Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Fails in House

[pajarito 0]

Quote

they think we can all do interior design and bake a quiche

I love quiche.

[misskriss 0]

Quote

Serious candidate for "Post of the year" award

I agree. Thank you so much for sharing your story.

[Nightingale 0]

it's that they can't help WHO THEY ARE, not what they do.

And you feel that they should be celibate because of what your religion tells you...

um... what if they don't follow your religion?

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

I was just trying to put down the assumption that they can't help what they do because they were born that way

Every homosexual I've spoken with or heard has said that they were born that way. There are a couple of testimonies here, too. For the majority, it's not a choice. If you believe in the Kinsey scale, people towards the middle have some choice. Most probably choose heterosexuality -- it's just so much easier. If you're toward the outside, it's not a choice you have.

I have urges I don't give in to (I wish that posting on SC were one of the ones I didn't give in to), just as most people do. But telling someone that their urge to be attracted to an adult of the same gender can never be fulfilled seems like a pretty heavy burden, especially based largely on inferences from what was left out of the new testament.

I'm not including what Paul said because, well, I reject a lot of his comments on society. I understand that PCA doesn't do women as deacons or elders, so we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[peregrinerose 0]

That was extremely well written. Thank you for telling your story like that!

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

it's that they can't help WHO THEY ARE, not what they do.

And you feel that they should be celibate because of what your religion tells you...

um... what if they don't follow your religion?

I believe the most common answer to that question is, "Amend the constitution to make them."

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Of course. But denying a man's desire to rape women isn't natural either; we control that impulse because we've learned that natural isn't always the best course of action.

Right on! “we control that impulse because we’ve learned that natural isn’t always the best course of action.” Assuming that homosexuality is in fact a natural, however abnormal, occurrence, we should not promote it as a norm like heterosexuality because we’ve learned over thousands of years of civilization that it is not a best course of action with reference to the survivability of a species.

Quote

If you define homosexuality as having sex with men, I agree. That's not a good definition, though. If you made a decision to never have sex with women, would that mean you were not heterosexual?

It would not mean that I was not still heterosexual. I would still have those feelings or impulses whether I acted on them or not.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

it's that they can't help WHO THEY ARE, not what they do.

And you feel that they should be celibate because of what your religion tells you...

um... what if they don't follow your religion?

That's not what I'm saying. Of course, I can't and would not want to force my religious beliefs on anyone for this reason or any other. They should be able to enter into whatever relationship they choose. It's none of my business or anyone else's. However, it should not be promoted in the sense of same sex marriage.

[Nightingale 0]

but since most of the members of the species lean towards hetero, homosexuality obviously doesn't jeopardize the survival of the species.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Every homosexual I've spoken with or heard has said that they were born that way. There are a couple of testimonies here, too. For the majority, it's not a choice. If you believe in the Kinsey scale, people towards the middle have some choice. Most probably choose heterosexuality -- it's just so much easier. If you're toward the outside, it's not a choice you have.

I think you missed my point. I have no idea if it is biological or not. It doesn't matter. You say they have no choice in being homosexual. Ok. I'll buy that (maybe even in the majority of cases). However, them choosing to act on that impulse or tendency is as much of a choice as any impulses or tendencies that I deny myself for the good of the whole. You cannot elliminate personal responsibility. This ability think and choose is what separates us from the animals.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I believe the most common answer to that question is, "Amend the constitution to make them."

Not true at all. It is to protect the fundamental institution of marriage. I don't care at all what two people of the same sex wish to do.

[cgriffin 0]

Quote

I don't care at all what two people of the same sex wish to do.

As long as it's what I want them to do...

There are two parts to "marriage": the religious part, and the secular part. The religious aspect is hands-off to the government, or rather clearly should be. I will wholeheartedly support the governments right to interfere in the secular aspect, as soon as anyone can argue for it without using religion as a basis. Hasn't yet happened, and never will.

To the flamers, note that this was posted by a hetero man with children.

Chris

[billvon 2,464]

>Assuming that homosexuality is in fact a natural, however abnormal,
>occurrence, we should not promote it as a norm like heterosexuality . . .

I agree to an extent. Don't promote sexual orientation _at_all_. Leave people to decide their own sexuality.

> because we’ve learned over thousands of years of civilization that it is
>not a best course of action with reference to the survivability of a species.

Neither is birth control. Neither is helping people with genetic diseases survive. Are we better off genetically as as a species because Stephen Hawking can survive to reproductive age? No. Are we better off as a people? Yes.

>It would not mean that I was not still heterosexual. I would still have
>those feelings or impulses whether I acted on them or not.

So can I take from your statement that you agree that homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a choice, but expressing it in either case is? If so, I agree with you there.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

but since most of the members of the species lean towards hetero, homosexuality obviously doesn't jeopardize the survival of the species.

You're right. The species will survive, however, the family unit may not. Once the lines are blurred enough, there really shouldn't be any need for marriage at all. The result will be a lack of overall committment. The environment best suited for raising children (heterosexual marriage between man & woman) will be lost. Breakdown in the family will occur. It simply will not be taken as seriously. I know you can site exceptions. We've been through all this before. Overall, however, I think it is a dangerous thing to promote in the form of marriage.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There are two parts to "marriage": the religious part, and the secular part. The religious aspect is hands-off to the government, or rather clearly should be. I will wholeheartedly support the governments right to interfere in the secular aspect, as soon as anyone can argue for it without using religion as a basis. Hasn't yet happened, and never will.

This can be argued from a completely secular standpoint. That's why I started all this without reference to religion.

[billvon 2,464]

>Breakdown in the family will occur. It simply will not be taken as seriously.

The same objections were raised when women began to work and when interracial marriages became legal. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now. As always, families will be defined by the commitement the people in them feel towards each other, not by an NBC News expose' on family values, an interracial marriage down the street or a gay marriage in Massachusetts. You can no more bolster families by denying them to some people than you can bolster civil rights by denying them to some people.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

However, it should not be promoted in the sense of same sex marriage.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with that statement if there weren't legal and fiscal repercussions to marriage. Allowing heterosexuals to have specific tax, inheritance, etc... status based on marriage and refusing the same treatment to homosexuals amounts to discrimination, which in my view is unacceptable.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I agree to an extent. Don't promote sexual orientation _at_all_. Leave people to decide their own sexuality.

And we absolutely do. Nothing deters one from entering into a homosexual relationship. They freely decide everything about their own sexuality. However, marriage is a union between a man & woman.

Quote

Neither is birth control. Neither is helping people with genetic diseases survive. Are we better off genetically as as a species because Stephen Hawking can survive to reproductive age? No. Are we better off as a people? Yes.

At its root, reproduction occurs between a man & woman. It does not occur between a man & man or woman & woman.

Quote

So can I take from your statement that you agree that homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a choice, but expressing it in either case is? If so, I agree with you there.

I’m saying that it is a possibility that it may in fact not be a choice to be homosexual. It is also a possibility in some cases that homosexual tendencies may be learned from one’s environment. I don’t think that’s been proven or established yet. It doesn’t matter either way with regard to my argument, however, that it is a choice whether one acts or does not act on those tendencies. Some people say that they express their homosexuality in different ways because they have no choice and they were born that way. They may have in fact been born that way but they always have a choice.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The same objections were raised when women began to work and when interracial marriages became legal. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now. As always, families will be defined by the commitement the people in them feel towards each other, not by an NBC News expose' on family values, an interracial marriage down the street or a gay marriage in Massachusetts. You can no more bolster families by denying them to some people than you can bolster civil rights by denying them to some people.

A union between a man & woman who are white, black, brown, red, yellow or whatever is still a marriage. Otherwise, it simply is not. A homosexual couple may in fact be very committed to each other. No problem there. However, their union is not a marriage.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with that statement if there weren't legal and fiscal repercussions to marriage. Allowing heterosexuals to have specific tax, inheritance, etc... status based on marriage and refusing the same treatment to homosexuals amounts to discrimination, which in my view is unacceptable.

The government promotes and gives benefits to other institutions that are healthy for society (i.e. tax advantages for small business). Not just married couples. That’s not discrimination.

[Nightingale 0]

but people fifty years ago were saying that a marriage between a black person and a white person wasn't a marriage either, for almost the same reasons you cite (breakdown of the family, etc...)

same argument, different generation.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

The government promotes and gives benefits to other institutions that are healthy for society (i.e. tax advantages for small business). Not just married couples. That’s not discrimination

Yes it is. There are no laws that prevent anyone from starting a small business. It's a choice people make. In the case of marriage, homosexuals do NOT have that choice.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[jakee 1,271]

What about a small business run by a gay couple?

Y'know, take away quiches or something.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

You're right. The species will survive, however, the family unit may not. Once the lines are blurred enough, there really shouldn't be any need for marriage at all. The result will be a lack of overall committment. The environment best suited for raising children (heterosexual marriage between man & woman) will be lost. Breakdown in the family will occur. It simply will not be taken as seriously. I know you can site exceptions. We've been through all this before. Overall, however, I think it is a dangerous thing to promote in the form of marriage.

This is the arguement that makes the least sense to me. Whatever some guys or some women do, and whatever marriages are out there doesn't matter to me or my family. My marriage will never disintegrate regardless of how many guys decide they aren't all that interested in boobies. 50%ish of marriages end in divorce, so it seems as though marriage isn't taken all that seriously to begin with. How will gay marriage do anything to change that number? Or the number of kids in broken/divorced families? Or the amount of kids that are abused, mentally ill, uneducated or any other factor in raising a family?

I'd rather see a kid grow up with two dads that love him than with a hetero abusive family. There's more to life than gender relations.

My disclaimer is that I am fine with gay civil unions, legal rights, health insurance, etc. I am not fine with the term 'marriage' since that by definition is between a man and woman. I am reluctant to have that definition expanded. I'm just a bit old fashioned, I guess.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[pajarito 0]

Quote

but people fifty years ago were saying that a marriage between a black person and a white person wasn't a marriage either, for almost the same reasons you cite (breakdown of the family, etc...)

same argument, different generation.

Man + Woman = Child
Man + Man = ____
Woman + Woman = ____

Whatever the racism of the past, this is a pretty basic concept. People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the institution of marriage.