Believe me, I'm all too eager to talk about myself. Just ask and I'll tell you.
I just wondered in what context the topic of your "not real" marriage comes up. It it just chatting with other women in the ward, during home teacher visits, during tithing settlement? I've been steeped in LDS culture for about 15 years now, and I can't think of any reasonable place for that topic to come up beyond, perhaps, discussions with the bishopric. I guess I could see the "What temple were you sealed in?" question leading to an admission of "none", but I'm a little astonished that this response would be met with even subtle scorn.
I know the topic has drifted since this comment, but my experiences line up more with Sachiko. My dad was not a member, my mom was. And the fact that my parents weren't sealed came up a lot. It was socially very isolating. When we were older, my mom talked about how difficult things were for her. My dad later converted and her whole relationship with people changed. I am very glad that this is not an issue for MattP's wife and I would love to see that experience be universal, however right now, it isn't.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this a fair restatement of your point, Javert:
quote:As long as people retain their good citizenship and pay their taxes honestly, the government has a moral obligation to support their choice of marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this a fair restatement of your point, Javert:
quote:As long as people retain their good citizenship and pay their taxes honestly, the government has a moral obligation to support their choice of marriage.
Pretty much.
I liked mine. It sounded more inflammatory. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to address Sachiko's question about The Domestic Partnership Act.
Actually, it doesn't do what the name implies. On the federal level, it grants limited rights to a very limited number of people, and has far more to do with Common Law marriage that Same Sex marriage.
On the federal level -
"The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act"
'Support Equal Treatment in Benefits for Federal Employees'
"The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for both same- and opposite-sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits."
As an example of a State Domestic Partners law
State of New Jersey-
Domestic Partnership Act of 2004 -
"Under the Act, a domestic partnership is established when both persons have a common residence and are jointly responsible for each other's common welfare as evidenced by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property. Both persons must not be related by blood or affinity up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity, be at least 18 years of age and of the same sex or of the opposite sex age 62 years or older. "
As you can see both are very limit in both depth and scope.
So, once again, I say it is as simply as this, can you LEGALLY justify denying the rights and responsibilities, and benefits of marriage to a select group of people simply because you don't like them?
Let's for a moment say that if Same Sex Marriage is granted, then not far behind will be an argument for Polygamous marriages. That actually is a pretty common argument, and I don't doubt for a second that it will be made.
But, in the ancient context, Poly-marriage was all about property. The more wives you owned the more wealthy you were, or at least appeared. Also, note that this was a massively Patriarchal concept. Men who ruled the world, or at least thought they did, could have as many wives as the wanted. But, and this is a big but, wives could only have one husband.
Now, in the modern world of equal rights, that simply can't be, though certainly men would like to keep it so. If men can have more than one wife, the wives can have more than one husband. Now what happens to any reasonable or workable definition of family or marriage?
If a man has six wives and they each have six husbands, then were is the family. One wife has kids from six husbands, and each of those husbands has kids from six other wives. Where does family begin and end?
Further, once you've fathered children from six different wive who are also married to six different husband, who is financially responsible for those kids. You are their father in the sense that you are married to their mother, even though you are not the biological father, so can you selectively abandon and neglect certain children from certain wives? It really is quite confusing, both socially and legally.
This doesn't strike me as workable in a 'equal' secular society. It strikes me as so thoroughly diluting both family and marriage that it takes on no meaning at all. It is just anybody and everybody sleeping with anybody and everybody, but kindly getting a piece of paper to make it both legally and therefore morally right.
My point in even bringing up this last issue, is to say that, in my opinion, no valid argument can be made to support it, if it is enforce under 'equality under the law' concepts.
So, to the main and central issue of the discussion, is there any secular and legal reason for denying right to people simply because you don't like them.
And what kind of kettle of fish is this if we let society expand that concept? As I said earlier, my Norwegian grandmother didn't like Swedes; is that sufficient justification to discriminate against them? Many people don't like the Jews, though I've never been able to figure out why, so if we can discriminate against gays because we don't like them, then why not Jews?
Ultimately it seems that if we an discriminate against anybody, then by some stretch we can... well... discriminate against anybody.
posted
My gay friend can have sex twenty times a day with twenty different people and not have to worry one bit about getting pregnant (or getting someone else pregnant). My female friend had sex with her husband using three forms of birth control and still ended up pregnant. Things aren't equal. And while we do allow infertile couples to marry, no one has yet suggested a practical way to eliminate infertile couples from the marriage pool (It would need to have little to no cost, eliminate only those couple with absolutely 0% chance of making babies and not be invasive).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette: Would you support such a law if one COULD stop infertile couples from getting married in a way that fit your listed criteria?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike the argument that we have to allow gay marriage because it is only equal and fair. I think it unfairly dismisses the role of conception. So, I argue against the equality idea. However, I voted in favor of ssm in my state (which in Texas was pretty meaningless). I think that allowing ssm is in the best interests of the states and will create a more stable nation. So, I probably would not be in favor of a law not allowing infertile couples to marry because I think that society is better off when more people are married.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette: Glad to see you're on my side =)
But conception aside, gay couples DO frequently have children. Aren't their children as deserving of married parents as the children of heterosexual couples? Doesn't that go to the "equal and fair" argument as much as the conception issue detracts from it?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholarette: And couldn't this be an argument that homosexual couples are better parents? I mean, not to say that your friends are bad parents. But a gay couple will never have a baby by accident.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: scholarette: Glad to see you're on my side =)
But conception aside, gay couples DO frequently have children. Aren't their children as deserving of married parents as the children of heterosexual couples? Doesn't that go to the "equal and fair" argument as much as the conception issue detracts from it?
Well, that's a good point. Though technically, a gay person wanting to get married and refused should then say your taking away my children's rights, not you are taking away mine. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That argument has been made.. multiple times. It's usually completely ignored.
Still, until someone comes forward and says they WOULD deny infertile straight couples the right to get married (assuming it was easy to do) the equality issue is still there.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Scholarette: And couldn't this be an argument that homosexual couples are better parents? I mean, not to say that your friends are bad parents. But a gay couple will never have a baby by accident.
When we were trying to get pregnant, the AI kept not working. We eventually succeeded with IVF. But I remember someone suggesting to us that we do the AI in the backseat of a car, since that seems to work so well for hetersexuals.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: When we were trying to get pregnant, the AI kept not working. We eventually succeeded with IVF. But I remember someone suggesting to us that we do the AI in the backseat of a car, since that seems to work so well for hetersexuals.
I think it was Adam Carolla who said on his radio show that the best way to guarantee that you'll have kids is to lose your job or get arrested.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholarette--the solution you are looking for is easy. Only grant marriages after conception.
Heck, to be safe, only grant marriages after conception and DNA testing to make sure the father is the father.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I apologize for being boneheaded and asking about what to tell my children in public. That is rude and silly.
And I'd like to explain my earlier post about "inferiority complexes"--my seatmate in my college psych class was a self-proclaimed lesbian, and in our discussions she told me that she would feel demeaned to use a term like "married", which was a term of the heterosexual establishment. She compared it to "a black using a slave name".
Granted, my college buddy is/was not representative of all G/L/B people. But since she was the one I talked to personally, and knew, her opinion made an impact on how I think about gay rights issues.
Which is why I wondered why gay couples would want to use a term that my gay friend thought was a heterosexual term, if there is such a thing.
I never stated that SS marriages would cause harm to society.
I did ask what harm it does to gay couples to not use the term "married", if they have legal parity with heterosexual couples, and used a personal example to show what I meant. The response I recieved was basically "it's not fair, it makes gays second-class citizens." This is the answer, right?
I thought that SS couples did have legal parity under the DP Act. I thought that was the whole point of its inception--extending civil parity to SS couples.
Thank you for that overview of the DP act, Blue Wizard. From what is on the screen, I'd say that the benefits sound like the benefits I enjoy as a heterosexual spouse. I suppose my next step is reviewing what my benefits as a hetero spouse are under the law, so I can see the differences and lacks of domestic partnerships.
I am still curious, though--if the DP Act is so toothless, then why did anyone support it? It seems like it is something that pleases no one, if it doesn't do what it was supposed to do.
I do not hate gays.
I don't hate groups.
If I do dislike someone, it is in a person-by-person basis, and even then I try not to indulge.
Please don't assign motives or emotions to me, that aren't mine. It would be as unfair as me saying, "because you don't like me, or don't agree with me, or don't argue this or that way, you must dislike all heterosexuals."
I have not decided my position on this.
I want to be careful about what I decide. And I especially want to know more about this issue because, like I said earlier, I'm the descendant of a marriage that was illegal in the US when it was performed (in Japan) and was believed by some people to be morally wrong.
I'm sorry I haven't responded to everyone. That is my fault. I pop in here in between one thing and another (homeschooling five little kids, though that's not a big deal, we all have busy lives) and often will miss posts entirely.
I'm sorry if I missed anyone. I try to respond to everyone I read; sometimes my responses are in the form of questions. I see now that I should have phrased them as, "But you didn't answer this part of my question:" etc. I can see how I would appear to be a brick wall.
I do mean what I say in friendliness. I have little personal time; I try to make it count, and wasting your time with dumb arguing
(I think my arguing was unfocused; I think others differ....well, of course they differ, I think some of you intensely dislike me, and to think, you haven't even gotten to know me well enough to really be offended by me! )
and wasting my own time with making enemies when I could be elsewhere making friends and having a better time is kinda dumb.
Blue Wizard, thanks again. Sorry again, everyone. I am trying to smooth things over, but I'm, no doubt, being utterly offensive to some even still. I apologize for have such a heavy tread; I had hoped sitting in the corner would mollify some of you; I'll return there now.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The federal Domestic Partners law has not yet passed (as far as I can tell), and, anyways, it only helps those who are civil federal employees, which is rather a small subset of the entire country. Most state versions help with state legal situations, but because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, these rights are not conferred on a federal level.
I believe that many of the GLBT community feel like theses acts are not enough, but anything that helps make their lives a bit easier is welcome, even if it's a half measure.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: That argument has been made.. multiple times. It's usually completely ignored.
Still, until someone comes forward and says they WOULD deny infertile straight couples the right to get married (assuming it was easy to do) the equality issue is still there.
If I was actually opposed to ssm, I would probably be willing to toss out the infertile from the marriage pool as well. I like to be logically consistent.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why is the term Married so important to some gay couples?
As you've witnessed, to some it does not matter.
To others its a step in a political agenda to gain recognition and to remove the stigma that their sexuality has forced them to endure.
But to most it is a safety thing.
As long as there is one option given to two sets of people, but labeled differently, no matter how identical those two options are they will not stay equal long.
George Orwell, in his classic "Animal Farm" put it best. "All animals are created equal. Some are just more equal than others." So too would bias and prejudice creep into the system. Real marriage would get this benefit, but civil unions would not. While they started off equal it would be politically easier to start picking on the Civil Unions as they are not "real marriages."
However, once the buearocracy starts registering all marriages--gay or straight--together in their massive databases, even direct legislative action would be hard pressed to cut out one group for special demerits.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Honestly, I believe that if there were more support for SS relationships within the Judeo-Christian systems, there would be less promiscuity, teen suicide, and drug use.
Why?
Imagine spending adolescent years acting straight, voicing opinions not your own, and essentially not being yourself. Having your parents discover your attraction to the same sex, especially after years of hearing how horrible it is, would be the end of the world.
What solution is there?
I mean, aside from being a devil-bred-hellbound-freak-of-nature-who-deserves-to-be-ridiculed-beaten-and-dehumanized-far-and-wide...you seem pretty normal to you. You like dogs and cats, play 2nd chair in the orchestra, have a 3.6 GPA.
But still a freak.
Fast forward a few years. You hate yourself. You hoped it was a phase but it's been long enough. Everytime you go along with the gay bashing, the "act", a piece of self-respect walks away from you.
You've got it down to a science.
1) Add just a hint of grit to your voice. You don't have a lisp really, but you just want to make sure. After all, look what happened to that Shepard kid.
2) Give a good natured laugh when your cabinmates take about their views on a girls anatomy. Don't want to rock the boat, and after all there's that Shepard kid...they could ask questions. Quick, think of a female celebrity you'd "do".
3) Don't attend PE classes. The computer increases hand-eye coordination, and nobody can find out about you on cyberspace. You really like it, and spend time there having fun between a monochrome life.
4) Side-to-side head movement of any sort while standing at the urinal is an instant indicator. You don't feel the need to move really, but gotta make sure so you stare fixedly at a point in the tiling.
5) You consider going to a GLBT center, but they're all freaks. And you're not a freak right? Going there would definitely mean you're a freak, so perhaps this act is better. At least everyone will still hang out with you.
You're no longer doing well in school. Why bother, when you're not going to have kids, a family, or grow old with someone you love? At least you can offer bubble blowers to the wedding guests as they go outside to greet your best friend.
Life's a barren road. You still don't know what career you're going to choose.
So you just get by. A monochrome lifestyle.
Finally, when you realize how many years have been wasted, you rebel against your religion, society. Screw everyone, and then you go and screw everyone who fancies you. Gotta make up for lost time. Drugs, sure! Unprotected sex, sure! I know it's wrong, but screw 'em all. They hurt me, blahh.
Or...
You grow up learning that loving the same sex, while not the majority, is a variation on a theme and has been around since the dawn of human civilization.
You have your first crush on someone at church. You go out on dates, provided there is a chaperone with you, because while your community supports you, the basic ideals regarding abstinence, relationships, sex after marriage, commitment, are still things you hold true.
You want to be your best, and don't feel a need to "rebel" because you are who you are, and you are discovering aspects of yourself under loving parents and community. Why hate yourself? You aren't a freak of nature. You are allowed room to grow up and are not stunted by fears/hate of self and others. There's no need to substitute computers, TV, porn, drugs, because you are not acting beside yourself, and have healthy relationships with people and your community instead of the "act".
Sometimes, how we see the problem is the problem itself. I wonder how much pain and neurosis is caused by how our mainstream religions treat this subject? I wonder how many young people we lose each year to suicide because of this?
There's a reason our forefathers created the amendments.
I don't have Lisa's knowledge or argumentative skills, but taking a plant, putting it in a closet and not watering it creates a very sickly plant.
Who cares if it has different petals?
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your second scenerio would be great if it weren't for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26,27 and 1 Cor 6:9,10. Christians would have to ignore God to tell their kids it's ok to engage in a homosexual relationship. That's an awful lot to ask of them.
I agree that kids should feel safe discussing anything they're struggling with with their parents. But being comfortable with yourself doesn't necessarily mean acting on your urges. It's not fair, but God was pretty clear about His disapproval. If a person would rather indulge themselves than obey God, that's their business (and applies to a whole lot more than just homosexuality - including my own fornication).
Everyone picks their own sins. It just doesn't make them stop being sins.
It doesn't have anything to do with the legal aspects of marriage; I just wanted to be clear about my response to Earendil18.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not fair, but God was pretty clear about His disapproval.
I know this has been discussed before in other places, but as I've never heard a decent answer, I need to bring it up.
So will you be keeping your children from eating shellfish and wearing poly-cotton blends then? Because both of those are 'abominations' as well. God seems very clear about his disapproval of those things.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't apply to all religions. That homosexual behavior is a sin has been reaffirmed in this dispensation. I think it is against what God wants for us, but that basis is not the scriptures cited above. The basis is modern revelation.
I agree with everything AvidReader said except for the basis he cites as evidence it is a sin to God.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Javert's point still holds. Lots of things that various religions consider sinful are allowed by society and even sanctioned by other religions. How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
I imagine that most parents have rules that their families follow - religious and otherwise - that other families don't and that most parents have to explain why their rules are different.
It isn't a reason to make something illegal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we are talking about many different things. There is a difference between something being legal, something being sanctioned by the state, and something being neutral according to a religion, and something being sanctioned by a religion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the idea of the government being involved in marriage. I don't like the idea of marriage licenses--tho I am married.
I think marriage should be a personal or religious affair. I think all insurance companies should honor their members putting ONE additional adult on their insurance (spouse, parent, friend--anyone) and any child who is a dependent.
In the event of a death with property disputes, I think private marriages and religious marriages should act as social contracts. I see very little need for a government license or contract.
I realize this is a simplistic (if not unrealistic) view of marriage, but emotionally I like my idea.
In my world view any couple could call their commitment anything they want-it wouldn't affect their legal benefits and there would be no final arbitrator that decides what term you can apply to yourself.
Telling a couple their marriage isn't valid or real makes as much sense to me as one religion telling another religion their baptism isn't valid. It's valid to that person if s/he believes it.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you see as the difference between a social contract and legal contract concerning a death with property disputes?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am talking generalities and the direction I would like to see marriage go. Perhaps I should have clarified and said any marriage with witnesses and documentation should act as a contract that covers death and property disputes like a typical marriage license.
If I sell my car I don't need someone with a special seller's license to sign/witness the contract I write for my buyer. Adults are quite capable of writing contracts. Of course if I want a more professional contract I can always hire a lawyer, just like some married couples hire a lawyer to contract pre-nup agreements.
If there are no pre-nup agreements or explicitly detailed conditions set up in/before the marriage, then I think the union/marriage should be treated the same as a current typical state sanctioned marriage--particularly in regards to property disputes.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how what you're saying is any different from all the other proponents of making same sex marriage sanctioned by the state. It's exactly the same, especially since you're emphatic about limiting it to two people.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of infertile couple in the marriage pool, does this imply that in order to get married you MUST produce children?
Is that really something that is within the governments jurisdiction to mandate? One of the longest married couples in Hollywood is Jay Leno and his wife, who have been married for something like 20 to 30 years. They have no children, so if non-reproducing couple can be eliminated from the marriage pool, does that mean we should cancel Jay Leno's long, loving, and stable marriage because he hasn't reproduced?
Again, we can pontificate on all the moral, religious, and social reasons why we don't like gay people and why they should be denied the responsibilities and benefits of marriage, but is that the purpose of government and the law?
This is a legal matter, regardless of our moral preferences. From a purely legal perspective, is there any reason to select isolated groups of people and deny them rights simply because you don't like them or agree with them?
Law and it's enforcement must be fair and uniform if we are to have a just society. As long as otherwise harmless groups can be isolated and oppressed, we have fail at 'liberty and justice for all'.
posted
I can't go into much more detail because I was talking about a low level emotional outlook on how I view marriage. As I have thought more about why I believe this way and my thoughts are becoming more conceptualized, I should state what I see is the current role of marriage.
1: Social Statement of your commitment to this person.
2: Contract for Finances. I would include the marriage license as a contractual compass for dealing with stuff like filing jointly for taxes and property disputes when someone dies.
3:Benefits from Third Parties. I would include things like the ability to share insurance benefits and the ability to adopt children.
My vision of marriage being private would render point one moot. The social statement is a personal statement that doesn't need the government's sanction.
On point two I see no need for a licensed person to be a part of the contract. If you have witnesses and a document then you have a contract. Nothing changes except the need for a government license.
On point three I think the laws need to be changed. I like the idea of being able to claim any one person on your insurance. It cleans up the marriage debate and gives stable people room to take care of loved ones. Adoption is already moving more and more towards allowing stable families the ability to adopt children. I think that trend should continue.
Again, this is not a plan. It is just how I ideally see the role of government and marriage.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no difference between what you want and what the standard argument for same sex marriage would be, especially since you again limited it to one other person.
The only slight difference would be that the people the two signatures on the contract would marry people and no witnesses are necessary. That may or may not be a good idea. I think not - the effects of being legally bound are pervasive and serious enough that I think it's a good idea to make sure there are witnesses to it, so people can't just forge documents or coerce someone and then huge consequences turn on one person's word against another. Wills need to be notarized for a similar reason. Transfer of automobile deeds don't, but then, that kind of contract doesn't effect every aspect of two people's financial and legal lives.
The social statement is a personal statement that doesn't need the government's sanction.
No, but it does need the law to enforce and arbitrate it. Marriages are great when they start, but when they break up, things can get very bitter and vindictive. People are bitterly fighting over who gets the couch or the baseball card collection.
In some ways though, if marriage were a private contract, as you suggest, the arbitration of the dissolution of the marriage might go a lot better. Things could be clearly stated in the contract that are only assumed in standard 'courthouse' marriage. Then when thing fell apart, a neutral independent third party would simply split everything up after hearing from both sides. But the long bitter protracted legal entanglements, I think, would be reduced.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that Javert's point still holds. Lots of things that various religions consider sinful are allowed by society and even sanctioned by other religions. How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
Well, I don't have any problem with that when the other person is a non-Jew. Non-Jews are allowed to eat bacon. Where I run into issues is when the other person is also Jewish. A schoolmate. A relative.
My sister-in-law wants to have Tova come visit. Well, that's a lovely idea (maybe), but they don't keep kosher. And it's not like when we go to my folks for a meal and we bring stuff in. We're in Chicago and my SIL is in Virginia.
Tova came home from kindergarten once and told us that one of her friends isn't Jewish. Which is fine, but the friend in common is Jewish, and we knew it. So we asked her why she thought that, and she said that the friend goes trick or treating on Halloween. We had to explain to her that not all Jews realize that they shouldn't do that. It was an uncomfortable situation.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Total derail: What is the objection to Halloween? I can think of several possible problems, I'm just curious which ones are the real ones.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
To clarify, Ear didn't ask Christians to let other people think being gay was a good thing. He asked us to tell our own kids that being gay is a good thing.
It's more like asking Jews to let their kids enjoy a tasty BLT at the family table than seeing other people eat it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
To clarify, Ear didn't ask Christians to let other people think being gay was a good thing. He asked us to tell our own kids that being gay is a good thing.
It's more like asking Jews to let their kids enjoy a tasty BLT at the family table than seeing other people eat it.
Um... no. He didn't ask anything of the sort. He said that if that was the case, "there would be less promiscuity, teen suicide, and drug use." He's probably right.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bacon question has been answered, but FYI, poly-cotton blends are not "abominations." And anyone claiming they are needs to go back to the source they are claiming to cite. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MY point in answering Sachiko's concern about how she responds to her children's questions and to Avid Readers concern is that parents often have rules for their families that other people don't have to follow. In general, the rest of society does not have to concern themselves with how their behavior (baring obscenity laws and graphic violence) is explained to other people's children. Divorce, for example, is not made illegal so that Catholic parents are spared the burden of explaining it to their kids.
I agree with Earendil that more harm is done to kids by condemnation of homosexuality than the reverse. I know countless people who at best have been driven away from God and faith and their own familes.
But that is a call that, of course, parents will have to make for themselves.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you get right down to it, thinking bad thoughts is the same as doing the deed, according to Jesus - so I don't see that Christians have a leg to stand on in that regard.
Isn't the whole Christian idea that everyone is a sinner, and Jesus loves you anyway?
Wrap up prejudice in any color box you want, it's still prejudice.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
