Yes, everyone has rights.
58% (606 votes)
No, marriage is b/w a man & a woman.
38% (398 votes)
Undecided.
4% (47 votes)
Total votes: 1051
User login
Like This Site?
If you would like to see ProgressiveU continue to grow, why not donate?
Have You Seen This Yet?
Recent blog posts
- Review of What is the Meaning of My Resistance to Psychotherapy? by T. Mouque: an ND student's POV
- Review of The Dark Side of Consciousness by Larry Dossey: an ND student's POV
- The future freaks me out
- The Clash Of Strange Alliances
- Fundamentals and Gymnastic Dress
- Why You Should Write at Triond
- Recessive Gene don't fail me now.
- The Secret Gospel of Mark
- The Four Truths, Unknown: Total oppositeness; interior darkness; control - Part 2
- For a Limited Time Only, Ramblings to Silence the Trapping
Navigation
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 134 guests online.
Online users
- jackbenimble
Progressive U Features
Poll
The U.S. Travel Ban to Cuba Should
Remain in place
0%
Be repealed
63%
I don't know/Other
38%
No opinion
0%
Total votes: 8
Vote
Voice your opinion! What are your thoughts about same-sex marriage? Express your thoughts; just keep the conversation clean. Thanks.
Shayla Price
Progressive U Team
Marriage is an institution set up by MAN. Therefore, marriage can be anything MAN wants it to be. There's no universal law or human law that says there is something wrong with a gay or lesbian marriage. But because every MAN is different, different people will have different opinions. At the end of the day it is up to individual choice and I vote that there's nothing wrong with gay or lesbian marriages.
I fear no man(Nazgul)...i'm no man(Eowyn) -LoTR
I think anything that is not natural is not normal. Biologically and scientifically, homosexuality is not normal. We do not see homosexuality among animals. Do you ever see two male dogs getting down with one another? Do you ever see two male fish mating with one another? So given this, I will take this in parallel of scientific biological theory instead of theological theory and say homosexuality is wrong and should be rejected.
Actually, you're mistaken in your assumption that animals do not show homosexuality. In addition to homosexual mountings in heterosexual animals to show dominance, there are many species which actually have homosexual pairs of coupling animals, especially at times of overpopulation or overcrowding. One of the clearest examples of this is with penguins.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
Hmm...not sure if I knew that. That definitely lowers the credibility of the biological standpoint. Thanks for sharing that.
Anyways, to go against the guy who posted to my post I could say that human societies determine what is "normal"; hence, that's why there are norms. (Of course if you're Christian, you won't agree but) the Bible is simply writings about people who lived at the time of Christ. The writers wrote against whatever their society and/or religion was against.
The Bible is basically about different cultures and/or beliefs coming into contact. I.e. a Christian in Sodom/Gommorah(for example) would have been persecuted while a person from a "sinful" city such as Sodom and Gommorah would have been persecuted in a mainly Christian-dominated society. So, those mannerisms of (for example, Sodom/Gommorah, the gay/lesbianism, etc.) would have seemed ABNORMAL to the Christians and thus they would have written AGAINST them.
We, either as human beings or in the collective decide in our own minds what is "normal" and what is not.
I fear no man(Nazgul)...i'm no man(Eowyn) -LoTR
I like your point about why the writes about things things as natural and unnatural
You need to have proof for that, not just your words. Animals have enough sense in them and not marry their own gender because they live to reproduce.
ProtoStyle
ProtoGrace
ProtoPower
in YOUR FACE *-.^*
Atem & Me ~
Homosexual behavior in animals actually happens quite a bit. Bonobos have quite a high prevalence (about 60% of sex in this species is between 2 females), but it's also been observed in around 1500 species, including dolphins, penguins, elephants, giraffes, etc. Not every sexual act has a reproductive function. Some humans and animals have sex because it feels good.
While homosexual behavior is pretty common among all species, ignorance and homophobia seem to be exclusive to the human race.
If you're really interested, here is a book that you can probably find at a library.
And here are a few articles:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356639,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Thanks now I have a new point of view. Gay only exist because at first people think it feels good and you can't get pregnant. Then it exculated to falling in love.
ProtoStyle
ProtoGrace
ProtoPower
in YOUR FACE *-.^*
Atem & Me ~
How did you derive that from sawaboof's comment? Did you READ any of the material to which she referred you?
And the word you are looking for is "escalated." And what you described is pretty much how heteros do it nowadays too.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Condoms only exist because at first people think it feels good and you can't get pregnant"
"The Pill only exists because at first people think it feels good and you can't get pregnant"
"Sex for men only exists because at first men think it feels good and they can't get pregnant" (after all, men can't get pregnant, only women can).
Do you see the idiocy of the statement yet? Being gay isn't about having sex. It's about feeling attraction towards a person of the same sex, which then can escalate into love. I can't control the fact that I think Justin Hartley is gorgeous, just like a male friend of mine can't control the fact that he has the same opinion.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"Do you ever see two male dogs getting down with one another?"
-Yes, often. It's also normal for female cattle to mount each other during estrus.
Apparently you've not been exposed to many animals and/or farm life.
Dismissing the ignorance of your statement as there are many homosexual animals, we can see that the wealth of research available in today's world speaks to the fact that homosexuality is a natural occurrence. Keep in mind that your entire thesis bases itself around the idea that anything that is not natural is not normal: it is an unnatural process for us to turn on our computers since it doesn't happen exclusively in nature, does that make it wrong? Absolutely not, it means that we have grown to an understanding of something new and have accepted it as a normative behavior.
Anyone ignorant enough to think that homosexuality is wrong is (A) Poorly informed about the major medical research of the last two decades and (B) close-minded about the diversity permeating the humyn existence.
LG
yes maybe the Bible does seem to suggest that homesexuality is wrong. but don't we have freedom of religion in this country? what gives people the right to tell other people how to live their lives. i mean i don't really understand....what is gay marriage really hurting? ignore it if you don't like it. just because somebody believes different than you do really doesn't mean that you agree with them.
Although humans are considered animals we are a different species. No species of animal has the same lifestyle or set of social laws. Dismissing the assumption that animals are nothing more than fish and dogs, let me go to the fact that scientists have proven that homosexual humans are born with slightly different brains. For those humans with a different brain structure it is natural.
Humans are NOT animals. There is no biological link, no psychological link, no spiritual link and no scientific link.
Actually, humans were created completly different than animals.
Actually, humans were created much more similarly to animals than you think, especially to apes and chimps (both of which have homosexual couplings and behavior patterns).
And even ignoring the connection between animals and people, you cannot say there is "no biological link, no psychological link, no spiritual link and no scientific link" because the more science delves into this issue, the more evidence comes to light that this is a biological, psychological and scientific occurence. The brains of heterosexual and homosexual people are somewhat different from birth. There are observed differences in one of the genetic genes. The levels of certain hormones are different. And there are other studies that have been done that also point to this being so.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
The statement I made was about links between humans and animals. Just because apes have some similarities does not mean that we are related to them. After all, scientists still have never found "the missing link."
We are NOT animals.
Regarding your statement about homosexual scientific studies: It is a shame for scientists to start with their conclusion and then make their evidence point to that conclusion. By doing this they completely ignore any evidence or ideas that discredit their conclusion.
We are related to apes, though. Our DNA is very similar and comes from the same roots, they exhibit most of the same behavior patterns that we do, etc. The theory of evolution (which, may I add, has been accepted by pretty much everybody but portions of the Church) is used to show the relationships between the families, genae and species.
We are animals. We are Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primata Hominidae Homo sapiens. That is undisputable fact, not theory. Just ask your bio teacher.
And the scientists were not "starting with their conclusion and then making their evidence point to that conclusion". If they were, they would've found some way to make it point to homosexuality as unnatural or bad because the initial studies were done with the assumption that it was (part of the reason why homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder a while back).
If you want to say that homosexuality is unnatural or bad, you need to provide some kind of proof. (Scientists tried that at first but that backfired as pretty much everything points to it being natural and biological, but if you want to attempt that, please go ahead. If you can prove all this wrong that will be a major accomplishment.)
And I'm sorry if that sounded rude; impoliteness was not my intention.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
If you think that homosexuality is wrong, whether biologically or theologically, then don't practice a homosexual lifestyle. What is normal anyway? Among humans there really is no normal behavior. All ideas of normalcy are based entirely on where, how and and with whom you are raised. Who are you to judge what is normal? Because you think that it is normal to eat cereal every morning. Does that mean it is wrong for me to eat eggs? If people would spend as much energy in handling their own lives instead of worrying about someone else's choices, just think what they would be able to accomplish!
In this particular conversation, normal means the "natural" way. God created male and female. Humans were created male and female. All animals were created male and female. The only possible way to reproduce is with male and female. Male and female was made for each other physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually.
God's plan is best.
For those who are atheist out there, they don't necessarily believe that. And what if some people don't believe alienating homosexuals and taking away their rights is "God's Plan"? What if some of us Christians believe that "hey...let's just let them be human beings today?"
I believe that Atheist people would not consider God when considering same sex marriage. They do as they please and live by no law.
Personally you can't stop people from doing as they please nowadays, same sex marriage is already approved in some states or state. I believe that if your a Christian or any other believer of religion, than stick to the Bible and let nothing turn you away. As for myself I believe in God!
Laurie Wilson
...and the last time I checked, I was living under the Laws of the United States of America. Honestly, it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that atheists don't have any concept of law and order. To quote my favorite founding father...
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Well, that is kind of the whole point of living in a free country, it is not? Liberty means being free to do as one wishes, so long as by doing so you do not infringe upon the Life, Liberty or Property of another citizen.
In the United States, you certainly have an inalienable right to believe in a "god" if you so wish. You do not, however, have a right to use the police power of the government to force other people who do not so believe to conform with the dogmas of your religion (thank you, First Amendment).
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"...and the last time I checked, I was living under the Laws of the United States of America. Honestly, it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that atheists don't have any concept of law and order."
Ridiculous I think not! I spoke according to my belief not factual information! When I mentioned that atheist do as they please and live by no law, this is in reference to the law of God . . .not the law in general
"Well, that is kind of the whole point of living in a free country, it is not? Liberty means being free to do as one wishes, so long as by doing so you do not infringe upon the Life, Liberty or Property of another citizen."
Of course the U.S is a free country, who said it wasn't? The point of my comment was that people are going to do as please when they want and how they want NOWADAYS and you can only stop them if it is endangering the life of another!!!!!!!!!
Moving along . . .
"In the United States, you certainly have an inalienable right to believe in a "god" if you so wish. You do not, however, have a right to use the police power of the government to force other people who do not so believe to conform" . . . . .[and so on]!
I said nothing about conforming and I do recall mentioning any religion . . . Thank You!
Maybe you should reread what I wrote, cause you went to deep!
Laurie Wilson
I agree that your opinion does not demonstrate a lot of thought.
If your beliefs are not based on facts, why do you believe in them?
Then perhaps you should have been more clear. Saying "atheist do as they please and live by no law" is quite a bit different than saying that atheists don't live by your preferred set of laws.
I mentioned the legal reality of our country, because YOU made the connection in your comment. But perhaps I was being a little unclear as well. Complaining about people who enter into same-sex marriages, and implying with a casual dismissal that there is something "lawless" about those relationships is an ignorant, discriminatory and bigoted attitude. Fortunately, our country protects us from having those attitudes enshrined in our Laws, or at least gives us the means to dismantle them when the DO manage to sneak in.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Much thought isn't needed for certain statements,
If your beliefs are not based on facts, why do you believe in them?
This is the type of question that I prefer your instead of your're over analytical, comments that you previously posted. To answer your questions, the information that I provided is based on experience.
I support facts with references.
When I mentioned that atheist do as they please and live by no law, this is in reference to the law of God . . .not the law in general.
"Then perhaps you should have been more clear" . . . .etc!
I was clear enough!
If you're unsure about any statement that I made, than feel free to ask me to elaborate.
"lawless, ignorant, discriminatory and bigoted attitude"
That is your opinion and your more than welcomed to have one! On the other hand, I know that you know that I mentioned the law in accordance to God! So I'll leave it at that.
"Fortunately, our country protects us from having those attitudes enshrined in our Laws, or at least gives us the means to dismantle them when the DO manage to sneak in!"
Can you imagine a society without it?
Laurie Wilson
Indeed...but those statements do, I would suggest by definition, tends towards ignorance.
Well, you haven't explained your "experience" to us, and you haven't supported any of your assertions of fact with any reference, so we're still waiting for both it would seem.
Obviously not, or there would have been on confusion. The only thing that is "clear" about what you have said thus far is that you prefer belief to actual knowledge. I would suggest that placing belief over fact is not a laudable position to take.
Then yes, please, elaborate...
You've cleared that one up sufficiently. It is clear that you are willing to use your religion as an excuse to degrade your fellow humans.
Indeed I can. I imagine a world where people do right because it makes sense to do so, rather than one in which they merely claim to do good while they instead do great evil in the name of some supernatural boogem. I also imagine a world where people don't need to invent imaginary friends in order to excuse their inhumanity to man, and rather just treat each other as equals.
“Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian Partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers’, no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’, no ‘honour killings’, no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (’God wants you to give till it hurts’)...Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheading of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for showing an inch of it.” ~ Richard Dawkins
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I know and I have spoke to many people of different backgrounds and lifesyles and that is how I developed part of my understandings.
Confusion brings forth questions!
As for everything else, of course religion will direct a persons attitude or belief upon things . . . it's suppose to.
Allow God to be the judge of what is a shame unto humans it is not my responsibility.
...this "god" fellow you continue to blame for your discriminatory attitudes isn't here to defend those opinions for you. YOU are the one who said ignorant things, and I think it is more than a little smarmy to try to dance back into the shadow of your imaginary friend while trying to avoid having to face up to what YOU said.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You know . . . . .I really believe that if I didn't have my picture posted, YOU WOULDN'T SAY half of the nonsense you recently said!!!!
Attacking the religion that I follow only represents that you lack respect for others! So I only shake my head to you and hope that you stop trying to convert the mind of others and try to avoid making people feel guilty for believing in GOD . . . .because it won't work!
Laurie Wilson
...to come back with such a snappy response. I feel the need to point out that YOU'RE the one who brought your religion into this discussion (in your very first comment), and YOU'RE the one who as they say, "cast the first stone" by claiming that atheists are lawless. If you want to discuss being disrespectful of other people's beliefs, then perhaps (to use a metaphor you might appreciate) you should start with plank in your own eye before worrying about the splinter in mine.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I like your point about "Anything that is not natural is not normal"! Its an interesting concept to consider.
Laurie Wilson
Another thing, "normal" is not "natural" by God's standard because I never read it in the Bible. Normal is not real; it is made up by society's standards. God wants you to be good Chirstains and that's what's you suppose to do. It's not by normal standards it's by God's standards. Unless someone can prove me wrong WITH PROOF.
ProtoStyle
ProtoGrace
ProtoPower
in YOUR FACE *-.^*
Atem & Me ~
...but not everyone is christian. It is fortunate that we live in a country that doesn't allow religion to set "the rules" by which we do things. I also find it a bit humorous, since there is absolutely no "proof" at all that this "god" fellow you speak of even exists. The existence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom is well-documented in the scientific literature, and even the practice of same-sex marriage is well known in historical circles. I would suggest that the only person lacking "proof" in this excange, would seem to be you...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Marriage was not set up by man, it was set up by God. God says it is between a man and a woman and that is all there is to it.
Marriage existed well before Christianity and the idea of "god".
Native americans practices marriage
So did those who were polytheistic.
God wasn't like..."hey humanity, here's the word 'marriage' and it means this...go for it".
So yes, marriage was in fact set up by man.
And when was the last time you spoke to God? I tried calling him last week but I kept getting his voicemail. I wanted to ask him what he thought about abortion.
Last time I checked, no one's ever really "spoken" to God in a manner that they could repeat what he "says".
Seriously, how do people make posts like Megannkirk and think "yep, this is a logical argument, I sound sooooo smart".
Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. This is the beginning of marriage and it was between male and female.
Down through time, people have perverted marriage and included several wives, several husbands, adulterous affairs, and many more perversions. Now today, we are discussing marriage between the same sex.
Regarding your statement about "no one's ever really spoken to God in a manner that they could repeat what he says." You have proved your ignorance once again! Adam and Eve spoke to God and walked with Him in the Garden of Eden. Enoch walked and talked with God. Abraham was called the friend of God. Moses spoke with God face to face. The Ten Commandments were written with the very finger of God. And down through history men wrote exactly what God told them to write. And we have that record today -- its called the BIBLE.
If you really want to talk with God, He "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." The reason why he refuses to talk with you is because of your pride and arrogance. However, if you approach Him humbly and in accordance with His Word, God said, "He that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out."
a.) Until you can prove to me Adam and Eve existed, your theological argument holds no weight. I could just as easily say "duh, how ignorant of you, didn't you know George and Carly were the first humans, and they didn't believe in marriage and lead a life like Kurt and Goldie? DUHHH My book of beliefs says so!" Seeing as there is no evidence whatsoever to support my claim, it really doesn't hold much weight in an argument now does it?
b.) the BIBLE openly allowed polygomy and multiple wives. People didn't pervert marriage, the Bible did that one buddy.
c.) no one really consierds adultery a "part" of marriage. No one thinks "hey let's make it ok to cheat on your husband!". And if you're talking about civorce and remarriage, people fall in and out of love, and I don't consider that adultery. And, even if you do, it's legal. So, if THAT sin is legal, why can't the homosexual "sin" be legal?
d.) funny how you missed my entire point about "speaking" to God. You can sit here all you want and be like "i speak to God daily", but in reality, it's porbaby all in your head. You "hear" him in your heart. You don't sit down and have an actual conversation with him, it's all a spiritual thing. God has never come down in a mighty voice and been like "Hey James, go out and tell everyone being gay is wrong!". As for moses and adam and eve, again, seeing as there is no solid proof other than hearsay that these three spoke to him (and that adam and eve even existed), this means nothing. I could sit here and be like "Dudes, I talk to the spirit of Jerry Garcia every freakin day man!" And it doesn't mean it's really happening.
e.) The fact that you take the Bible literally word for word scares me. You seem to ignore what everyone's been talling you-the fact that it's been grossly mistranslated over the years, that a lot of "facts" in the BIble have turned out not to be true, and that in the end, it is a completely opinion based book. YOu can sit here and say "God wrote it" all you want, but you have no proof other than your own belief. And the fact that you don't even hold the tiniest bit of skepticism in this belief is scary. You have never thouht for a moment "hey, maybe this book was just written based on a bunch of guys' opinions who lived when Jesus did and over the years with cultures and such, it got mistranslated. Maybe this kind of stuff isn't infalible". THe fact that you don't keep an open mind about it is weird. I mean, I don't believe in majority of the stuff in the Bible, but I don't discredit that it MIGHT be true-who knows-maybe when I die there will be a God and Jesus (and now that the Catholic church changed that pesky law that all unbaptized babies go to limbo, I'm sure I'll see lots of happy babies as well). The Church isn't infallible. THey too make mistakes. Instead of living by the word of a book prined by man, and laws created by an institution made by man, maybe you should just look at what might be the best thing for EVERYONE instead of what's best for a select group of chosen ones.
Thank you for standing up for GOD!
If marriage wasn't suppose to be between a man and women, there wouldn't be so much of a debate of what's right and wrong. It seems like people are comprmising the truth. If same sex marriage was the right thing to do than I guess women would have the ability to fertilize women!!! haha
I agree with you 100%
Laurie Wilson
Considering your comments on interracial marriage found in this blog, I find your comments here to be more than a little hypocritical. Were you aware that one of the primary arguments against interracial marriage was almost identical to the one you offer against same-sex marriage, here? For example, in the case of Loving v. Virgina (1967), the Virginia Judge that condemned the Lovings for daring to marry in spite of the laws which prevented it said...
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Your religious beliefs may excuse your desire to discriminate, but our Constitution is not so forgiving in that regard. The reason that the issue of same-sex marriage is controversial is exactly the same as the reason that interracial marriage was (and in many cases still is) controversial. People have rights, and tend to get pissed off when other people try to prevent them from exercising those rights.
I think that our world would be better served if you spent less time "standing up" for your imaginary friend, and more time standing up for the real people around you.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Hypocritical or discriminating . . . I think not!
Of course everyone has rights and they should, its only right!
You shouldn't be offended by the fact that I believe in God because you seem to despise that! Why should I support something that I don't believe in? Or why should I "stand up" for people I disagree with!
Just to make my statement extremely clear for you.
The constutition that you support or defend in which I do agree with is based upon my "imaginary friend" GOD.
By the way the very dollar you spend states, "In God We Trust"!
Laurie
I don't "despise" fictional characters, but I DO despise people who use their religion as an excuse for bigotry.
Why should I support something that I don't believe in? Or why should I "stand up" for people I disagree with!
Your question could easily be asked of any racist, sexist or anti-semitic person as well, I think. But, I will instead point to what you just said..."Of course everyone has rights and they should, its only right!"
Have you ever READ the Constitution? I have, and funny enough...I don't see where it says that anywhere on the page. In fact, our Founding Fathers were known to have specifically rejected that idea, both during the passage of that fine document into Law, and later in their subsequent acts in Congress and the Presidency. For example, our First Three Presidents (Washington, Adams and Jefferson) were of one mind on this.
Washington commissioned a Treaty with the Barbary States that said...
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." ~ Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
...and Jefferson said in his autobiography...
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
You do know, I hope, that "In God We Trust" was not the original motto of the United States. Rather, our Founding Fathers preferred the phrase E Pluribus Unum (that's, "One From Many" for the Latin-challenged). In fact, "In God We Trust" appears nowhere on our earliest currency...
(LINK to the full image)
In fact, I really like the motto that DID appear on these earliest notes. You can see it if you look closely. It says, "MIND YOUR BUSINESS."
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Is sad to see that you think my comments are racist and discriminatory! If you knew me you would know better than to think that way.
During the Civil war the word" In God We Trust" was incorporated, so therefore the original motto wasn't, In God We Trust"!
It may not "appear on the earliest currency", but it now appears on the currency today!
Oh yeah and about the rest of your comments:
Although, "Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were" on one accord in reference to your previous statement . . . .Washington still said
"The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . .
I'm sure you know that religion and politics do not mix and that has been an ongoing debate for serveral years.
Laurie W
I never said your comments were "racist," but only that the line of excuses you use to defend your bigoted anti-gay attitudes seem quite similar to those used by racists to defend their own ignorance.
Indeed, and the day that happened was a dark day for anyone who values the true principles on which this country was founded.
Actually, this particular quotation comes from a Thanksgiving Day proclamation, and it isn't surprising that it had a religious theme to it. However, I would note that this is a political proclamation, and unlike the Treaty of Tripoli was not an actual Law. Washington was known to be a sly politician that often courted a religious constituency, and believed that it was politically beneficial to occasionally stroke the egos of religious citizens with statements of this sort, though he never capitulated to these faux opinions when it came time to use the presidential pen that signed the acts of Congress into the Law. Jefferson regularly took Washington to task over these proclamations, which he felt violated both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Washington'ss private letters show a very different picture than his public statements. For example, to one concerned group of citizens, he wrote, "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." And, to another he said, "Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others."
In fact, Washington's lack of genuine piety was a subject of great concern to the early American clergy, and of great humor to many of his political confidants. For example, the Reverend James Abercrombie (the rector of the church Washington attended most regularly) said that he believed Washington to be a deist rather than a christian, and counted our first president among those who "uniformly turned their backs on the Lord's Supper." After being rebuked for this, Washington apologized and assured the good Reverend "that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof," and thereafter absented himself from the church entirely on days when the sacrament was administered. The Reverend Bird Wilson remarked similarly, noting that "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
Jefferson thought the whole business to be quite humorous, and said "that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not." He then noted that, "the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."
It has been a debate since the founding of our Country, and continues to be so due the inability of some religious zealots who for some reason seem to think that the idea of religious liberty only applies to those citizens who believe the same things as they do.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Wow...well I guess that discredits all the Native American marriages that went on before "God" was brought over...and any others that went on without "God" setting it up...
Just look at history. Marriage was a custom in place in every culture group, and it existed long before even the foundations of Judaism, where God in the Christian concept came about. If marriage was "set up by God" as you say, wouldn't it have never existed before and people would've just had wild, carefree sex until "He" set it up?
Ruling out the couple paragraphs in the Bible about how God made Adam, found he was bored and lonely and decided to make him a wife to fill his needs (which has some very mysogynistic implications, by the way), there's no evidence to God having set up the concept.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
I don't believe in your God. Why should I live by your God's rules? And let's talk about your God for a second. If you are so set on what your God says is law then truly live by that logic. Your God also says that he is the one true judge. SO I think what He was saying there is live YOUR life. Make YOUR decisions based on YOUR morality. It is not your or anyone else's place to say what is right for someone else.
War drags human beings from their tasks of building and improving, and pushes them en masse into the category of destroyers and killers. - Scott Nearing
Suzyblu79, God is the one true judge. He is the judge of all mankind. You are correct that we are to live our own lives -- because we cannot live someone else's life. However our lives must be directed by God's Divine revelation -- His Law, His Morality, His Word.
You are also correct that I have no right to say what is right or wrong. Neither do you. You have no authority to say that same-sex marriage is right. I do not have the authority to say that it is wrong. Only God has that authority. And he has made it very clear.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."
Romans 1:26,27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
The problem with "God's Divine revelation" is that it's had to go through millenia of translations and rewordings from language that now would be considered cryptic to most. Words that existed then don't exist now and words that exist now didn't exist then.
That's clear when you look at that passage in Leviticus, for example. In the original Hebrew, the command spoke against male temple prostitution, not homosexual partnerships. The "temple perversion" or "abomination" that the Hebrews observed was very common among the non-Jewish peoples of that time that they kept coming into contact with. You cannot say that by condemning temple prostitutes, God was saying loving, committed, non-temple-prostituting homosexual couples were bad.
Actual references to homosexuality (the kind we are discussing, not prostitution) were most likely not included in the Bible in any light, positive or negative, because the kind of homosexual relationships we have today were not even acknowledged in that time; they had to be kept secret. The Hebrews were constantly being attacked, invaded and occupied. Their survival depended on their fertility and heterosexual reproduction in as large numbers as possible.
The passage from Romans needs to be looked at in historical context. Paul was talking about actions that went against their natures, but in the Greek culture of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality were considered natural occurrances in some people, just as science is starting to prove nowadays. Paul, in the context of the times, was more likely talking about people engaging in homosexual sex who were not, in fact, homosexuals, but heterosexual men who had been "using the women" according to their heterosexual natures, but left that nature to have homosexual sex. Very likely he was not speaking of actual homosexuals at all. The passage, when looked at in proper context, is far to vague to try to claim it as undeniable proof that God finds homosexuality wrong. And even if Paul were discussing actual homosexuality, which we cannot assume he was, Paul was clearly a biased person, even misogynistic. He forbade women being allowed to speak in church services or have any leadership roles. He discouraged marriage at all costs, basically saying that "If you can't control your urges, find a girl and marry her so you don't do something sinful." Many of Paul's ideas flew right in the face of Jesus' teachings, which spoke of equality and love. (Additionally, Paul was not even around at the time of Jesus. He made a career killing Christians after the death of Christ, making him possibly one of the least reliable sources of Christian wisdom in the New Testament.)
If you look at Jesus' teachings and truly understand his messages, there isn't anything to suggest the "evil" of homosexuality, and if it was truly bad as extreme conservatives are preaching, he would have mentioned something about that ahead of say, lusting after a woman who isn't your wife or divorce....That is why so many Christians are starting to come over to the side of support and acceptance of gay people rather than the hatred and intolerance of them.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
Who sat down and wrote the Bible? Men did. And whose god are we talking about? Yours?
The institution of marriage is defined by man because it is defined by law.
~Violinstef
I think that if you don't like same sex marriages, then don't attend the wedding. Keep your opinions out of someone elses life. I think banning same sex marriage is descrimination. The Constitution clearly says that descrimination is unconstitutional but I guess people are allowed to decide who that is referring to. Banning same sex marriage is not going to make the gay community straight or change their minds about their relationships.
I agree that banning same sex marriage is discrimination. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as anyone else in this country. If marriage were banned for certain races or religious groups, it would be obvious that people are being discriminated against. Also, why do people care so much about what other people do? Same sex marriage isn’t harming anyone. Shouldn’t homosexuals be able to pledge their love to each other, just like everyone else?
Discrimination based on your race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability is illegal by federal law.
Actually those in this blog who are attacking religious principles are practicing illegal discrimination.
Please note** Illegal discrimination is about "who people are" i.e. race, color, religion, sex, etc.
Homosexuality is "what people do"! It is not illegal to discriminate based on peoples' actions.
Also note** I do not advocate violence against anybody. Violence is NOT the subject of our discussion.
Good Point, gay and lesbians are going to do what they want regardless, but what happen to "In God we Trust"?
Laurie
...is the unfortunate result of a generation that clearly forgot what this country was supposed to be all about. The first motto of the United States was E Pluribus Unum, or "One From Many." It is unfortunate that we have allowed religious fanaticism to destroy the true heritage of our great nation.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
What this country was supposed to be about has changed and for many generations to come it will countinue to change.
I firmly believe that this nation wouldn't have become such a great nation without religious belief.
The nations new national motto has brought great spiritual and psychological importance to our country.
Laurie Wilson
I would counter this assertion by suggesting that a belief in a philosophy that can best be described as primitive, irrational and intolerant has done more harm to our country than it has good. Our Founding Fathers...even the very religious ones...realized at the beginning that allowing religion to call upon the police power of the State as a means of compelling the conscience of citizens is INIMICAL to the concept of Liberty.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I see this subject caused quite a reaction. We have an inside joke at my work place: if homosexuals want to get married and be as miserable as the rest of us, why stop them? Anyway, what I meant is they should have the right to decide their future, after all, being homosexual isn't something they chose, it's what they've been born with.
______________
Samuel Stanislas, part of the Traduceri Legalizate team.
I think that was on Comedy Central
I think that everyone should have the right to say or do whatever they want. This right is guranteed in the first Ammendment to the Constitiution. A homosexual person should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual person. They shouldnt be judged because of their sexaul orientation;just as no one should be judged on their race or social class.
I agree with what you're saying, but the one thing to note is "as long as they're not hurting anyone". A person might want to go out and kill the mailman for bringing him bills every other day, but that just shouldn't be...
Now gays don't hurt anybody by being gay (as long as they've been true to themselves and everybody instead of trying to force a wrong hetero marriage or something), so they clearly pass that exception.
*I just figured somebody would try to respond and say "do whatever you want? does that mean i can rape and pillage, etc...", so to avoid that hurdle...
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
It is intimidating for me to sit here and begin to publicly express my views on a subject that divides so many people. I am traditionally a person who likes to play peacemaker or negotiator, keeping everyone happy. Though as we've all likely learned from life, this is hardly possible.
I do not think the government has right to restrict people and their lifestyles when they do not harm another person. Gay marriage is something that doesn't harm anyone. It is someone's lifestyle, just like mine or yours. Many people would like to have debates of religious views and beliefs from this statement. However, I decline. I decline on the basis that I am given a choice every second of my life on how I want to live.
I have my own beliefs and spiritual path I try to follow. However, I don't impose these on people. I feel that those of us given freedom to choose what school to go to and even freedom to read what books we want to are truly blessed. It is such an awesome experience to have these choices. I have always had this freedom, and I can barely begin to understand a life with imposed restrictions.
I think to restrict people in their lifestyles and ideas, is problematic. I'm not saying life without laws is best. I think that laws are useful for society. I think that we should all dialogue to reach conclusions to support our societies.
However, I do not think that we should impose our personal beliefs on people when they do not harm another person. I can't believe in that. I just think when we do that, we are only controlling by power. Not showing love or compassion for other human minds.
it shouldnt matter if you are gay/lez. because its not their fault for getting on the same sex they may be gay or lez but doesnt mean to treat them bad they are the same as we is just likes the same sex.
i believe that each and everyone of us has his own rights!!
i mean no one can choose who to love!
I could have chose any woman on the planet that would have me, but I chose my wife! And she chose me! We chose "who to love."
Homosexuals do not want "equal" rights. They want "special" rights. Currently all men have the "equal" right to marry any woman that will have them. And currently all women have "equal" rights to marry any man that will have them. People that practice homosexuality want "special" rights to marry within their own gender.
Do know how ignorant that sounds. I mean wow. Think of it this way. Lets say a guy does what you think he should. He fights his urges to kiss another man, hold another man, and gets married to some girl he gets along with. Who is that helping? The wife will never know what it's like to really be loved. The husband will never know what it's like to truely love someone. They both end up getting hurt. That way people like you don't have to deal with people asking for "special" rights.
Personally I believe it is a sin and it even says it in the Bible in the Old Testament. These strangers came into this man's house and demanded to have intercourse with his son. The man said please not to rape him and to rape his daughter instead because it's a great sin under God's eyes.
The amendments can only go so far. I think the government should let like only 3 states legalize gay marriages because many people don't want to see that or want their kids to see that. To be honest some people think it is as offensive as swearing or nudtity.
ProtoStyle
ProtoGrace
ProtoPower
in YOUR FACE *-.^*
Atem & Me ~
I find homophobia offensive. I don't want to see it and I don't want any possible future children of mine to see it. Can we make that be legal in only 3 states as well? Because, really, the law-making process should revolve around not offending my sensibilities.
These strangers came into this man's house and demanded to have intercourse with his son.
If by "this man," you mean "Lot," and by "have intercourse with," you mean "know," and by "his son," you mean "some angels," then you are perhaps referring to Genesis 19 in the Old Testament.
If you read the rest of the Bible (thoroughly is preferred if you're going to try to quote it), it's pretty implied that Sodom was destroyed, not because of homosexual behavior, but because of a lack of charity and ill-treatment of strangers.
Old Testament references to Sodom:
Isaiah 1
Ezekeiel 16:49-50
New Testament references to Sodom:
Matthew 10:14-15
Luke 10:7-16
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Are you aware that there are actually several stories in "the bible" that refer positively to characters that can be argued (based on the original texts) to be involved in same-sex relationships? For example, in the story of Ruth and Naomi, "the bible" says, "And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her." (Ruth 1:14) The term "clave" (or in the original transliterated Hebrew, dabaq) is the same term that is used to describe marriage in Genesis 2:24, i.e. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." The stories of David and Jonathan, and of Daniel and Ashpenaz similarly contain references in their original languages that refer to relationships that were both intense and physical, though most modern English translations white-wash the original context and try to present these couples as being "just good friends."
Frankly, religion is a piss-poor excuse when it comes to justifying discrimination, and while you most certainly have a right to your religious beliefs, those beliefs are only relevant if you are speaking to someone who already shares them. For those of us who prefer reason and evidence, however, such beliefs are quite obviously flawed due to their stark contrast with the overwhelming evidence that suggest that not only is homosexuality a perfectly normal expression within the full range of human sexuality, but that gay people are just as likely to be "good" people and productive citizens as anyone else.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
So, raping the daughter is ok, because it says so in the Bible? Glad to know that you condone rape of females.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I agree, but then how would we decide which states can be sinful? This maybe an all or none issue. Would you want to live in a state that it is legal?
Personally I believe it is a sin and it even says it in the Bible in the Old Testament.
I agree, but then how would we decide which states can be sinful?
Umm.... you wouldn't. Thanks to a handy little document called The Constitution of the United Staes of America, you don't get to decided which States can or cannot be "sinful." The First Amendment protects our citizens from religious establishments in the Law, and that includes using biblical concepts like "sin" to determine who can or cannot get married.
Sheesh...
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
hi! i just found this site and i love the talks about same sex marriage i am a undecided vote only because i was reared in a very religious home but recently had my first experience with a woman and i loved it. i am married and it was with my husband. so even though i am married i look at all woman differently and if i were in love with that special person that i wanted to be with for ever i would not want to be told that i could not exchange my promise of forever with them, but my biblical upbringing makes me very confused. anyway i am hoping you could help me or maybe point me in the right direction. i am doing a paper in school on same sex marriages the pros need a lot of info on the good ( i have all the bad down 15 year christian school and college) hope you can help me thanks
I'm young and impressionable I guess. I had a fair amount of science already and sure can't figuire out how the same sex marriage stuff is going to keep our race alive. If we don't pro create in the way God intended us to the we'll just end up fighting and killing our selves off. I don't see same sex "animals" surviving in nature. They fight for their sport and don't produce young to carry on their breed. Seems kinda simple to me.
This is an issue that I'm completely on the fence with, mostly because my religious and political stand-points differ. I honestly don't know; I'll have to look into the issue more.
I don't see what legal reason anyone has to deny homosexuals their right to marry.
Banning gay marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Read the Constitution people! It's right there! What happened to "all men are created equal?" This is insane. People need to get their heads out of their religious texts and look at this objectively. C'MON PEOPLE!
Completely agree. Legally, there's nothing wrong with it. If a specific church chooses to not participate in the marriage, the couple should just find one that will.
Or reject churchly ceremony (which is all it is in the eye of the law) and get it done at the Courthouse.
Exactly. There is NO legal basis to deny homosexuals marriage rights. In fact there are plenty of legal reasons why they should be allowed to marry, or at the very least, not be banned from it. What ever happened to seperation of church and state? The ONLY arguements I have heard against gay marriage are RELIGIOUS ones. Church is NOT supposed to be a part of our government. I am a religious person, but not all religions are against gay marriage. Everyone intereprets religious books differnetly, and I am proud to be a member of a church which accepcts gays. I live in Wisconsin, and In case you didn't know, Wisconsin passed an amendment on Tuesday (?) which bans gay marriage. This makes me extremely sad. Wisconsin has traditionally been a liberal and progressive state? Whatever happened to "Forward"? We have taken a step backward. I only wish I could have voted.
Gay couples should have complete rights by the state, on a national level it should be recognized. On a religious level I think it is up to the religion and their beliefs but possibly they shouldn't.
If a religious group has a problem with it, that religious group just shouldn't marry gay couples because there are religious groups that are perfectly fine with gay marriages (even some sects of Christianity). Think about it: Christians believe Atheism is wrong, probably one of the wrongest things in the world because an Atheist would never "repent" for their Atheism; they don't believe in it. And yet, Atheists are allowed to be married...hmm...
If people don't want it legalized, they need to provide real legal reasons why it shouldn't be, because so far all signs are pointing to gay marriages improving society...less unadopted kids circulating the foster care system, raised property values, less unplanned parenting (you'll never see a gay teen pregnancy...), benefits to the economy, and even decreased divorce rates.
And all people are throwing out there is that Leviticus says homosexuality is wrong. But it also says wearing a polyester-blend jacket is sinful...so maybe things should be taken with a grain of salt...
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
I agree with the poster above. Even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, there is absolutely no legal reason for denying them these rights. The government is supposed to be separated from religion, so unless there are legitimate reasons for denying homosexuals marriage (or civil unions, if you prefer), then the government should not deny them. If religious institutions do not want to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, that's their perogative. It shouldn't change what the government says.
~C
Visit my blog.
What about other options such as: the state should have no stake in marriage?
--Mike
We don't consider other options here.
"Not another blog on abortion!"
Then the government should not give benefits for marriage, including the tax breaks, the visiting family members in hospitals, and all the other legal benefits to being married. You can't have it both ways.
~C
Visit my blog.
Do you mean just for homosexuals or for people in general?
As it is right now, homosexuals lack a great deal of the benefits of marriage, even if they enter a domestic partnership... so what you're saying is that you don't want things to change from where they are right now...
If that is the case, pray tell, what is the point of marriage?
They've already entered a civil union and given their vows of love, why would anyone want to be contracted into a marriage that is only half-honored?
If homosexuals are to gain the right to marriage (which, I believe is not something they should have to work for) they should gain ALL rights to marriage. Deciding who gets what rights is ridiculous and unconstitutional.
What I keep saying, and nobody seems to be paying attention to, is that America has had these same debates before over INTERRELIGIOUS and INTERRACIAL marriages. This isn't any different, so you see a couple that is different than your cookie-cutter view of what you want a married couple to be, and you are afraid. You are afraid that it will sully -your- version of what a marriage should be. This is NOT NEW. You are simply not paying attention to our nation's history and making the same mistakes that our predecessors have made. And guess what? All of those laws banning interracial and interreligious marriages have been abolished. Why?
IT IS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO DENY ANYBODY, AND I DO MEAN ANYBODY, BLACK, WHITE, HISPANIC, ASIAN, PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, JEWISH, MUSLIM, GAY OR STRAIGHT, THE RIGHT TO MARRY WHOM THEY CHOOSE. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RELIGION SHOULD PLAY NO PART IN WHAT DECISIONS THE GOVERNMENT MAKES.
The guy above me said that the government should have no place in marraige. If we were to do that, then the government should not give any benefits to any kind of marriage. We strive for a separation of church and state. If marriage is only a religious institution, then it has no place in government. Let the churches, synagogues, temples, whatever, decide for themselves who they want to marry. I know most Rabbis will not marry an interreligious couple, and that's fine. It's against their religion to do that. So let them deny gays marriage too. That doesn't mean the government should.
So please don't attack me, because I've written several posts about how I don't think it's right that gay marriage should be banned.
~C
Visit my blog.
I guess on the church v. state issue it's correct that gays should have rights. But I don't agree...I think they should have rights, but they shouldn't be able to get married or adopt kids as a couple. I mean look at the environment the kid would be brought up in. Yes the couple has a choice, but what about the kid, do they not have a choice as well?
Exactly: we need to look at the environment the kid would be brought up in. Answer honestly: would it be better for a child to be shuffled around from house to house from foster parent to foster parent (many of which are neglectful or abusive), never really getting a chance to bond with a parent-figure and often ending up on the wrong side of the law, or being raised by loving, caring parents who would do anything to provide for their adoptive children? If you ask kids who have been raised by two mommies or two daddies, they will tell you that they loved it. They didn't see any major difference in how they were raised as opposed to their friends (except they often had a slightly more "tolerance"-based family education), they didn't miss out on not having the mother or father figure in their life, and they weren't "turned" gay by their parents (gay parents don't raise only gay kids any more than straight parents raise only straight kids; the statistic still tends to be about one in ten).
If you say that being raised by gay parents is bad for the child (which has been proven untrue by kids actually being raised by gay parents and being perfectly fine), then surely you think single parents shouldn't be raising children either. I mean, they're missing out on a mother or father figure, too. And divorced parents shouldn't raise kids either. And couples who aren't married. And pregnant teenagers. And there is an almost infinite list of other criteria for what constitutes the "right" environment for raising kids: a mom and dad, already married, with a house (mortgaged, not rented), possibly a dog or cat, and in a suitable neighborhood for child-raising. But most kids raised in this country do not have that kind of environment, especially with the high number of "careless" or "unplanned" pregnancies (straight pregnancies at that).
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have two gay parents who loved me with all their hearts than a set of foster parents who only wanted me for the financial assistance...
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
Did I have a choice to be raised by straight parents? No, I didn't, and it wouldn't have made a difference if they were gay or straight-- I am who I am because all they did was love me and take care of me and want the best for me. I am a strong supporter of adoption; there are so many kids out there who need loving parents, so yeah, let's just let these poor kids suffer in foster homes while they wait for a STRAIGHT couple to come along...gay couples could probably even lower the amount of kids needing to be adopted, what about that? Think about it...