using the latter as an extrapolation of ‘against the laws of nature’?
I don’t think acting in such a way to inhibit procreation violates any of natures ‘laws’. Instead to me unnatural would mean simply something that is never seen in nature such as a vegan crocodile that howls at a full moon.
Finally, I would repeat that folks like Trees deliberately use the term, not because it is accurate but because the term in itself helps demonize the subject. In a similar way people against universal healthcare invariably use ’socialized’ instead of ‘universal’.
VegasLib Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Liberal Equals Freedom,
Whoa. You’ve made a point of which I’ve been trying to make here for months in a single comment, but indeed there are people here who will forever hold on to their beliefs and never consider others’.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 3:34 am
VEGAS,
there are people here who will forever hold on to their beliefs and never consider others’.
I’d like to think you were being inclusive of all conservatives and liberals…but I can’t be certain.
Can you clarify for the audience your intent behind this post?
May 5th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
They have all the same rights you do…… a gay man has the right to marry….. a woman.
There is no discrimination based on race, or color.
Sexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior.
I being heterosexual could in fact engage in homosexual behavior if I should choose to, I am not restricted to heterosexuality any more than a homosexual is restricted to homosexuality.
A black man will always be a black man no matter how hard he tries to be white, or any other color. Race is not a behavior, sexual practices are.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
So by your logic, then heterosexual behavior is “learned”. You know what puzzles me about you? You have no problem with people who cheat on their spouses, but you are adament about restricting the rights on gays. Amazing!
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I have no problem with men cheating on their spouses?????
Is that what you’ve been reduced to? Lying?
I have never condoned adultery here.
What’s amazing is the unsubstantiated invective you hurl at others…..
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
TREES, it’s getting a bit tiresome with you continually calling fellow posters “liars” when they catch you in one of your (numerous) hypocritical moments.
*Yawn*. You did it last night to FEDE, and now to TRDO…
His point is VERY valid. Homosexual sex is mentioned thrice or so in the bible…divorce and adultery hundreds of times. Where are your posts calling for an end to divorced people getting married in church? Where is your “outrage” at the 60% divorce rate amongst Christians? (higher than for atheists, according to Gallup)
Since these posts from you are 100% non-existant, it is fair for TRDO to question your forthrightness without this “liar!” invective that you have become so enamoured of…
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Frosty,
If we were talking about any of those points, I’m sure we’d have related discussion, but as we are ever so often debating gay marriage, it’s not entirely pertinent to bring it up.
also, divorce rates along almost every sub group are about equal with slight variations and the number is closer to about 45% than 60%.
trees are people too Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I thought you’ve always said the bible doesn’t mention homosexuality??
Hmm….
You know if Alan posted topics on adultery and incest and divorce we would talk about those issues.
By the way, divorce is an allowable action due to adultery. Sexual infidelity is grounds for a divorce.
I didn’t support John Edwards the other day did I??
I was a vocal opponent of Bill Clinton’s adulterous relationship with Monica Lewinsky, how bout you? Did you denounce him?? Or did you say things like, “what’s the big deal, it was only sex”??
Btw, Bill also lied under oath in a court of law. Were you outraged about that, or did you say, “it’s no big deal”???
TDro319 Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
” Or did you say things like, “what’s the big deal, it was only sex”??”
That’s EXACTLY what I said. Who cares if he had an extramarital affair? What business is it of yours?
I’m wondering if you said about the Iraq war, “what’s the big deal, it’s only killing”.
trees are people too Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:54 am
There is an important point that I’d like to make in addition.
A black man is a man, and is no different than a white man, and the point is this;
If you are a man, then the natural mate for you is a woman, and the race of either the man or the woman is inconsequential…….
And a man was made to be in a relationship with a woman.
Any other relationship is something other than normal, and marriage should be the recognition of the natural, or normal, order.
This has an historical basis.
If you wish to participate in a non-traditional relationship then do so, but don’t expect society to conform to you.
I am in favor of civil unions, fair enough?
Gay Rob Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:10 am
It does not matter what you consider “normal” or abnormal” or what you consider “natural” or unnatural”
I should have exactly the same rights as you as a tax paying citizen of this country! Maybe we should force heterosexual men to marry OUT lesbians, so you’d know if feels to be in perfect matrimonial bliss (of course, without the sex.) Civil Unions are not fair and that’s why Ct and Vt had to change these laws to “marriage.
If our marriages in anyway prevented you from being married then there would be a debate. It is the religious right propaganda that society will drastically change and all there children will immediately turn into homosexuals. Wrong!
May 5th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
T: “Hmm… so when two consenting adults rob a liquor store I shouldn’t let it bother me??”
TD: No this is wrong as it it HURTING the store owner
T: “There’s a reason why homosexuality has been taboo ever since the beginning, it’s harmful to society.”
TD: Says who? Prove it!
T: “If practicing homosexual behavior was the majority opinion then it would be commonplace, traditional, and the “norm”, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.”
TR: This is simply crap made up by the religious right because of their hatred of gays.
T: “Your statement is completely false, but you know that already.”
TD: And you came to that conclusion how?
T: “See TDro, you say hateful things all the time….. I’m happy that they are getting killed right?”
TD: You said it. Not me.
flap Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
TD: No this is wrong as it it HURTING the store owner.
Flap: That line of reasoning doesn’t hold true when an abortion is HURTING an unborn child, though…make sure to add that caveat.
Hurting is bad UNLESS it’s an unborn child. Then it’s hunky-dory and copacetic.
michael Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
flap
Is it possible for you to avoid starting an abortion debate on EVERY thread you post to?
flap Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Not possible…it’s an issue like slavery that needs to be hammered. If Alan wishes to ban me, he may do so.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“And a fetus IS a child…go back to remedial biology.”
Give me a break with that crap. Take your “Save the fetus, kill the child” logic elsewhere. It’s getting old and I’m more concerned about saving the starving and destitute post born children than with children who haven’t been born yet.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Flap;
Will you please stay on topic????
By the way, I understand your warped logic:
Save the fetus – kill the child
flap Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Since WHEN do I want to kill a child?
And a fetus IS a child…go back to remedial biology.
flap Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
It’s so ignorant to say “save the fetus and kill the child” when a late-term fetus is ESSENTIALLY the same damn thing.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“It’s so ignorant to say “save the fetus and kill the child” when a late-term fetus is ESSENTIALLY the same damn thing.”
Well that’s your philosophy, not mine.
“Since WHEN do I want to kill a child?”
You seem to have no problem with children dying in an unnecessary war. As long as they don’t have an abortion, it’s a-okay with you.
flap Reply:
May 9th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
It’s not a philosophy, it’s basic biology. It really pisses me off that libs are SOOOOO concerned with science, global warming, evolution (which is fine and good) UNTIL it involves abortion.
Then the science goes out the window. It becomes “philosophy” when aborting a late-term pregnancy is de facto killing a human being.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“Do you hate me? tell the truth”
I don’t hate anybody. I don’t even know you. Besides, it takes more energy to hate than to love.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I don’t know if that is true…sometimes my kids make it very difficult to love them…usually around bedtime.
TDro319 Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
But I’m sure you love them in the morning Guido, after watching them sleep with that angelic look on their faces.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
that’s when they are best…and when you have crazy ideas about making another one…but usually those thoughts aren’t linked.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
And so you’re acting irrationally when you call me a “hater”, then aren’t you?
You refuse to extend to me the same courtesy that you yourself expect to be extended to you, right?
TDro319 Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Trees:
What the hell are you talking about????
I’m not responsible for you being a hater. That’s your own doing. It’s the CHOICE you made.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“”“There’s a reason why homosexuality has been taboo ever since the beginning, it’s harmful to society.””
?!
Did someone here actually post this, lol?
Ever heard of the ancient Greek civilisation?
The Norse?
I am astounded nightly by what I read on here…but no longer surprised.
Google “talking to Americans” on you tube!
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
What evidence do you have to support your belief that these cultures practiced homosexuality on the level that you state??
Where is your rag tag collection of ancient texts that support your position??
Or do you have firsthand knowledge, are you an eyewitness??
If the ancients practiced these sexual behaviors as you state that they did, and if this was viewed as normal behavior then please explain what happened to cause us to lose this wonderful alternative to heterosexuality??
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
And what “level” did I state?
Am I a witness? Erm, no?
“” please explain what happened to cause us to lose this wonderful alternative to heterosexuality??”"
Christianity.
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
But didn’t you say that the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality??
Does it or doesn’t it??
Ohhh….at some distant point in time everyone universally misinterpreted it!!!
Good thing for us we have you to use your superior intellect and figure out for us what it actually says…
We’re sooooo fortunate….
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
In fact, you’ve inadvertently touched on the fact that the bible was addressing homosexual acts done by heterosexuals…such as the ‘decadent’ Roman elite.
This is what the bible discusses. It does not discuss homosexaul men or women per se…
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
And so God’s punishment was to take “straights” and make them homosexuals?
How would that be punishment if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality??
You were thoroughly disproved on this issue and exposed as a fraud a couple of days ago regarding this, or don’t you remember?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
TREES, as usual, I am happy to advise you on where you have gone wrong here… ;-)
God’s “punishment” was not to turn straight men gay, as you put it…it was to fill straight men’s hearts with ‘unnatural’ lust for each other.
It is, of course only “unnatural” for straight men…If he HAD been talking about gay men…the “unnatural lust” would be towards women…
I don’t know about you, but myself I would not be happy if I suddenly and inexplicably felt myself “compelled” by ‘god’ to have a lust for my football mates…!
In the same way, I expect that a gay man would not be too happy to suddenly find himself “filled” with lust by ‘god’ for the women around him.
I suggest you re-read those passages again, keeping in mind what I have told you…
“”You were thoroughly disproved on this issue and exposed as a fraud a couple of days ago regarding this, or don’t you remember?”"
Uh, no, sorry, I must have missed that part…
May 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Oh, weren’t you making the assertion that homosexuality was widely practiced by the Greeks and the Norse??
Weren’t you attempting to say that it was a “normal” practice among these people??
May 5th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Gee, what a surprise that it was TREES that claimed that gay sex has been “taboo” since the beginning of time.
I guess they don’t teach ancient history and civilizations in seminary school. Just Noah’s ark for biology, and “Kings” for history…
Good grief man, read a book…
Liberal equals Freedom Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Yes, I’d recommend the following reading list for “Trees” on the evolution of the concept of homo- and hetero- sexualities.
Jonathan Ned Katz, “The Invention of Heterosexuality.”
George Chauncey, “Gay New York.”
Lillian Faderman, “Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers.”
Thomas Lacqueur, “Making Sex.”
That would provide you with a basic primer into the social construction of sexual orientation. If you’re interested in ancient culture and sexual practices, check out Thomas Hubbard’s “Homosexuality in Greece and Rome.” It’s a source/document book where the sources have been helpfully translated from Greek (Koine, Attic, and Aeolic, amongst other dialects) and Latin. Unless, you know these ancient languages and feel qualified to read them in their original, which is, of course, the best way to read any text.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:07 am
you could also check out girls gone wild…or so I’ve been told.
trees are people too Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:45 am
L.E.F.
I agree with reading in the source language, and I have a friend who I’ve recently introduced to Christ who is an amazing intellect. He’s from the Philippines and he speaks 7 languages fluently, and I believe he is quite possibly a genius, he soaks up information like a sponge and possesses a photographic memory.
Anyway, this friend of mine has some issues that I will not discuss here as, one it would be a betrayal of his trust, and two, I don’t hold a person’s sexuality against them.
My argument has always been from the vantage point of how this issue relates to a societies health and well being. I have genuine concern for the homosexual and I am not convinced that this condition is either genetic or irreversible.
It is incredibly complicated, the sexual development of a human being, and there are facts and statistics that readily show the harmful nature of this practice among it’s participants.
Anyway I do appreciate the resource material you have posted, and If I get the opportunity to read any of it I will see if it is anything useful.
Please understand that I consider this issue one of importance and my position isn’t intended to harm anyone’s feelings or prevent anyone from practicing their sexual preference but is more aligned with the safeguarding of societal institutions and my concern is in regards to the unformed sexual
identities of our youth.
Puberty is a confusing event and I don’t think that adding homosexuality into the mix results in a more well adjusted community.
Respectfully, trees
TDro319 Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Pray tell, Trees. How is homosexuality “harmful to society”. Are you afraid gayness is contagious, like a cold?
You also said homosexuality was “learned”. If you have straight parents, straight friends and brought up in a straight society, where does one “learn” to become gay?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“”and there are facts and statistics that readily show the harmful nature of this practice among it’s participants.
Nonsense. “Facts and figures” my arse. This may sound impressive to you when your pastor assures you he has them….
VegasLib Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
TDro319: “where does one “learn” to become gay?”
I don’t think you ‘learn’ to become gay. Really. I’m Mexican and my family’s values are ultra Catholic conservative pray-your-ass-off-when-you-can-go-to-Hell-if-you miss-mass-ONE-Sunday. And suddenly… (dun dun DUN), one of my cousins, after being married for about a year with a woman, COMES OUT! Oh no! The Apocalypse is among us! But… this guy tried to fck his wife and enjoy it, I guess. Tried really hard to keep his marriage going. No luck. He just didn’t like it. And because of our family, he had to go through a rough patch of getting married, trying real hard, and in the end having to divorce his wife because, well, he just didn’t like it. He hasn’t even told his dad yet cause he’s terrified of what his dad will do. Living in fear, so to speak. It’s awful when your his own family shuns him for what he simply just IS.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“”Puberty is a confusing event and I don’t think that adding homosexuality into the mix results in a more well adjusted community.”"
Nobody is “adding homosexuality” into the “mix”, you hateful bigot, people are who they are, whether you trust your ‘god’s’ design or not…and the only “harm” is done by despicable ignorant bigots like you and your pathetic church…
Keep your nose out of the lives of America’s youth, until you accept the wonderful diversity and variation amongst the human species…
Homosexuality is not “learned” but boy, your bias and misinformation sure is. I’d like to find the preist that filled your head with such despicable nonsense and hoist him by his own petard!
;-)
Your friend
fRosTy
Kregg Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Frosty: Keep your nose out of the lives of America’s youth, until you accept the wonderful diversity and variation amongst the human species…
K: Frosty, how much “wonderful diversity and variation amongst the human species” are you wiling to accept?
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Kregg, I’m not interested in your man\goat\pedophile nonsense.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“”You were thoroughly disproved on this issue and exposed as a fraud a couple of days ago regarding this, or don’t you remember?”"
Oh, you mean when you stammered around the topic, quoted some inappropiate verse, which we all could see “disproved” nothing, and you then angrily declared me a “fraud”?
Yes, now I remember!
Want the link, lol?
trees are people too Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Erm, isn’t that the definition of gay, or homosexual???
Natural being the normal behavior and unnatural being the abnormal behavior.
The gays themselves admit that they are not normal….
You are really quite comical.
Thereby making them “gay”.
Doh!
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:08 am
I missed the part where God punished anyone by making them gay…
trees are people too Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:17 am
It was Frostman’s attempt to twist the scriptures…
He ought to start a band and name it “Twisted Scripture”, he and his bandmates could all dress up like women and sing “we’re not gonna take it”.
I’d pay to see that by the way, Frosty……..
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:22 am
wouldn’t it be…We are gonna take it….oh yes! we are gonna take it, take it in the rear… all night long.
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“”I missed the part where God punished anyone by making them gay…”" Guito
“”It was Frostman’s attempt to twist the scriptures…”‘
I think, TREES, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that it is YOU who has said they were ‘turned’ gay. I said no such thing.
Again, in your desperate attempt to “prove me wrong”, you’ve jumped the gun, lol…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
TREES, you and Guido are like 11 year-olds looking up a ‘dirty’ word for the first time…
How’s that above nonsense looking to you now in the sobriety of day? Your family must be so proud…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“”Erm, isn’t that the definition of gay, or homosexual???”"
No, it’s the definition of a straight man being made to SUDDENLY AND INEXPLCABLY lust after another man, by ‘god’, or as in the case of many pastors, too much wine at the boy scout picnic…
“”Natural being the normal behavior and unnatural being the abnormal behavior.”"
Not at all. You keep coming back to these erroneous definitions of natural and normal, even after I think it was LES that gave you a great tutorial on the difference.
Again, (more patiently that you probably deserve), an example: “Normally” a tiger is yellow with black stripes. Sometimes, one is born with all white colouring. Both are completely “natural”
“The gays themselves admit that they are not normal….”
So now you are listening to what they say, suddenly, lol? At only 10% of the population, homosexuals are not the ‘norm’, but they occur naturally, and gay sex is natural (and normal!) for them…
You are really quite comical.
Thanks.
;-)
RDM Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I’ll jump into the frey with this little diddy:
1) Let men marry men
2) Let women marry women
3) Have all the abortions you want
In three decades…no more liberals.
OldLefty Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Funny, how I am pro choice, but the only 3 people that I ever knew who had abortions are conservatives.
And I know a whole lot of liberal families with kids, and a lot of conservatives with kids who are liberals, and having kids.
RDM Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Funny, how I am pro-choice, but the only 3 people that I ever new who had abortions are conservatives.
——————————————–
That is funny!
OldLefty Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Well, it makes sense.
flap Reply:
May 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Ah, OldLefty, so because of an anecdote about YOUR experience with conservatives we should allow abortions?
“All the slaveholders I know tend to be Northerners…”
It’s irrelevant and shouldn’t even be a political issue. Late term abortion should be outright banned. That’s SCIENCE. Biology. Teach evolution, ban abortion late-term.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I think it’s great that more and more communities, cities, counties, and states are becoming rational about the harmless act of two people loving each other and wishing to marry. It is also gratifying that it has moved a small ways away from the courts. It is progress. The march of the time will continue the process until it will almost seem silly that people once objected to gay marriage and the repression of rights for another group in America. Our wonderful country sometimes moves slowly, but it does always seem to move.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
“Btw, Bill also lied under oath in a court of law. Were you outraged about that, or did you say, “it’s no big deal”???”
Compared to hundreds of thousands of people killed in two unnecessary wars, I’d say Clinton lying about his BJ (even Nixon’s Watergate scandal) was “no big deal”.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
“”also, divorce rates along almost every sub group are about equal with slight variations and the number is closer to about 45% than 60%.”"
Where’s this from, WIKI, lol? Good try Jared, but you’ve kinda missed my point, really, in your rush to prove me ‘wrong’…
Personally, I don’t see how ‘your’ number of 45% is somehow proof that the sacred instituion of marriage is doing any better than ‘my’ number of 60%. Indeed, the numbers depend on who the population is, for instance more adults in the US have had divorces than children!
At any rate, you’ll be happy with some aspects of this study by the evangelical Chrsitian Barna group. They look at older marriages as well, whereas my %60 was for new marriages, starting now. If we include folks that were married in the 50’s and 60’s, the divorce rate goes down, obviously.
Here’s the results of exhaustive research by the Barana Group:
||The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America and found surprising evidence that divorce is FAR LOWER among atheists than among conservative Christians — exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting. (my Caps)
11% of all American adults are divorced
25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce
27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced
21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced
27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
26% of people in the West have been divorced
19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced
More surprising numbers!
Take it for what it is, I don’t care. I’m not surprised at the high divorce rate amongst Christians…IMO many get married too young, and have not had enough sexual experience, so naturally they are the first to develop a wandering eye, lol…
Kregg Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Frosty: I’m not surprised at the high divorce rate amongst Christians…
K: It would be interesting to see how many atheists are simply living together without being married and see how many of them break up. This would provide a better statistical picture…
baD mR fRosTy Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The point remains the same. ‘Evangelical’ Christians would do far better to turn their efforts “inwards”, and to each other, to preserve the “sacred institution of marriage”, than to continue this losing fight against the acceptance of gays…
Progressive Christian churches have already done this. There are even gay ministers in the United Church for instance!
It’s the ‘conservative’ sects that are not willing to admit the real problem. Look at the Baptists…the highest rate of divorce of all!
But it would inconvenient and embarrasing, wouldn’t it, for congregation members to have to point their fingers at themselves for a change. If a pastor started to condemn divorce and adultery with the same venom he does gays…he would very quickly lose membership to the big mega-church down the street, where they fight the real fight…against fags and commies!
“Everyone seems to know what Christ’s message was, except Christians…” – Ghandi
Kregg Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Frosty: The point remains the same. ‘Evangelical’ Christians would do far better to turn their efforts “inwards”, and to each other, to preserve the “sacred institution of marriage”, than to continue this losing fight against the acceptance of gays…
K: This is true. However, abusing an institution is not the same thing as changing it’s definition. Individual members of society may abuse the institution of marriage but society at large still has the right to determine the definition of the institution.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Since everyone is talking about marriage, what’s up with Arlen Specter? Biden said he was chasing Arlen for years, he bent over and oops, was taught a lesson by his new teammates. He better learn to follow the party line. Stripped of his seniority, loss of rank. I hope he likes his new found friends. As I said before;” There’s no fool like an old fool”.
OldLefty Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
That’s OK, there are some actual liberal challengers for Arlen, and Tom Ridge may challenge Toomey:
A new poll of Pennsylvania from Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies shows that former Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA), who is reportedly considering a bid for the Senate seat now held by Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter, would currently lead conservative candidate Pat Toomey in a 60%-23% landslide for the Republican primary.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Trees are people” presents a ridiculous argument about gay marriage. Two consulting adults robbing a store are violating someone else’s rights. Two consenting adults having sex is not hurting anyone.It is a silly comparsion.
“Homosexuality” has been a taboo for so long because the world is predominately heterosexual and they only believe their beauty is in the “eye of their beholder” It is a majority discriminating against a minority
Heterosexual marriage was the only union for decades because gay and lesbians had to stay silent because we would beaten or murdered by homophobe heterosexual nutcakes. (whether religious or not)
And of course “Trees” never states how it would harm society. Of course, Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth marriage already. Maybe you can ask him how to preserve marriage values…LOL
Drk H Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Gay Rob – Why is a historically successful belief that is a foundation of our common law a ridiculous argument? It harms society because it devalues the family as the core of our civil society, replacing it with more and more variations, each a little more extreme than the one before. But the main thing is, and should be, allow the states to decide the issue. States that don’t believe that way, will encourage people to move there, and vice versa for those of the opposing view.
average james Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 2:29 am
DRK,
Was the historically successful belief in slavery as a foundation for common law a ridiculous argument ?
Some historically correct beliefs need to be overturned by law, then looked back upon and seen for what they were, wrong.
average james Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Man I’m tired,
Some historically “successful” beliefs need to be overturned by law, then looked back upon and seen for what they were, wrong.
Gay Rob Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Once more, a ridiculous reason. The religious right has convinced our society that gay marriage will eventually lead to incestous and polygamous marriages. They use their children as pawns to scare people into believing that most homosexuals are child molesters and will turn them gay somehow. Of course, they never mention anything when a hetero man molests a little girls.
People were so afraid that interracial marriages would lead to a takeover of the white population. And after all was said and done,most people married someone of their own race anyway. It’s a big hoopla over nothing.
Gay Rob Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
This is the propaganda and fear that has been perpetuated by the religious right that our society will become inundated with incestuous and polygamous marriages. That their children will be molested by those evil homosexuals and will grow up playing with “Ken” barbie dolls.
Oh,by the way, gay marriage was legalized in Mass. in 1994. Have you seen any major cases of people clamoring to have their incestuous relationships turn into matrimonial bliss? Has anyone tried to marry their dog?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 1:35 am
GAY ROB,
Of course, Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth marriage already. Maybe you can ask him how to preserve marriage values…LOL
Hmmm…I’ll tell you what…I’ll ask Limbaugh, if you’ll ask Edwards. Deal?
Gay Rob Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 2:05 am
No deal…it is the “Holier Than Thou Attitude” of people like Rush Limbaugh is what I am really talking about and lets not foget his condemnation of drugs while he was secretly taking illegal ones. The conservative right is so hypocritical about these things. Maybe I can get Ted Haggard to help me clip your angel wings
JaredfromTexas Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 3:49 am
GAY ROB,
So, what you’re saying is the liberals enjoy the comfort of not having standards that they must be held accountable to? That must be nice…
The only thing the “right” is hypocritical of is announcing they’re wont to adhere to a higher moral standard. They do so in order to have the public keep them accountable.
The “left” isn’t equally as hypocritical when they engage in such nefarious acts? Why? Because they don’t proclaim to the public they’re moral standards? To that I say BS! They are both equally hypocritical…only one gets more media coverage than the other.
Maybe I can get Clinton to bring you back to the home team. wait…nevermind…
May 7th, 2009 at 1:10 am