Deinstitutionalizing Marriage
January 5th, 2008 at 09:20am Mark Noonan
What possible harm can there be to marriage if same-sex couples are permitted to participate? So goes the question we hear very often in this debate - meaning, of course, that if one of my gay friends were to get married, would it have any affect on my marriage to my wife? The answer, of course, is none at all - we’re not going to get divorced, or even have a lover’s quarrel, if gay person gets married. It would seem, then, that the problem is solved - since it won’t harm me, by all means, go ahead and get married gay people. The problem, though, is that while I am married, marriage doesn’t belong to me - it is not something for me to dispose of. When I got married, it wasn’t me taking charge of marriage, but me voluntarily submitting myself to the institution of marriage, and all that it entails.
In our modern society, we are very I orientated - I want this, I want that, I won’t do that, I will do the other. Such attitudes suffuse our popular culture - you can hardly go an hour on a popular music station without coming across some song which will proclaim that no one has a right to tell me what to do and I’ll do what I darn well please. Institutions fare poorly in debates with individuals - it always seems more reasonable for the institution to bow before the odd request of the individual than for the individual to bow before the dictates of the institution. In our I-centered culture, this fact has just become more pronounced. I want to get married, says the gay man - and the expectation is that the institution of marriage will conform to the demand of the individual; and, why not? It has already bowed to the individual in that every day there is a person saying I want a divorce and, poof, there is a divorce. So, why not, poof, is there is gay marriage? Because wisdom dictates that if you’ve made one horrendous error, you don’t fix it by making a second such error.
There has been noted in recent surveys of public attitudes that the younger generation is far less patient with the easy divorce we’ve become accustomed to in the modern west. There is a feeling that people should make it work - a bit more elbow grease, as it were, rather than a swift retreat to “irreconcilable differences”. This unsurprising given that the rising generation is made up of a very large number of people who were victims of parental divorce. After dealing, themselves, with the idiocy of joint custody and endless battles over child support and visitation, the feeling is growing that if the folks had just been a bit more adult about things, a whole lot of trouble could have been avoided. We’re finding that the corrective to a bad marriage isn’t found in bending the institution to the individual, but in bending the individual to the institution.
When I got married, I promised my wife and God that I would stick with this through sickness and health, for richer or poorer, for better or worse, all the days of my life. This was me entering the institution of marriage - a full-fledged adult in complete command of his mental faculties, there is no question that I knew what I was getting in to. For me to even contemplate no longer being married to my wife, there would have to be something which would render me no longer bound by the promise I made to my wife and my God. Such a thing would have to be a very grave matter - not some light and transient thing; and the thing rendering the promise null would have to be something done to me, not something I did. I’m bound by my promise until released from it by those to whom I made the promise - and this is even the case during those times, which come in all marriages, where things aren’t all sweetness and light.
When we said once upon a time that marriage isn’t a promise but, instead, just a temporary agreement to live together, we did what we had not the competance to do - we changed the institution of marriage. Those who wrote the laws and rendered the court judgements which allowed for “no fault” divorce were akin to a county commission writing a law supposedly binding upon the whole of the United States. As I said, I don’t own marriage - and neither does anyone else. It isn’t our property: its something we do per its rules, or don’t do at all. Think of marriage as a national park - it is owned by those who came before, those alive now, and those who will live in the future. It is something to be passed down from generation to generation and a precious gift, not like some bauble to be used or sold as the mood strikes.
Marriage, as an institution, is a thing designed for the propagation of both our species and our civilization. It regularises the relations between the sexes and clearly defines who is responsible for the upbringing of which children. It is central to our existence - but it is also a purely voluntary thing. We don’t have to participate if we don’t want to. But if we do choose to join in, then there are ground rules we must adhere to (ie, no sexual straying; responsible use of resources for the good of the whole family, etc, etc, etc.). The problem with gay marriage isn’t that two people of the same sex are getting together - they are doing that, already, with no ill effects on marriage - but that gay sex doesn’t conform to the needs of marriage.
Marriage, as I’ve said, isn’t a personal possession but, instead, is something which exists for a societal purpose and which has certain rules which are designed to support the reason for its existence. Adding same-sex couples to marriage would be an unsupportable alteration to marriage - it would be to make marriage something other than what it is supposed to be. It isn’t about a fancy wedding ceremony; it isn’t about tax benefits - heck, it isn’t even about love! Its about forming the building block of our society - a man and a woman coming together with at least the potential of having children in keeping with the purpose of the institution of marriage. Easy divorce cripples this fundamental role of marriage, and gay marriage would, too.
There are various purposes assigned to gay marriage - to get same-sex couple certain tax and inheritence benefits associeated with marriage; to make homosexuality more acceptable in the larger society; to affirm homosexuals in their lifestyle. Even if we were to suppose all of these to be admirable purposes, the plain fact of the matter will remain that none of them are part of the purpose of marriage. We don’t have marriage for tax purposes, we don’t have marriages to become socially acceptable and we don’t have marriages because they make us more accepted - we have marriages in order to serve the vital purpose of continuing our species while at the same time continuing our civilization. Go into marriage and you must do what marriage commands, not what you might prefer (though a wise man always works on getting his desires to match the needs of his marriage) - just as if you went into the institution of the Army you would have to do what the Army wants, not what you want.
Rather than adding gay marriage to the mix and further deinstitutionalising marriage, it is time for us to actually start attacking the easy divorce we have these days. We tore down a lot of the building blocks of our society over the past 60 years and it is time to turn the tide, not go with the (destructive) flow.
HAT TIP: First Things for getting me thinking on this.
Entry Filed under: Social Issues
308 Comments
1. extramedium | January 5th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Another excellent, thought provoking post.
I’m curious though - while you suggest that we should attack easy divorces as a means of supporting the institution of marriage, the divorce rate has in fact gone down in the last 25 years - from 22.8 per 1000 married women in 1980 to 17.7 in 2005. Meanwhile, from 1970 to 2005 the marriage rate has dropped nearly 50% - 76 out out 1000 unmarried women were married in 1970 vs. 39 per 1000 in 2005.
Don’t you suppose the marriage rate is a more important thing to focus on, and furthermore, don’t you suppose that making marriage more difficult to get out of will only accelerate the decline of the marriage rate? Cohabitation would seem a much more sensible choice is the stakes were made much higher.
Frankly, I don’t see how you could address either metric unless you somehow find a way to promote marriage as duty above all other motivations. Would such promotion be the job of both the church and the state? Your proposal on how to do that, in the face of our modern consumerist culture, would surely be interesting.
2. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
oh Mark - so silly. You spend so much time attacking the “I generation and then when you finally get to the punchline you state that”
“we have marriages in order to serve the vital purpose of continuing our species while at the same time continuing our civilization”
now explain to me how allowing gays to marry would stop the species from continuing or stopping our civilization from continuing?
I would like to hear that one. This should be good
3. Huck Fillary | January 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Why would you “like to hear that one,” libretardTHC? So you can impugn it with more baseless stupidity, as you always do?
You’re so smart,…not…then why don’t you start your own blog? What’s your motive for supporting gay activism, other than the fact that you’re a contrarian here? It doesn’t matter what topic Mark or Matt posts–you have to take the other side. Don’t you have any principles of your own? Probably not, being that you’re a stupid lemming…
4. phil | January 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Mark,
(Ed. Note: Deleted. Very weirdly waaaaay the heck off topic)
Have a nice day
Phil
5. Rana Quijotesca | January 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Considering that marriage is a human institution (that is, it has been developed by, maintained by, and used by humans), isn’t the definitions and constraints of that institution derived from the consensus view of individuals? That being said, hasn’t history shown that the consensus view on certain individuals changed through time (such as the consensus view of slavery and interracial marriage)? Given that, isn’t the view on gay marriage changing in a similar fashion?
Also, if you are holding the purpose of marriage to be the continuation of species and civilization, does that mean that you should restrict the ability of infertile heterosexuals to marry? Likewise, should you restrict the ability of homosexual couples who seek to have and raise children (through in vitro or a surrogate) to marry (seeing as how they are similarly propagating the species and culture)?
6. Martin | January 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Mark,
From what I’ve gleaned from reading your posts, it doesn’t sound like your marriage has resulted in “the continuation of the species”, which according to you, is the only reason marriages exist. Pardon me for chuckling upon reading your whole post and realizing that was your conclusion.
7. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
extra,
It is my view that the failure to form a marriage altogether is a result of the deinstitutionalization of marriage - if marriage isn’t forever, goes the thinking, why start one at all? It is my view that if marriage were held far more sacrosanct than we hold it today, there would actually be more of it happening - it would once again hold that central and highly honored position it held prior to our tinkering with it.
8. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Martin,
And once you actually address the issues raised, I’ll get back to you.
9. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The institution of marriage belongs to God.
Genesis 2:18-25
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to seee what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man,”
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were naked, and they felt no shame.
Jesus instructs God’s commands of marriage.
Matthew 19:1-12
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judeah to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Parisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Jesus explains
The man is head of the household
Ephesians 5:22-23
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Colossians 3:18-19
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
Relationships should be clean & Holy in marriage
1 Peter 3:1-7
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. You beauty should not come from outward adornment, usch as braieded hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
And read all of 1 Corinthians 7
So, what can we conclude, seeing that marriage is meant for man and woman…Only….?
That homosexuals are out of their minds, they are depraved and reprobate individuals.
~ Jeremiah
10. extramedium | January 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
My guess is that, over the next few generations, marriage becomes less an institution of the state and more an institution of the church.
The state will afford benefits for all adult citizens who wish to bond together in one-to-one commitment. We’ll come up with a new name besides marriage for that declaration of commitment, and people will be able to end their commitment if their situation changes.
Marriage will become a pledge of commitment before God, administered by the church, and the rules of who gets to get into it or who gets to get out of in the eyes of God will be determined by the church. If a church doesn’t want to marry gays, or wants to make the commitment unbreakable, they should be free to do so - but they could only enforce it to the extent of the church’s authority, i.e. they could sanction or excommunicate those who don’t adhere to the rules of the church.
As Jeremiah says - the institution of marriage will then belong to God. The legalities of adult commitment will belong to the state. Everybody’s happy.
11. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Please ban crazy Jerry. And his wife too.
12. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
still waiting…
13. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Gays are out of their minds? This coming from a Bible-thumpin’, misogynistic, homophobic nutcase like yourself?
If I were gay, I would take what you just said as a complement.
14. Ann | January 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I guess we really need to ask ourselves what marrage really is. I don’t think it’s the piece of paper issued by the state when a man and a woman get married. In my estimation, marrage is the commitment to each other and God. The piece of paper issued by the state is to insure the rights of each man and woman entering into the relationship between themselves and God. Before the piece of paper, a man could decide to divorice his wife, and by using words just walk away. If he wanted to, he could take everything, and leave the wife with nothing. The piece of paper now issued by the local government assures the so called equal rights to property, child support, visitation rights, spousal support, etc. So, marrage became a legal matter. I do believe this is necessary.
However, the fight for homosexual rights to a marrage is to me a way of trying to turn something unholy into holy. How can this be? Only God can preform this act. Not a piece of paper issued by the state. If homosexuals want the same rights as a man and woman in the institue of marrage, it can be accomplised with the use of an overpaid lawyer. The only things I can think of that cannot be accomplished this way are health insurance,taxes and social security benefits. There may be other issues I am not aware of. But if the health insurance, taxes and social security benefits are the issue, is this a way of trying to get something for nothing? Or, is this a way for homosexuals to try and force their sexual preferences down our throats. The old saying,”If you give an inch, they will take a mile”, comes to mind.
I say No to homosexual marrage. This country really needs to return to God and his ways. We do not need to judge others, that is up to God. But, we do need to follow the laws of the Bible. the pendulam has swung too far. It needs to be recentered around the Bible.
15. js | January 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The fruit of the union of marriage is children. Its natures way. One male, one female, thats what it takes. Surely, nature itself provides evidence of it to no ends, without which, species die out, become extinct, and are forgotten.
What use is a marriage without children? What use is a society without a country? Social experiments, or, homosexual marriage, just doesnt pan out. Whats the use of marrying two people of the same sex, when the tree they become leads to extinction?
Our forefather, and thiers before them, set forth the example that sodomy, sexual perversions, should not be tolerated. They had this sense of goodness, proper conduct, an idea that formal behavior was a direct reflection upon not only ourselves as individuals, but on our society and our nation as a whole.
What is going on in America is our moral characture as a nation is being poisoned by 1.5% of the population, who believe they have some ordained right to be perverts, and treated like normal people, in our society. It used to be that sodomites would be run out of town for thier sexual perversions, but today, its a hate crime to disrespect thier rights to be sexual deviants.
Next to abortion, there is a rope around the neck of these United States. We are being hung for our morality, while we stand aside and do nothing to stop this destruction of our country that, once upon a time, the world adored instaed of hated.
16. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
guess you can’t answer that one Mark. So you concede that you are incorrect - no apologize
17. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
now explain to me how allowing gays to marry would stop the species from continuing or stopping our civilization from continuing?
First of all, LiberalT, you’re looking at it from a worldly perspective, the way most lost people do, and by “lost”, I mean-someone who has no clue about right and wrong. Which is what Liberalism does, it confuses people to the point that they have no perception of right and wrong. Liberalism - “Everything is acceptable, it doesn’t matter what kind of abhorrent, disgusting behavior it is.”
Liberalism is the way that Satan plays with peoples minds, you see. Liberalism is an avenue for Satan to get his hold on America, so Liberalism is just the starting point of the eventual downfall of America.
You can see this degeneration on television, especially coming out of Sundance and Independent Film channel….just… beyond weird
So, in essence, Liberalism through the arts is out to take control of peoples minds.
That’s one way they brainwash, is through the entertainment industry.
We also have the educational crisis, which Liberals have taken advantage of the State and thus, taken complete control over whatever means they choose in which to brainwash the children, and this is really bad news, because our future generations are all we have to keep America going.
So the Liberals say, “Hmmm. Now we’ve got complete right-away with the State, now we can do with the children as we see fit, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. Hmmm, what’s on the list-let’s see, there’s - Atheism/Evolution, there’s feminism, there’s homosexuality, there’s drugs, ” just an entire list of things destructive to the mentality of the young individuals–and these things weren’t meant to be taught in school
Our elected officials bow to every want of the Liberals.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH PEOPLE?? CAN’T THEY SEE WHERE THIS NATION IS HEADED BY TEACHING THE CHILDREN THAT TRASH???
WHERE’S MATH??? WHERE’S ENGLISH??? WHERE’S HISTORY??? MORE SO..WHERE’S THE BIBLE???
And all the while, Liberalism just keeps working it’s thorns right into the heart of our society.
If the ratio of sodomites to heterosexuals was even? To be precise, there would be utter mayhem, there would be Civil War like no other.
~ Jeremiah
18. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
uh - thanks Jerry for that bit of utter insanity - always nice to hear from you…
19. Tractatus | January 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Marriage, as an institution, is a thing designed for the propagation of both our species and our civilization.
BZZT! Wrong. Marriage, as an institution, has been a thing designed to be everything from a business transaction to royal maneuvering to PR stunt, among countless other variations. Perhaps yours doesn’t fall into any of those categories, but neither does yours fall into the category of “propagation of species,” meaning your own marriage doesn’t live up to your own definition of marriage.
This post is basically just recycled “start with the conclusion, and work backward from there”-style “I don’t like the idea of gays getting married, so let me figure out how to justify that.” You’ve written it many times without variation, always begging the question (”In order to prove that gay marriage is wrong, I must start with the supposition that gay marriage is wrong”) and running around in similar rhetorical circles.
The bright side is that ultimately you’ll fail in your desire to deny gays equality in marriage, just as conservatives failed to sustain a ban on interracial marriage (using much the same language, it’s worth pointing out). Try as you might to cobble together some sort of defense, more and more people are realizing that it’s just a load of crap. You didn’t do yourself any favors by predicting the ruin of civilization in places that do allow gay marriage because, to the shock of nobody paying attention, that simply hasn’t happened.
Nice to see Jerry and his fellow religious nuts out in full force here, though, pining for the days when “sodomites would be run out of town.” Mmmm, feel that Christian compassion! By all means, continue to hasten your irrelevance.
20. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
LiberalT,
Actually, I had to get to the store, do some laundry, wash the dishes - you know, live. So, I haevn’t had time to answer you. If I choose to do so, it will be good - but, what you need to apologise for is your slanderous statement in the Spain/Catholic Church thread.
21. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
well - i am waiting. There is no need to apologize as I was just quoting the AP. I cannot produce a official validated translation but I trust the AP was reporting correctly. All you have to do is look to the vitriol of Jerry on your own blog to see that it is not that improbable a statement.
I still maintain you do not respond because you cannot…
22. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Tract,
Actually, the early data on nations which have legalised gay marriage is a very rapid drop off in the total number of marriages occuring. In other words, with the continual deinstitutionalization of marriage, it becomes something less and less appealing to people. Europe, of course, is far further down the road of deinstitutionalization than the US is and it is there we can see the full effects - and the most telling thing in favor of my argument is the marriage rate (much lower) and the birth rate (not just much lower, but far below replacement rate).
As for my personal choices in life - I didn’t get married until 40. I’m not doing, in this life, all of the things I should have. I was wrong to wait so long to get married, wrong to not have children. I can’t undo what I did - and I’m not stupid enough to think that just because I screwed up, I can’t then identify my error and work to prevent other people from making the same error.
Your problem - and the problem is endemic to all leftwing thinking - is that want the trappings of high civilization without having to make the effort necessary to secure it. You want peace, but refuse those necessary war preparations which alone can secure peace. You want freedom but you won’t die for it. You want marriage, but don’t want the enforced life-long commitment nor the two to three children which should come along with it.
Gay marriage is a negation of marriage - it is the land of make-believe dressed up in the costume of reality. I’m not about to jettison the institution of marriage, and consign my civilization to destruction, just because some liberals want to feel good - how you feel about things is immaterial; what is right is what must be done (and, LiberalT, this is my answer to you, as well).
23. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I say No to homosexual marriage. This country really needs to return to God and his ways…. the pendulam has swung too far. It needs to be recentered around the Bible.–Ann
That was Excellent!
~ Jeremiah
24. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
LiberalT,
You’ve got about five minutes to link to the AP report…
25. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1383584.php/Spanish_bishop_equates_homosexuality_with_child_molestation
for example…i just read the news I don’t make it up like you do
26. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
–
Gay marriage is a negation of marriage - it is the land of make-believe dressed up in the costume of reality. I’m not about to jettison the institution of marriage, and consign my civilization to destruction, just because some liberals want to feel good - how you feel about things is immaterial; what is right is what must be done (and, LiberalT, this is my answer to you, as well).
—
this isn’t answering the question at all. Yuu claimed quite clearly above that we cannot allow gay marriage because its purpose is the continuation of our species and civilization. I asked you to show me how you think allowing gay marriage would negate these. Prove it.
27. plainjane | January 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Blah, Blah, Blah. It is election season, time to bring the evangilicals back into the Republican fold with the gay marriage debate.
I don’t want to see two guys having sex in a public bathroom and I don’t want to see a man and a women having sex in a public bathroom. The Constitution provides privacy rights for all, use them. With that said the government should stay out of their business. If Mark and the others don’t like it go set up your own Jonestown.
28. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
So people like me and liberalT are mere examples of how Lucifer has corrupted the minds of Americans? Been hitting the bottle a little early, haven’t we?
The Sundance and IFC Channels? Seriously? I wasn’t aware that Satan was a fan of Independent movies.
I’m not sure which schools you’ve been inspecting, but I’m certain there isn’t a course on Homosexuality 101 or textbook called Atheism and You. I should know, because i’m still in high school, and i’ve seen nothing of the sort. And we’re not supposed to be taught about what drugs are, what they can do to the body, and how to avoid them? Are you on drugs right now, Jeremiah? and btw: feminism is a college course, you idiot.
Trust me, the Math, English, and History courses are still around.
29. Kahn | January 5th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
LibT - “I trust the AP was reporting correctly.”
How many people died as a result of the Koran being flushed down the toilet report? Oh yah, that was Newsweek. Here’s a link for you:
http://www.regrettheerror.com/tag/associated-press
30. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Remember when all homosexuals wanted was to be left alone in the privacy of their “bedrooms” to do as they please.
Well, that wasn’t enough to satisfy them. Nothing is ever enough! Now they will be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of traditional marriage… the destruction of the American family… so they can feel like theirs is a “normal” family!
Now they are even teaching their “gay lifestyle” to the children in our public schools — along with the rest of their anything goes sex!!!
Either Americans stand up and say enough is enough, or they can continue to sit on their complacent back sides and watch as Liberals flush America down their liberal sewer!
Allow Liberals to get their foot inside your door and they will destroy your house!!!
Anyone who believes anything short of a Constitutional Amendment will stop the Liberals’ march toward gay “marriage” is a naive fool!
If homosexuals want to “marry”, move to Europe or Canada!!!
AAR
31. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
LiberalT,
Well, I click on your link and find an article saying, in very bad writing, what you say was said - except its not an AP report, but a report from Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
A search of Deutsche Presse-Agentur’s website for Bishop Bernardo Alvarez produces the following result:
Which result, translated by AltaVista’s Babelfish, results in the following:
A search of the Catholic hierarchy for Spain procudes no Bishop by the name of Bernardo Alvarez.
As a final touch - when you insert the word “pederasts” into the search icon of the link you provide, the following result comes back:
Which is a news report from April 24, 2007.
Can you clarify this?
32. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
LiberalT?
I’m still waiting for you to clarify? I know you’re out there…cat got your tongue?
33. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
(Ed. Note: Links deleted, refer to a known lie).
34. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
So people like me and liberalT are mere examples of how Lucifer has corrupted the minds of Americans? Been hitting the bottle a little early, haven’t we?
LibT is done, he/she was washed up long ago. There’s no hope for he/she.
However, there’s still time for you, since you are still young enough to possibly make a change, if it isn’t already too late…and I sincerely hope you do…don’t waste your life being drawn into that deceiving hopelessness that Liberalism luring into, my friend.
I wasn’t aware that Satan was a fan of Independent movies
He’s not, their his, he’s the one who made them. Only bad things, come out of such Satanic mentality.
I’m not sure which schools you’ve been inspecting, but I’m certain there isn’t a course on Homosexuality 101 or textbook called Atheism and You.
You don’t get around very much, or else you’re not paying attention.
Trust me, the Math, English, and History courses are still around.
Good. Maybe they can take enough time out of their busy schedules to actually teach it.
~ Jeremiah
35. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mark,
“Europe, of course, is far further down the road of deinstitutionalization than the US is and it is there we can see the full effects - and the most telling thing in favor of my argument is the marriage rate (much lower) and the birth rate (not just much lower, but far below replacement rate).”
Actually, that’s just wrong. Belgium, Canada, and Spain, which all allow same sex marriages, have positive birth rates, at least according to the CIA World Factbook. Yet countries such as Japan and Russia, which don’t allow gay marriage have a negative birth rate. There is no hard data showing a link between gay marriage and birth rates.
36. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
exactly right Casper. How letting to guys get married effects the birth married couples is a mystery to me - i am sure Mark has some completely ridiculous, not fact supported theory (perhaps his Dad did a calculation and told him that it was true).
Facts are quite clear though - gay marriage doesn’t effect the birth rate one bit. Plus - gays can also adopt children and raise families as well…And lesbian couples can have children using sperm banks.
37. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
LiberalT,
A website for ex-Christians, an atheist website…and all of them referring back to the same report you linked, except that report can’t be found in the news agency it claims to be from, and the Catholic Church does not have a Bishop of the name given in the report.
What you have here, LiberalT, is a lie - that some people are believing and repeating the lie doesn’t change the fact that it is a lie. And if you don’t admit this, and apologise, you’ll be banned. I’ll not have this blog be the home of people who bear false witness.
38. Kahn | January 5th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
LT - “apparently some people do believe it…”?????
No AP story, not really said at all? You’re full of crapola?
I’ll answer for you. Yes you are. And your anti-catholic bigotry shines through. And THAT is hate speech. Hater
39. Capitalist Infidel | January 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Anyone wonder how fast social security would go broke?
40. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“the Catholic Church does not have a Bishop of the name given in the report.”
Actually they do.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dsclt.html
41. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
(Ed. Note: deleted - commenter spreads known lies. Commenter banned)
42. Diana Powe | January 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Behold, the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of San Cristóbal de La Laguna o Tenerif, His Excellency Bishop Bernardo Álvarez Afonso, born 07/29/49. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dsclt.html
43. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sorry Diana. I beat you to it.
44. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Am I the only one to get the impression that Mark likes to create controversy? Gay marriage is a non-issue. And for those of you who are so upset about it let me remind you that Dick Cheneys daughter is gay. And has a child AND a partner.
Tedd Haggard is a meth addict gay. Mark Foley is gay and is into teenage boys. The Catholic Church is ripe with gay priests who molest chior boys and their coffers are diminshed because of law suit losses.
Why don’t you all worry about things of substance instead of demonizing an aspect of human sexuality that is deep within our genes.
45. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
That would make him Bishop Bernardo Álvarez Afonso, not Bishop Bernardo Álvarez - and there is still no indication that any Bishop of Spain said any such thing. So, LiberalT is out - took him a long time, but he finally did it.
46. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
ha ha ha - did you even look at the link . It is the same person Mark
47. Tractatus | January 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Gay marriage is a negation of marriage
See, you keep saying this, but you never get around to actually, you know, proving it. Or even trying to prove it. You just say it in hopes that it will be accepted as fact. Hint: It isn’t fact.
Similarly, you start off this post by posing a question:
What possible harm can there be to marriage if same-sex couples are permitted to participate?
Eight paragraphs and several comments later, you still haven’t answered it. You’ve just rambled about why you don’t like the idea of gay marriage. You’ve done a whole bunch of begging the question, as I noted above. But you haven’t answered the question. Nor will you.
48. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Tract,
No, you just don’t like the answer provided.
49. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
So Mark, will yo believe this source, or is the Catholic World News a lefty front.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55635
50. Ricorun | January 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Several months ago (on B4B) I asked how many of the conservatives here would be in favor of same-sex unions, with all the benefits and obligations of a heterosexual unions, as long as it wasn’t called marriage. To my surprise, quite a few of them were. In fact, though not everyone weighed in, less expressed opposition than agreement. In fact, even Mark didn’t express any major opposition at the time. Have things changed?
51. Diana Powe | January 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Now comes SUR, “The Newspaper For Southern Spain” which refers to His Excellency as “The Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo álvarez” and quotes him as saying, “There could be minors who consent (to sexual abuse), and in fact, there are. There are 13-year-old minors who are perfectly in agreement, and moreover, desirous (of sex). They would even provoke unless care was taken…all this about sex is more complicated than it seems.”
Source: http://www.surinenglish.com/noticias.php?Noticia=11970
P.S. Me (shaking fist dramatically), “I’ll get you, Casper, and your little search engine, too!”
P.P.S. I note with interest that Caspers link to a Catholic newspaper with the story got sent into the Memory Hole (see 1984) very rapidly.
52. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Mark,
I’ve been married for 32 years. I have three children (two biological, one adopted), and two grandchildren. My son has been married for seven years and I really doubt that gay marriage is a threat to his or my marriages. Both of my daughters are divorced, but I think their deployment in Iraq probably had more to do with it than gay marriage.
My point is, I like being married. I plan to continue being married regardless of who else gets married or divorced. The best I could wish for anyone is that they enjoy the same kind of relationship that my wife and I have had for the last 32 years.
53. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Tractatus,
It’s not what you, or anyone else thinks about marriage that matters, it’s what God’s Word says–and He instituted marriage in the beginning, as He created man and woman.
When man goes beyond God’s Laws, then He says it is sin.
Of course, I know you’re not going to listen to what I say, or what Mark says or anyone else. You’re not even going to listen to what the Word of God says.
You see, friend, God is being patient with this world, and that’s how He shows his love…but He’s not going to hold back forever…so the proof you get, will be at the day of big surprise–when you stand before Him face to face.
~ Jeremiah
54. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Diana,
Hardly, but if you read the reports, they don’t say what LiberalT said they said - which is:
It wasn’t that at all, and it wasn’t at the rally in question which the Spanish government is demanding an apology for. The story, as related by LiberalT, is demonstrably false - and yet he continued to repeat it, even after it was verified as false.
From that person, I’ve been subjected to routine insults regarding my intelligence, my morals and my sanity - I’ve been patient, but when confronted with the spreading of slander against others, I just won’t stand for it. Unless he can come up with a verified quote from that Bishop - or any Bishop - saying “homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation”, he shall remain banned.
55. winnowhead | January 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Mark,
There are a heck of a lot of articles about this bishop published throughout Europe, detailing the interview liberalT referenced in his link. More:
Google News search
If it’s not true, it’s the newspaper’s lie, not liberalT’s. You should really get off your high horse - the church isn’t perfect.
(And as I can see from this “Deinstitutionalizing Marriage” post, your logic could use some work as well)
56. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Casper,
But it isn’t just about you - and that is what you have to wrap your mind around: you belong to marriage, not the other way ’round. You have a responsibility to preserve it and transmit it to the next generation - and if you tinker with it via things like easy divorce or gay marriage, then you are not carrying out the responsibilities towards the institution you voluntarily entered in to.
57. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Winnow,
He didn’t say what you say he said - the Bishop did not say that homosexuality was the same as child abuse. Trust me on this one, I’ve drawn a bright line and unless you can provide a verified quote of a Bishop saying that homosexuality and child abuse are the same, then you’d best leave the subject alone.
58. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Mark,
If you had a daughter who realized that she was gay, would you want her to have the same kind of relationship that you have with your wife? It’s sounds like you have a good thing, would you want your child to have the same?
59. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Casper,
You’re trying your very best to try and find some excuse to make homosexuality as some how “acceptable” and it’s just not the case, and never will be.
It’s a sick and twisted lifestyle, and should never be condoned. Period.
~ Jeremiah
60. winnowhead | January 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Mark, he was certainly talking along those lines even if the articles don’t list an exact quote. He was weaving child abuse and homosexuality into the same conversation.
Just admit that what he said, such as:
… is not defendable? Just because he’s catholic you have to make a fuss about it?
61. Ricorun | January 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
While we’re on the verification kick (a good thing, if you ask me), can anyone come up with any independent verification that the Spanish government did, in fact, ask for an apology — and if so, what exactly were they asking an apology for? For some clerics participating in a rally? That seems odd.
62. Casper | January 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Jeremiah,
Last year I had a student who realized she was gay. You wouldn’t believe how much crap she got and is still getting from other students and from some of her teachers. I seriously doubt that she made the choice to be gay.
63. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Casper,
You might as well ask me if I had a son, would I wish he could be a mother…there are things which can be done, and some things which can’t be done. Marriage has no place in it for two people of the same sex.
64. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Last year I had a student who realized she was gay.
Casper,
No. She didn’t just “realize” it, she realized it when she chose/decided to be.
~ Jeremiah
65. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Winnow,
A very high difference of degree there - and what was wrong about the offending comment, outside of the gross misrepresentation of fact, was that it was clearly the result of someone inherently prejudiced against Christianity.
66. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Winnow,
But, you know, LiberalT, I think, generally shoots himself in the foot - tends to confirm my views. So, I’ve un-banned him. Heck with it, let him stay…
67. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I repeat, Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay, has a child and a partner. Tedd Haggard is a gay meth addict. The Catholic Church has had to pay out millions because of gay priests. And Mark Foley is into teenage boys. These are irreutable facts Mark and banning my comments does not make them any less real. You do create controversy Mark and that too is a fact. Gay marriage is a non-issue.
68. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Ricorun,
Good point, and touche’ - but that is actually a different thread.
69. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
JHL,
You’re going to get into trouble if you say that it was gay priests who caused the trouble…that is un-PC
70. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
A wealth of information. Please pass it on:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/
http://earstohear.net/seperation/samesex.html
~ Jeremiah
71. Ricorun | January 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Mark: Good point, and touche’ - but that is actually a different thread.
Okay… I’ll be right back…
72. liberalT | January 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
i am not biased against Christianity. I was merely indicating that it was reported that one of the Bishops at the rally had made statements that were indeed questionable. Look I am sorry I offended you - it just amazes me that the fact that I linked to what a Bishop was reported to have said makes me anti-Christian and a whole host of other things while Jerry continues to post the most openly vitriolic and horrible things about gays. Somehow I am the bad guy though. I think that points to bias on your part - not mine..
73. Ricorun | January 5th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’m back…
Mark: But, you know, LiberalT, I think, generally shoots himself in the foot - tends to confirm my views. So, I’ve un-banned him. Heck with it, let him stay…
So what are you saying? Are you saying that if libbies are too reasonable they’ll be banned?
74. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Trouble? What trouble? You chose the topic of this thread, not me. I am merely pointing out to those whom are rabidly homophobic that same sex orientation is deep within our genes and; more to the point the rank hypocracy that exists. Scary Jerry talks about god ad nauseum and how wonderful the bible is. And then we have somone like Tedd Haggard. You Mark, value the Catholic Church but then we have gay priests and molestation. And then we have the VP, an man to whom you have the utmost respect for whose own daughter is a lesbian. I read once that cyncisim is pointing out the obvious. So who am I to believe? You or my lying eyes?
75. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
LiberalT,
You are what you are - and you have some fine qualities, and I apologise for my sometimes too-hasty actions done in anger more than careful thought.
But I do observe this - when something really, really horrible is said about some one or some institution, consider carefully before repeating it.
76. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
well, if it is about repeating horrible things said about large groups of people, by all logic Jeremiah here should have been banned long ago.
If you were fair and frank, that is.
77. js | January 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
>>>>now explain to me how allowing gays to marry would stop the species from continuing or stopping our civilization from continuing?<<<<<
Isnt that a stupid question to demand answered, based on the primary topic though?
Marks reasoning is simple and clear, and he didnt represent your contention as such, as much as he did state a confirmed natural fact.
Think about it, its pretty obvious that sodomy cannot produce children, hence, the idea of a “gay marraige” is nothing more than a infringment on the rights of those who do have children to garner the rights given by society for benefiting society through procreation, insuring a future for us, as a people. Encouraging families and family values is the job of the Government, not regulating them out of existence.
So when you “water down” family values, and throw away ideals and morals, destroying the very morals in society that made America great to start with, and then have the poor insight to ask why not….its pretty stupid.
Ignoring the truth, and raising objections that have no merit in a debate really doesnt impress anyone, it only goes to show how inept one is. Of course, to argue such a point is fruitless, because its lack of any beneficial results makes it a void.
78. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
js :
so you support banning sterile couples from marrying?
79. Gozer the Carpathian | January 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I mentioned this in passing last night and since the topic came up I guess I’ll repeat myself:
For me this is a non-issue in the political world. I think that as far as governments are concerned EVERY marriage should be a civil union. There shouldn’t be something called “marriage” in the government’s vocabulary. Leave the term marriage in the hands of religion.
That way, politically speaking at least, those who are cohabitating, pledged, bonded, married, or what have you that have joined their lives all fall under the same rules. Again governmently speaking.
Then, the churches and can all define marriage as a joining of a man and a woman and be done with it. This shouldn’t be a political issue, it should be a moral/social issue/debate pure and simple.
80. Ricorun | January 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
LiberalT: I was merely indicating that it was reported that one of the Bishops at the rally had made statements that were indeed questionable.
First of all… “that is actually a different thread.” Lol!
Second, where does it indicate that the bishop in question was at the rally? You seem to be conflating two different issues. In fact, given the evidence we seem to be aware of, the CWN may be, too.
But that is actually a different thread.
81. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
JHL,
Your error is rather fundamental - you don’t know what the Church teaches about homosexuality and your views are based upon incorrect information. I don’t have any problem with VP Cheney’s daughter, and there is nothing inherently wrong with a gay person becoming a priest. To clarify it further - there are probably some gay prostitutes who are closer to God than some ordained ministers of the Church.
But, gay people cannot be married to each other - its just not possible; it is not what marriage is about.
82. Mark Noonan | January 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Gozer,
It doesn’t work that way - can’t ignore the fact that the political system grows out of the underlying moral-theological views of the people. To say that the State shouldn’t be involved in marriage is to say, in a sense, that the State shouldn’t be involved in anything.
83. js | January 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
76. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
js :
so you support banning sterile couples from marrying?
Another one of your moronic questions? Cmon, all your proving is that you are a ballless wonder without a brain.
Did you ever consider the negative health effects of homosexual lifestyle? Its really sick, it comes down to the fact that the average homosexual will die around 42 years old because of the diseases and injuries sustained because of that lifestyle. And further, on the average, homosexual men are represented at a rate of 34 times higher than heterosexual men to be pedophiles. Let them loose on society so they can adopt children, the ideal situation to create for sexual deviants, eh?
While you are defending sodomites, and disrespecting society and the morals our forefathers brought with them to this nation, and gave to us, you ridicule the very aspect of natural human behavior by proposing there is something wrong with a man and a woman being married.
Your pretty pathetic.
84. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
there is nothing inherently wrong with a gay person becoming a priest.
I disagree with that, Mark.
If you’re going to be a minister of the gospel, then your life has to not only show it, you have to live it.
~ Jeremiah
85. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
js : since you cited children as the reason marriage existed, I merely followed your logic. And you have not answered my question.
As for the health effects of homosexuality, which is a different topic, maybe the negative effects would be lessened somehow if more homosexuals were in long-term-comitted relationships. And maybe, just maybe, recognising those relationships as real would help that.
As for pedophily, I’d like you to cite your sources. Moreover, let us, indeed, punish pedophiles. But to punish an arbitrary group of people because some of them are pedophiles, at a rate superior to the general population…. after what has been said on this thread about priests, do you really want to use this argument?
86. phil | January 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
In order to get married in this country you need a license–from the government. It wasn’t that long ago that interracial marriage was banned, thus a government issued license was denied to willing applicants based on the race of the applicant. This was clearly unconstitutional and, over the objections of the majority, interracial marriage was and remains accepted in this country. Now you and others want the government to be in the position of denying a license to willing applicants based on their sexual orientation. That too is unconstitutional, Mark, and your wholesome ideas of what marriage should be can’t change that. As for me (happily married for many years, by the way), I get the vague, uncomfortable feeling that you would have been one of those people making impassioned arguments against interracial marriage based on your quaint notion that whats good for you should apply to us all. Thank goodness for the beloved constitution which survives in spite of people like you, ever eager to defile it based on your narrow minded views that everybody should be like you. Woe be it unto this country if we are ever at a point when we’re all like you, Mark.
Have a nice day.
Phil
87. js | January 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
72. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I am merely pointing out to those whom are rabidly homophobic that same sex orientation is deep within our genes
+ =========+++++++========+
Thats a lie. Sexual Identity dysfunction is the result of childhood dilusions.
http://www.narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_NARTH_article.pdf
88. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
So Independent films such as Juno, Good Night, and Good Luck, Pulp Fiction, etc, are not only made by Lucifer, but they are of a Satanic mentality?
Seriously, did someone drop you on your head when you were a child?
A friend of mine, Sarah, works on the school paper with me, and get this: she’s a lesbian. And you wanna know something else? Everyone on the staff accepts her sexual orientation. The only people who find it disgusting are people who don’t know any better than to accept their fellow human being as they are. Someone like you, Jeremiah.
89. Diana Powe | January 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Mark,
How ironic it is that here comes Mark, crowning his conception of marriage,
while writing from a state of the union whose largest city is utterly symbolic of the trivializing of the event of marriage. In fact, Mark’s entire argument comes down to accepting his characterization, as he began his post by correctly pointing out that a gay married couple poses no threat to his own marriage. While it sounds grand to describe an “institution of marriage” groaning under the weight of “continuing our civilization”, it simply ignores the reality of the variety of family life that has existed since human beings have produced writing and the various and sundry ways in which marriage has been employed to advance many far less noble causes, e.g. virtually all royal marriages.
It is absolutely true that the State should not be allowed to dictate to any Church as to how the particular Church may elect to solemnize human relationships. Religions have always highlighted and lifted up various aspects of human existence - birth, naming, circumcision, coming of age, public acknowledgment of belief, marriage and death. However, none of that has anything to do with the relatively modern legal conception of marriage as a general secular institution for carrying out purposes of ordering the parentage of children and the conveyance of the ownership of property post mortem.
No secular entity of marriage can ever hope to impose complete order on the couplings and birthings carried on willy-nilly in the real world. However, the State certainly can and should be encouraged in working for that ordering, especially as it comes to the protection of the welfare of children, including those children born within traditional marriages. The fact of birth parents being married is far from any sort of guarantee that their children, if any, will be safe from harm. Some of the most horrendous crimes against children are carried out by their married biological parents.
At the same time, rational thought has led to more and more gay and lesbian couples being allowed to adopt children. There is no evidence that those children are harmed as a result when the parents are otherwise responsible citizens. As a result, to the extent that secular marriage is a tool to help order the parentage of children, gay relationships should be brought into the realm of secular marriage in order to extend that order there, as well.
90. Gozer the Carpathian | January 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
*Chuckles*
Mark, I do believe the government should butt out of a lot of things so at least I’m consistant.
But seriously Mark I think a lot could be done if we seperated the marriage debate into the political and the moral. All the things you say about marriage work perfectly in the moral and religious sense; but on the political stage it shouldn’t matter.
91. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
js,
Great article.
Jonathan,
are not only made by Lucifer, but they are of a Satanic mentality?
Now you think about for a minute Jonathan….right now, I just flipped it over to sundance, and there is a movie on called “clean”, a movie about this person who gets addicted to drugs, and like he’s just livin’ it up, ya know…So what is their motive? What’s the message they’re sending…”Oh, yeah, this is what you should try.” Is that it?
Another movie I watched on there recently was about boy and girl living in fornication, and they were doing heroine through their veins, and it showed what a terrible mess they made of their lives, their child was still-born, the wife was trying to commit suicide, she took lip-stick and wrote curse words all over the walls, the floors and everywhere.
What do you notice about most of these movies? ……….. They never give a sense of where their true hope is, and where might that be? In Jesus Christ, whom all things are made possible.
Stick to God’s Word and you won’t have to about getting in those situations.
We need more movies like the newly released, ‘The Nativity.’
Someone like you, Jeremiah.
I’m sorry, Jonathan, but I can’t accept it if it’s not in God’s Word.
If God’s Word says it’s not acceptable, then it’s not acceptable.
And that’s just common sense.
Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the <sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
~ Jeremiah
92. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I quite agree, gozer.
I am rather sure no-one here wants to force the curch to change its definition of marriage; no-one will force priests to marry people at gunpoint.
However, the civil marriage is a legal thing, that gives rights and duties to both participants and the state.
That the surviving member of a gay couple can not raise the couple’s child, simply because the child is not biologically his/hers, is tupid, and I believe harmful to the kid ( since the kid just lost one of his parents, no need to add to that trauma by removing him from the other one’s custody).
This is only one example, but you get my drift. Do not worryn Mark, your religious marriage is not in peril, it never was. And of course that is all that matters to you is it not?
93. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
However, none of that has anything to do with the relatively modern legal conception of marriage as a general secular institution
No, marriage is ordained and owned by God, and no one else except the Church should have a say in who gets married.
That way, we can make a clear distinction in our society of who is to get married, and who isn’t.
Marriage is only legal through God’s Word. So the State has no right what-so-ever to marry anyone.
~ Jeremiah
94. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
except, jeremiah, that everybody does not agree on god’s position on the subject ; amish and muslims are polygamists, for example.
Once again, you are trying to impose your religious views on what is and should be a secular thing.
But then, you do it all the time about everything.
95. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
The Constitution???
The founders of this nations and those who wrote and ratified the Constitution never, ever intended for “gay marriage” to be a right or protection under the Constitution!!!
Only a bunch of out-of-control Liberal “law-giver” judges could unconstitutionally read that alleged “right” into the Constitution!
Sodomy was punishable by death when time the Constitution was written and ratified!
AAR
96. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
and slavery was a common practice. Your point?
97. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
what is and should be a secular thing
Well, I’m sorry to inform you that it is not a secular thing.
~ Jeremiah
98. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The legal document that says how the household goods’ should be divided in case of a separation, the contract that gives tax rebates, that is a secular thing.
The ceremony in a church ain’t, but it has no legal value. Have you not read anything of the last few posts?
99. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
The legal document that says how the household goods’ should be divided in case of a separation, the contract that gives tax rebates, that is a secular thing.
I don’t care what that document says. If it’s not based on God’s Word, then it’s not so, and by all means, shouldn’t be.
~ Jeremiah
100. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
and shouldn’t should have been should be.
~ Jeremiah
101. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
then you are defining marriage only as the religious ceremony, and that the names on the piece of paper are bill and bob should not bother you, should it?
As long as no priest says the holey (sorry, holy) words.
102. Jay Gaultieri | January 5th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Last year New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize some sort of civil arrangement for gays. The bill legalizing civil unions was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor to very little fanfare. New Hampshire had previously banned gay marriage by referendum. When President Bush took office one state allowed civil unions. Now after all the brouhaha in the 2004 and 2006 elections four allow civil unions, one allows domestic partnerships and one allows gay marriage. In Pennsylvania one bill to ban gay marriage AGAIN (we banned it in 1996) and one bill to ban civil unions failed to pass in the legislature. In Arizona a referendum banning gay marriage, civil unions, and heterosexual cohabitation was failed.
Banning gay marriage is (was?) a great way to get the base of the Republican party out to the polls. But like other hot button evangelical issues—prayer in public schools, abortion, abstinence education, school vouchers, or flag burning—it’s basically a losing proposition. Prayer hasn’t been reinstituted in public schools, when abortion bans are put to public referendum they fail, the true-love-waits movement is a joke (which is sad), school vouchers have never taken off, and flag burning amendments never pass. So it is with gay marriage. Gay marriage may not be happening anytime soon, but more and more states are going to allow civil unions and it’s going to cause less and less outrage.
That’s the breaks. Don’t shoot the messenger.
103. Diana Powe | January 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
js,
You need to get your information from legitimate sources and not people like Paul Cameron, PhD, who has been repudiated by both the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the American Psychological Association (APA):
You’ve also cited NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, formerly the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality), but even they don’t agree with your misrepresentation that homosexuality “is the result of childhood dilusions (sic)”:
I understand that it is very important to you emotionally that you be able to justify your animus towards gays and lesbians with some pseudo-scientific cover, but the fact is that they’ve always been part of society and they always will and just because you’re hostile towards them or AAR and Jeremiah want to say that the Christian Bible condemns them has nothing to do with American civil society. The United States is not a theocracy, unlike Iran where they hang teenagers for being homosexual.
__________
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controversy
104. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
JS:
People don’t “decide” to be gay any more than they “decide” the color of their eyes or how tall they are going to be. They are born that way. I’d like to know where this person whom you linked to recieved his PhD from and in what subject. Human sexuality is a biological function. However pleasureable it is, (and it is) the purpose of sex is to produce more (in our case) people.
Marriage is a cultural institution. Part of the mechanisims in biological evolution is that the more females that are available to a male, the greater the chances are of his genes being spread through out the entire speices. However in the case of humans, a female needs a stable enviroment in order to raise a child. It from this that the institution of marriage first arose. And, furthermore it arose at a time when human knowledge and understanding of the world was very limited and most things not understood where attributed to god or gods, depending on the civilization. This might explain crazy Jerry’s rant about god dictating what is and what isn’t in this regard. The bible doesn’t talk about cars or computers, airplanes, TV sets or open heart surgery either.
Gay marriage to me is a non-issue. I do not feel threatened by it in the least nor does it distract from the lust I share with my wife. Sex is chemical and gay people are born that way. It is not aquired.
105. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Not even close. It’s a reflection on the destruction of a person’s life through drug use.
Really? I thought the founders were too busy dealing with forming a new nation to give a rat’s ass about gay marriage.
So what are you getting at? That all gays should be sent on death row because of their sexual orientation? Sounds like a heinous tactic that a vile, dictatorial group committed on the Jewish people 60+ years ago….
french student,
He’s making it know that he’s a flat-out idiot.
106. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
then you are defining marriage only as the religious ceremony, and that the names on the piece of paper are bill and bob should not bother you, should it?
French Student,
It is not only a religious ceremony, it is a Religious, God-fearing Institution, and therefore, only meant for man and woman, and should be kept that way.
So, all authority under heaven for the bounds of marriage is granted to the Church.
~ Jeremiah
107. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
ok, so let the legal documents be handled by the state, and define “marriage” (legal marriage, not religious marriage) however they want. Change the name if you want.
108. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
or do you want to subordinate all human law to god’s law?
Sharia anyone?
109. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
so let the legal documents be handled by the state
Only with consent from the Church.
The Church says no, then the State doesn’t sign the document. And thus, Sodomites are just out of luck.
~ Jeremiah
110. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
and there we have it, ladies and gentlemen : theocracy!!
A big round of applause, please?
Or not.
111. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
It really doesn’t matter what you say to crazy Jeremiah. He’ll just tell you that you’re wrong, that sodomy is a sin before the Almighty God, and whatever kind of crap he’ll spew.
112. Diana Powe | January 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Jeremiah,
Your notions of what marriage is or is not does not negate the secular law, to wit, in Texas (my emphasis):
The Texas Legislature is the source of law for the secular society of Texas and has nothing to do with establishing religious views of marriage. From the Texas Constitution (my emphasis):
People are married all the time in the United States where both parties are unbelievers, there is no ordained minister solemnizing it and those marriages have the same legal force as any marriage solemnized publicly in a church.
113. Max Power | January 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Long story short, folks…. Jeremiah hates anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what he believes.
Since this is (still) a free country, he can go on thinking we’ll all go to hell, and we can go on believing that he’s an idiot.
114. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
actually he’s really busy digging the grave of his credibility right now…
115. Diana Powe | January 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I’ve tried to clear up a couple of points for him and js, but my comments are cooling their heels in “awaiting moderation” purgatory.
116. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Can you spell religious theocracy?
Is really any wonder why liberals like me call you guys Christian nutjobs fascists?
117. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
actually he’s really busy digging the grave of his credibility right now…
Maybe on this blog, but I don’t do it for this blog, it do it all in the name of Him who makes it possible. And to Him be the Glory and the Praise forevermore.
~ Jeremiah
118. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
because you think your nutiness does not shine through everywhere you write?
119. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
also I note how Mark is very carefully not here when Jere starts frothing at the mouth. He’s done that on a few threads now.
120. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
also I note how Mark is very carefully not here when Jere starts frothing at the mouth. He’s done that on a few threads now.
French Student,
And there’s a reason for that…he’s Catholic, and I’m fundamentalist Evangelical….So he and I don’t talk much on differences in that respect.
I respect Mark’s Faith just as much or more than I do my own, But there are differences, and as Mark has said here numerous times, … One of these days, when we meet on the other side, we’ll be able to look back and have a good laugh at those differences.
because you think your nutiness does not shine through everywhere you write?
If you’re talking about Jesus message…..It shines through regardless of where you go.
It’s strict, yet uplifting and hopeful.
~ Jeremiah
121. Christian Wright | January 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
You said marriage, “Its about forming the building block of our society - a man and a woman coming together with at least the potential of having children in keeping with the purpose of the institution of marriage.”
There are hetrosexual marriages between childless couples. Do we deny marriage to barren women and stirile men? No. Those people can adopt, as many homosexual couples do.
In a free society a person should have the right to marry the person they love.
122. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I am soooo glad that Jerry admits he is a fundemenalist evangelical. Just as much as the Islamists. The thing about fundementalism is that it appeals to the simple minded. There is no critical thought, no skepticism and definately no doubt. The shades of grey, the nuances which permiate everyday life are shut out because they threaten this stark world view. The (so called) culture wars are not about liberal vs conservatives, but rather extremists vs realists.
And besides, since Jerry has complained that he can’t get a date he is now an expert on marriage and human sexuality.
Personally, I admire dolphins and Bongos. (And not Bongos the drum)
123. Tractatus | January 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Gay marriage is a non-issue.
It is a non-issue–except for every four years, when it suddenly becomes really, really important. Gee, I wonder why that is?
No, you just don’t like the answer provided.
No, you did not provide an answer. You say that gay marriage is bad because you think gay marriage is bad and you don’t like it. Pretty pathetic argument, Mark. And I’m quite sure you won’t even try to do better–it’s far easier to just continue to argue by baseless assertion and consider that good enough.
124. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
James 1:12-17
Blessedis the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who live him. WHen tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, give birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of he created.
Hebrews 12:16
See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.
~ Jeremiah
125. js | January 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
96. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
and slavery was a common practice. Your point?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I get tickled pink every time liberals use this point.
I guess they never figured out how many white men died to stop slavery. Go figure.
126. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Jeremiah, as usual when his reasonning and rhetoric have made him look ridiculous, cites verse. He believes that it ends all arguments, because he believes it has to be accepted by everyone. Of course now he only looks a little more frothing at the mouth.
As for the cost of the end of slavery, js : are you willing to take arms to defend your right to deny gay people the right to marry? To lay down your life for this noble goal? Or do you think good change can and must happen without bloodshed?
(P.S. the end of slavery in my counrty was a lot less bloody, thank you very much)
127. js | January 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
In a free society a person should have the right to marry the person they love.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Such an immature idealism needs to be debated.
http://www.us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
About the perversion of the human body to unnatural sexual behavior ;
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY
http://americansfortruth.com/news/surgeon-general-nominee-dr-james-holsingers-1991-paper-pathophysiology-of-male-homosexuality.html
(beware-very straightforward and to the point-not for the squeemish)
Or how about how fine these upstanding people are, teaching our kids a lie about homosexuality in our schools;
Horror stories in the schools
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/info/kbase/horror_stories.html
Dont try to vis-a-vis the glamor of sodomy, there is “nothing” glamorous about it. The only way homosexuals advance thier agenda is by removing the repulsive nature of the act. The only way we can bring the truth to bear, and make people pay attention to this perversion is by exposing it at its core truth, the sick and disgusting reality has to be exposed.
128. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
He believes that it ends all arguments, because he believes it has to be accepted by everyone. Of course now he only looks a little more frothing at the mouth.
It does end all arguments, because God is the One and Only Absolute Truth.
And I am glad to work with ferver and zeal to proclaim the only thing that will save this Nation.
~ Jeremiah
129. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
And I am glad you show everyone how much of an extremist you are.
130. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
french,
The 13th Amendment changed the Constitution to make slavery unconstitutional — NOT a bunch of Liberal law-giver judges who do not have the constitutional authority to change the intent and meaning of the Constitution!
AAR
131. js | January 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
127. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
And I am glad you show everyone how much of an extremist you are.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - -
Extremist?
I thought extremists were the school boards who approved homosexual education for children in spite of recomendations from 270 physicians who warned board members in a signed letter that homosexual sex was too dangerous to practice.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/md_school_board_under_fire_for.php
Would you want your kids doing that?
132. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Then make a new amendment, what do I care about the mechanics?
133. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
And I am glad you show everyone how much of an extremist you are.
More people should get extreme for the Lord, and proclaim the Gospel boldly.
Ya see, that’s the problem with our society today, Christians have sit back, thinking everything will be fine. In so doing, the Lord will withdraw His blessings and sink into apathy and despair.
More people should be on here debating and proclaiming the truth from God Word.
Stand Up! Stand Up for Jesus!! Don’t be ashamed to proclaim His name!!
~ Jeremiah
134. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
no, in my ook anyone who believes the “law of god” should have supremacy over the government is an extremist. That is what Jeremiah advocated in the post #108. This is why I call him an extremist.
As for my kids, if I have any one day, I will make sure they are aware of the possibility they might be gay, before they hit puberty. I will make sure they know it is not shameful, that they know how to protect themselves from MSTs, pregnancy, and heartbreak, wether they love man or woman.
And if one day one of my kids tell me he/she’s gay, I will probably get a shock, but I will love him/her all the same and support him/her as well as I can.
Because if I did not, if there was anything that my kid could be that would make me love him or her less, then I guess I would not deserve to be a parent.
Would you not agree?
135. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Tractatus,
You say gay “marriage” is good because YOU think it is good.
ANYONE who votes for a DEMOCRAT is voting FOR gay marriage!
And you’re right. The American people hear the message every four years, when they should be hearing that message each and every day until they fully understand that DEMOCRATS are the party trying to redefine marriage in America — replacing marriage with their own warped and twisted views and lifestyle!
AAR
136. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
french,
The way Liberals like you view it, anyone who believes in traditional American values is an extremist!
AAR
137. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
AAR :
You say gay marriage is bad because YOU think it is bad. So what?
I say no-one is hurt, let the churches define marriage as they want, and let the civil contract include gays. No-one would be hurt.
As for your comments on “warped and twisted views and lifestyle”, that is a judgement you make. You are not more qualified than anyone, and less than some (say, those who are actually gay) to judge that.
138. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
AAR : Only if your traditional american values include theocracy. Was there not something about the immigrants fleeing religious persecution because thy did not want to be forced to practice their state religion?
139. js | January 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Gay marriage is nothing nore than the celebration of a sick and disgusting act of sexual perversion.
No Government of the people should promote it.
Just the fact that the average homosexuals life span is 30 years shorter than the normal person who does not engage is deviant sexual activity speaks for its self.++
There “IS NO DISPUTE” about it. I think thats why you ignore it, because if you acknowledge it you cant justify your position french student.
I pray for your kids though, if you ever have any. Its pretty obvious your not looking out for thier welfare as much as you are for the liberal agenda.
140. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
french,
Anyone who permits or tolerates bad behavior only encourages more of the same.
Take your Liberalism and your warped and twisted lifestyle somewhere else!!!
AAR
141. AAR | January 5th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
french,
Immigrants came to America to worship God in the denomination of their choosing… not to have a bunch of atheist Liberals turn the Constitution upside down and use it as a weapon against the very religion it was intended to protect!
AAR
142. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
You see, I do not believe it is a bad behavior. Some risky behaviours may be linked to homosexuality, like depression (which can lead to other problems) or insecurity (which can lead to many partners, which is quite risky), but these are more the result of the feeling of inadequacy, which is what I would try to supress.
now js I would like to see your sources about the life expectancy.
And, js, if your kids were gay, what would you do? Beat it out of them? Would THAT be “looking ou for their welfare”?
AAR, you have no power to make me go. If you convince me, through logic and facts, you have a chance to make me silent.
Oh and I shall go to sleep shortly, but do not worry I will come back later
143. french student | January 5th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
And if that is so, AAR, why is no religion mentionned either in the declaration of independance or in the constitution? Why is there no state religion?
Maybe because the immigrants were of many different religions, and they wanted the government to be neutral about it?
144. JHL | January 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
According to AAR, ALL democratic party members are actively lobbying for gay marriage as a constitutional amendment and are obsessed with this issue.
According to AAR, if science makes sense to you rather than the dogma of fundemental christianity, then you are by definiton an atheist.
According to crazy Jerry, life sucks and we all are going to drown in a lake of inflamed sulfur. Unless of course, we surrender our minds, our will and our judgement to some preposterious literal interpretation of a book originally written in a long dead language over 2000 years ago and has since been translated who knows how many times.
Jerry?? You are without a doubt the most tightly wound Jesus freak I have ever wittnessed. How you function on a daily basis is amazing. Sort of like a functioning alcoholic I suppose.
Do it ever cross that great expanse of empty mind that you have that there are more religions in the world than the one you pay a subscription to?
Even the pope himself doesn’t buy into this excrement that you spew. Read a book other than the Bible. Interact with people. Sign up for a class in a community college. EXPAND YOUR MIND!
You will be a better person for it.
AND: god bless.
145. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Exactly. In my opinion, there’s really not much of a difference between Christian fundamentalists like Jeremiah and Islamic fundamentalists. Both sides fighting a war on two fronts — the first is against the other religion. The other is against reality, and the people who don’t buy into their bulls#%t ideologies.
146. Jeremiah | January 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Life expectancy of homosexuals.
~ Jeremiah
147. Jonathan | January 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm